STATUS AND SENTENCING

Equality before the law, scales of justice, justice for all and other similar phrases are supposed to consolidate the idea that nobody is above the law; the current investigations into Mandleson and the second son of our late queen appearing to justify that belief.   However as I discovered on becoming a magistrate that concept is daily tested to its limits.

Last week it was published that a specialist cancer doctor, now a convicted sex offender at Chester Magistrates Court, had been given a suspended prison sentence for his offending which later resulted in his being prevented from working for six months.  The underlying question is whether officially or unofficially offenders in magistrates courts whose benefits to society are well above the norm should have their status reflected in reduced sentencing outcomes.

The arguments in favour of such an approach are not inconsiderable the obvious being:-

1. That society suffers from their incapacity or prevention from doing their work.  There can be an assumption, rightly or wrongly, that exceptional professional offenders have more stable lifestyles than many others and are more likely to be deterred in future from a repeat of their offending. To some degree that line of thinking can be explored by careful questioning by the court.  Driving bans are truly an exceptional example where there exists formal application to argue by way of exceptional hardship to avoid such an outcome. 

2. Most highly trained and/or talented offenders have benefitted from massive amounts of public (tax payers) money to have been educated to reach their current position. 

3.  A long unsullied professional history should be a safeguard against repeat offending. 

4. The personal shame of being found guilty for many offenders is punishment in itself and magnified for highly qualified and valued personnel. 

5. Every case is different which allows guidelines to be considered as a guide and not as a strict set of outcomes. 

The arguments against such an approach to personal mitigation are as follows:-

1. Justice is not about giving consideration to the labour market; it is about just outcomes both for the offender and society.  If elite offenders are seen to benefit from their status faith in the precept in the opening words of this post could be eroded. 

2. Public financial investment in an offender should offer no part in sentencing outcomes. 

3. Many ordinary citizens facing sentence have also their personal or religious consciences which could act as a deterrent against repeat offending. 

4.  A century or more ago shame in itself might have been an accurate description of the results of offending within what was a close knit society and where large families might have spread the information leading to ostracism for the offender in his/her every day contacts.  Such circumstances are alien to today`s "screen" socialising. 

5. The law guarantees equality of treatment not equality of lifestyle impact. If impact governs then punishment becomes a function of wealth and status not culpability.

Readers might favour other points of either view. For over 20 years Sentencing Guidelines have become incorporated in ever increasing detail in magistrates and crown courts.  The system of Guidelines in my humble opinion is but a prelude to fully automated AI sentencing where human input will come at the conclusion of the process and not the beginning. How our society deals with that will be a major sign of how this country will be governed until the 22nd century dawns.  

MORE ON PERVERSITY//MOJ DANCING TO THE TREASURY`S TUNE

Within legal circles particularly and amongst others with an interest in how justice actually works in this country the government`s proposals to reduce the eligibility of jury trial for many offenders has become a totem around which they are dancing to preserve their "institution".  A caveat to any discussion on jury trials is that there are no studies on how juries actually perform, how they reach a verdict or where the verdict is not that which the judge in the case would have reached. The ridiculous position is that this government is like a deaf and blind person being told by some means to choose a colour scheme, theme and design for an imaginary new  theatre.  

Whilst perversity is not unknown in the decisions of juries less is known about its propensity in magistrates courts because although often described as a mini jury such courts of three magistrates are designated as judges. It is sensible to define "perverse" verdicts which  refer to jury decisions acquitting defendants despite judge instructions or strict legal interpretations.  In politically charged trials “perversity” is often subjective. In the last five years controversy has centred more on harsh convictions and sentences (e.g., UK climate trials) or politically charged prosecutions that critics say undermine rights. Recent examples of such verdicts are:-

1. Colston Four — Bristol crown court, (2022)

Verdict: Not guilty (public nuisance)

In late 2025 three Just Stop Oil activists participating in the same M25 demonstration that led to convictions in another jurisdiction were acquitted after the judge allowed a “reasonable excuse” defence and climate context evidence.

2. Just Stop Oil — M25 Public Nuisance Acquittals (Guildford crown court, 2025)

Verdict: Not guilty (public nuisance)

In late 2025, three Just Stop Oil activists participating in the same M25 demonstration that led to convictions in another jurisdiction were acquitted after the judge allowed a “reasonable excuse” defence and climate context evidence.

3. Just Stop Oil — Stonehenge Orange Powder Protest (Salisbury crown court, 2025)

Verdict: Not guilty: Just Stop Oil activists who sprayed orange powder at Stonehenge were acquitted of criminal damage / public nuisance in connection with an environmental protest.

Controversial verdicts with particular significance have leeched from the activities of those as above preaching climate change to the ouverte although denied antisemitism  of supporters of a "Palestine from the river to the sea" and "globalise the intifada". 

1. Sohail Sultan – Arconic Direct Action (Wolverhampton Crown Court,  Oct 2023)

Verdict: Not guilty of criminal damage.

Context: The defendant occupied and dismantled part of an Arconic factory costing an estimated £500k  in solidarity with both Grenfell victims and Palestinians.

Controversy: Despite undisputed actions causing significant property damage a jury acquitted unanimously deliberating on necessity and motivation tied to protecting property/lives abroad. Defenders called it a victory for conscience based protest; critics argue the law was effectively overridden by moral judgment.

2. Elbit Occupation – Leicester Crown Court (May 2024)

Verdict: Not guilty (criminal damage) for two Palestine Action activists.

Context: Four activists occupied an Elbit (drone manufacturer) facility for six days spray painting and damaging parts of the building in protest against the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Controversy: The jury acquitted after about 1 hour 40 minutes, despite evidence of property damage. The defence argued actions were necessary to avoid greater harm. Critics see this as a form of jury nullification privileging protest rationale over legal property rights.

3. Discovery Park Lock-On at Sevenoaks Magistrates Court Kent (Mar 2025)

Verdict: Not guilty and five activists acquitted.

Context: Charged under new locking-on offences after blocking entrances to a weapons factory linked to Israeli arms production.

Controversy: The prosecution offered no evidence leading to acquittal. While legally clear critics interpret the outcome as indicating prosecutorial difficulty in framing direct action under novel public order law amid political tension.

4. Possession With Intent – Wood Green Crown Court (Apr 2024)

Verdict: Not guilty (possession with intent to commit criminal damage).

Context: A Palestine Action member admitted possessing paint-filled eggs intended for protest against Elbit’s former London HQ.

Controversy: The jