THE ARK OF JUSTICE

"So sick of this. Also we aren’t allowed to call them “junior doctors” anymore. They are meant to be “resident doctors “

But they are never there."

Recently I asked a family friend who is an NHS consultant what she thought of the then impending doctors` strike.  Her reply is above.  I then researched the oath taken by new doctors which essentially has discarded the classical Hippocratic Oath by making a public statement that they will do no harm.   They do not take a single, mandatory oath but they must pledge their commitment to professional standards upon registration with the GMC. Many medical schools use versions of the Declaration of Geneva or a modified Hippocratic Oath during graduation ceremonies which are considered important statements of ethical commitment to the principles of medicine.  Whatever the soothing words of their leaders it appears that those on strike are in breach of their undertaking and yet are allowed to continue.  

On the other hand judicial office holders take the following oath and woe betide them if they are suspected of breaking that oath. “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” Witnesses in court take the following oath or affirmation:-

"I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."


"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

In light of the above it is apparent in many trials with evidence presented and sworn that there have been statements made which have been knowingly false.  Perjury:-  the offence of wilfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.

The current case of the alleged spies for China is a case in point.  Judging by the many published comments from behind the scenes some diametrically opposing statements have been made by or on behalf of the two formerly accused parties. Of course outwith court proceedings lying is a natural human trait distasteful, distressing, necessary, convenient or even stimulating for us all at various times, occasions or events.  But in court it`s a criminal offence. Perjury or perverting the course of justice is triable only on indictment with a maximum of life imprisonment and an offence range of community order – 7 years’ custody.(seems a contradiction but copied from sentencing guideline)


With such a serious offence it would be logical to think that it occurs only in such cases where there are very serious outcomes or matters at stake. It might be logical but we do not know. None of the organisations involved publishes appropriate statistics. The question is why is there secrecy on such an important feature of the justice system. One can only speculate. There is of course the standard conspiracy theory to be applied: there would be government discomfort if the offence seems widespread and doubt of the courts` efficiency if the offence were considered so rare as to be not worth recording. In other words you`re hanged if you do and hanged if you don`t.


The bottom line for a bench of magistrates or a panel of jurors is to use their common sense and natural abilities to ascertain whether a witness`s testimony is credible. And the obvious follow up is to inquire whether those involved have these abilities. The recent Channel 4 programme The Jury demonstrated only too clearly the vagaries in the system.


The justice system boat is holed in many places. It is society`s ark to harmonious living on this overcrowded island [England only]. With politicians of the centre being pressured from right and left, west to east and north and south and "diversity" becoming somewhat less than harmonious it seems that one day all that will remain for us to cling on to will be faith in the above oaths still being able to carry with confidence the burden of a free people that their governors are capable of keeping their oath of office. Without a written constitution it is arguable that the safeguards to society of the UK being a republic are open to some doubt.


The oath of allegiance taken by MPs and members of the House of Lords to sit in Parliament.


Wording: "I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."
Taking the oath: MPs can swear on a religious text of their choice. The oath can also be taken with an "uplifted hand," which is the standard manner in Scotland.


Affirmation: A solemn affirmation is available for those who do not wish to swear a religious oath. Its wording is: "I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law."


Other languages: While the oath must legally be in English, MPs can request oath and affirmation cards in other languages, such as Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, and Cornish.

THE LAW OF ENGLAND & WALES ALL AROUND US

We are told that it is commonly thought by foreigners that if s/he is eg stuck in a lift with an English person or waiting in a queue for a late arriving bus that if there is an irresistible urge to break the silence then one subject that is unlikely to be ill received is to discuss the weather.  This is understandable insofar as we are all in one location subject to the same aberrations of climate.  In a wider sense we are all citizens living under the same law but outside those directly involved few take any interest until they or friends and/or family are personally involved.  I suppose that in some infinitesimally small way this blog has been purposed to offer a single ray of light on the legal umbrella  supposedly offering all of us equality before the law and the prevention of injustice striking us down.  Truth be told we all know that is just pie in the sky but as an ancient Chinese adage tells us every journey however long begins with just one step.  

Faith in the high standards of our judiciary has been a mantra politically for decades if not for centuries; that is until events show the contrary.  If eg a surgeon`s statistics reveal an unusual number of failed outcomes sooner or later some investigative body or another will announce the results of its inquiries and with appropriate press releases  police will be called in.  But what happens when we learn of senior level judges proving to be wanting in their sentencing decisions when an Appeal Court`s findings are diametrically different.  In this case it seems that it was not just literally an error of judgement.  Will we ever hear of any resulting  chastisement of the judge?

Today the Met Commissioner announced that his force will no longer investigate non crime hate incidents.  This decision follows the recent arrest at gunpoint of the writer of the wonderful TV series Father Ted.  Perhaps this is an indication that the British idea of free speech lives to fight another day.  Whatever one`s opinion this lengthy article might stimulate some consideration of the subject.   

An unashamed publication advancing its own political viewpoint is protected in our society and rightly so.  However not all its readers will want to know or be aware of an opposing outlook.  This example would not want to inform its readers that for this country arms trade balance with Israel is very much in favour of the UK.   In the most recent year for which full UK figures are available the UK granted export licences for military goods to Israel worth £18 million in 2023.

More than once I have offered my thoughts on the inevitability of AI sentencing at the magistrates courts.  This article in the Law Society Gazette and the comments of those perhaps likely to be involved might shed some light on the thinking of some legal eagles. 

The phrase "all human life is there" is strongly associated with the John Hilton Bureau, an advice column run by the News of the World newspaper from 1942 to 1969. This phrase became the title of historical articles and analyses about the bureau and its role in advising the public on a vast range of personal matters during and after the Second World War.  Nothing could better describe this report in Tees Side Live.  Having occasionally mourned the death or dearth of local court reporting this item gives me pause for thought however distasteful. 

The highest fine ever imposed by a bench where I was presiding was on a "company" fly tipping: that figure was some thousands less than the rogues involved here required to stump up.  The big question is when if ever will the fines and costs be paid. Precedence does not predict a happy conclusion.  

Re my comment above on court reporting it is truly wonderful that Cornwall Live about whom I have been happy to offer praise has invested time and money in reporting news from the county`s courts.  Such reports as here used to be commonplace where a suburb or district had its own print news outlet.  Sadly these days are history but from this furthest west county of England is a fine example of what is possible.  The next step will be the live transmission from the actual magistrates remand court when legal and financial limitations are overcome.  

Next month the City of Westminster council will require every property within its boundary to be registered and licensed if it is rented out to tenants; from the swankiest self contained penthouse apartment within parliament`s division bell to houses of multiple occupation in areas with the highest levels of deprivation  including Queens Park, Mozart Estate, Lisson Green Estate (Church Street) and Warwick Estate.  Compulsory questions that must be answered by those in receipt of rents include mortgage details, leaseholder(s), tenant agreement,  criminal history (if any), room sizes and positions, facilities and/or appliances in kitchen and bathroom(s) and much more.  All this to cost the landlord close to £1,000 with a fine of up to £30,000 for those landlords who fail to register but continue to let their properties. Annual retention fees are as yet unknown.  No doubt there will be unintended consequences.  Things are done differently in Sheffield. 

Finally for today there are those drivers who enjoy the occasional alcoholic beverage who are unaware of the law concerning being "in charge" of a vehicle whilst intoxicated. This driver was fortunate that according to the sentencing guidelines which were followed by the bench, he was allowed to drive from court if he wanted to.  

In 2023, there were 29,529 people convicted for the offence of “driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while having an alcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit”.  Surprisingly there are no figures for the numbers convicted for the offence as was the driver above. The only numbers available seem to be that between 2005 and 2015 there were 15,454 convictions for being in charge while over the limit (S.5(1)(b)). My researches show that fewer than 1,000 – 1,200 convictions per year in England & Wales and only a minority (perhaps one in five) results in a disqualification;  most receive endorsement points instead as did our offender above. 

It is strange as to why there is little information from the MOJ on this offence. It raises some points eg a solitary figure sitting in the driver`s seat is unlikely to arouse police suspicions, are the figures correct because there are few such offenders, police are more concerned with those who are actually driving intoxicated and have fewer worse crimes to investigate with their limited resources.  

Finally it seems that pressures from Islamists that criticism of their religion constitutes an offence akin to antisemitism but without the safeguards that the latter has in law is not going as planned.  Its protagonists refuse to accept that the latter is hate against Jews for what they are but any so termed phobia is just criticism of a religion which can be likened to accusations of blasphemy the legislation on which was repealed in 2008 under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.

But there it is all around us: above and below left and right; the law of England & Wales. 

COMMON OR NAPOLEONIC BUT IT`S JUST MUSICAL CHAIRS

It`s often shouted from legal and political rooftops that the justice system is a development of the common law as if that is explanation enough for its supposed benefit to society.  A similar claim based on the history of England is that we have a superior form of governance owing to our not having a written constitution.  

I would suppose that clarity and accessible civil codes are written and comprehensive giving citizens, lawyers and judges clear rules in one coherent document.  The constitution of the United States is a fine example and a philosophical triumph considering the times when it was created. Common law relies on precedent which can be fragmented, complex and difficult for non-specialists to understand. Codified law provides consistent application across cases reducing judicial discretion whereas common law depends on judicial interpretation leading to variable outcomes and possible inconsistency between jurisdictions. Indeed "leftie judges" and their influence in immigration tribunals has become a political hot potato.   Common law gives judges law making power which critics see as undemocratic or lacking accountability. Common law evolves case by case making it slow, costly and dependent on litigation to establish principles. In practice this means judges can temper punishment or adapt doctrines to new situations. From Magna Carta to the present day it is argued that common law is centred around the rights of the individual as opposed to those of the nation state. Trial by jury and an adversarial system rather than an inquisitorial judicial process are often cited as the prime reasons for the differences between the English derived system and that of those countries which apply a platform based upon the Napoleonic Code.


As a former presiding magistrate I have experienced situations where truth and justice have seemed to be in opposition to due process. I do not think it is controversial to opine that there are occasions where the quality and ability of advocates pleading in magistrates courts is lacking, such situations leading to the possibility of the guilty being acquitted or horror of horrors the innocent being found guilty. With the risk of such miscarriages of justice being on the horizon I have intervened in court and become more inquisitorial than the legal advisor at the court review would have deemed appropriate. Usually in such matters my colleagues agreed with my interventions. Who is to argue that if such interventions were more frequent there might be fewer decisions at the crown court going to appeal?


With tens of thousands of cases before magistrates every week below are just a few which caught my eye today.


If ever there was a case which demonstrated the inability of our judicial system to cater for drug induced criminality this must surely be it. A life ruined and with the knowledge that the sentencing options are totally inadequate to rehabilitate the offender the costs to her and society should be a spur to innovation. I have long advocated that a model workhouse fit for this century would be of benefit to offenders and our society. When all else has failed there must be innovation. For further thoughts please insert "Bring back the workhouse" in the search box.


Nine years ago I commented on the lack of public lavatories in Chester and York. [Type "Piss up in Chester and York" in the search box for access]. Whether this offender would have benefitted from improved provision of public lavatories is a moot point but there is no doubt that such availability is a limited resource. With pubs often catering for a young clientele it might be that those in need of such facilities are inhibited from pursuing their physiological needs.  By most measures of availability, cleanliness, technology, accessibility and design Japan has the best and most widely available public lavatories in the world.  It is nothing short of a national disgrace that the negative of all the preceding adjectives describes the position in Britain. 

I have long been against the ever increasing use of what I term displacement orders whereby a usually prolific offender is prohibited from certain geographical locations and therefore his law breaking becomes a matter for another county or police jurisdiction. Such orders are issued under various powers by police or courts.  It used to be ASBOs; now there are  PSPO breaches/dispersals, Section 34/35 dispersals, Community Protection Notices (CPNs), Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs), Civil injunctions/ASBIs, closure orders) and others.  There is no doubt that with increasing police involvement in so called non hate crime and/or accusations of causing offence that the law abiding citizen is much more likely than s/he was 25 years ago in being a statistic in the police national computer. 

A recent interesting case at Swansea crown court will be of particular instruction to magistrates.  The warning is that it is precarious for one bench to assure a witness or defendant that another bench will take a pre determined or particular course of action at a subsequent sitting.  

In 15 months this government is now on its second Justice Secretary.  The Tories had 10 such ministers between 2010 and 2024. Is it any wonder that justice in this country is just a merry go round or a game of musical chairs?

ANTISEMITISM: THE CANARY IN THE COALMINE

I make no apology today for commenting on the despicable actions taking place today in places of learning and on the streets to glorify the happenings two years ago which shocked the world except for those who expressed their glee at the murder of Jews at a rate unseen since 1945. My particular ire is the feigning arguments of this and previous government that they are unable to prevent these heinous activities taking place.

 "Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." 9/11 is an event that will be remembered in history although the year might be forgotten [2001].  7/7 train and bus bombing in London 2005 by Islamist terrorists killed 52 on their way to and from work.  7th October 2023 the date when 1,200 music attendees and civilians were murdered in Israel and 250 hostages taken into Gaza. 

Apart from the number 7 being a statistical oddity a distinguishing feature of the above is that the events of two years ago are being celebrated by an assortment of evil, ignorant hateful people from unashamedly nazi inspired ex professors and MPs and clandestine colleagues of similar opinions, luvvies who consider their celebrity status elevates their opinions to those of righteousness and students who have had their minds invaded by the aforementioned educationalists and encouraged almost daily by visual media of the traditional and current on line form.  Student demonstrations lauding the terrorist activities of October 7th are taking place in  

London;  An “Inter-University March” is scheduled, departing from King’s College near the Strand, passing LSE, UCL, SOAS, finishing at other campuses including Queen Mary University, London

Glasgow — Protests are slated at Strathclyde University and University of Glasgow. 

Edinburgh — Events are due to take place at the University of Edinburgh. 

Leeds — A protest is expected on the Leeds campus. 

Additionally, universities across other UK cities (e.g. Sheffield) have planned events.  They are described as "protests".  The victim terminology of the current era has been infused with a hatred of Jews which has been held in suspended animation for 80 years and which has been fostered in a form to infiltrate those who are easily influenced by puppet masters using Roubles and Rials to pull the strings of opinion formers in the western world. And yet within the last few days government figures, including Keir Starmer our plastic prime minister, repeat like hypnotised rabbits that they can do nothing to prevent such hate mongering which was influential in the synagogue killings last week on Yom Kippur the date on which in 1973 Egypt chose to wage yet another war of aggression against the State of Israel following their failures in 1948 and 1967 to eradicate Jews from the river to the sea.

Starmer with as much eloquence as he can summon, an effort in itself, has stated in reference to today`s anticipated events that those involved have a "total loss of empathy and humanity". He goes on to describe their activities as "unBritish" and concludes "we will not be silent or indifferent to hatred aimed at anyone in our society".   

And back he goes to Downing Street to wash his hands telling all who will listen that in our free society he can do nothing to prevent these openly antisemitic demonstrations of supposed solidarity with people who rejoice in the death of Jews.  Those far higher up the tree of legal knowledge than I could ever aspire have made it clear that he is talking nonsense and that a British government has all the legislation it needs to put a stop to these deliverers of hate. 

Under the Public Order Act police may impose conditions on processions or assemblies (time, place, route, maximum numbers) to prevent serious public disorder, criminal damage, disruption, etc. Those conditions must be necessary and proportionate. A Commissioner or Chief Constable can prohibit a protest in a certain area for up to 3 months with the Home Secretary’s agreement.  

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022  strengthened police powers in relation to protests including more scope for conditions, seizure of items used to cause disruption and powers to direct persons away from certain areas. It introduced or reinforced offences relating to ‘locking on’, serious disruption, and non-compliance with conditions.   

Under the Terrorism Act 2000 / Proscription powers; if a protest is directly linked to a proscribed terrorist organization (or its support) then existing counter-terrorism law can be invoked. Under the Terrorism Act 2000 “proscribed organisations or groups” are banned; membership, encouragement, support, displaying symbols, or even public expression in favor of them are criminalised. The UK government proscribed the group “Palestine Action” under these powers.  Once an organisation is proscribed public support (speech, display, banners, logos) may attract arrest and prosecution.  

With injunctions / civil orders / banning orders a government (or local authority / police) might seek court injunctions (civil remedies) to prevent particular gatherings or assemblies, especially if they anticipate breach of public order, incitement to violence or other unlawful acts.

The proposed “Public Order Bill” (in the policy / debate stage) includes ideas of “banning orders” on individuals (preventing them attending protests)  though such measures are controversial and raise strong civil liberties objections.

There are many arguments against imposing a ban on situations I have indicated but the essence of this post is that there are ways to ban or control the proposed demonstrations.  The government is unwilling to admit that these avenues are available to it.  Like so much that has been heard from number 10 since 4/7/24 words bear little connection to reality or action needed.  All that can be hoped for today and the days ahead is that there can be some effective opposition to the deadly undercurrent of antisemitism in this country which is being exploited by an inglorious combination of Islamists, Marxists and Fascists.  This poisonous brew is being fanned daily and sometimes even hourly by a fetid combo of academics, luvvies and various media outlets  financed by those who would dearly love to see the cohesion of this society fall apart.  That must not happen. The canary in the coalmine is having difficulty finding its voice. 

HANDCUFFING IS OUT OF CONTROL

This is just a brief insight into the activities of the police in their increasingly aggressive tactics when interviewing those whom they consider are involved in the now notorious "non hate crime".  Increasingly it seems that such supposed offenders are being handcuffed on their doorsteps and arrested.  They are being handcuffed usually in the painful position of behind the back as opposed to the frontal position. They are usually compliant.  This is scandalous.

The following is the Metropolitan Police "text book" on using handcuffs.  Perhaps some criminal lawyers might want to read it prior to attending court if the situation comes to that with the more serious offenders.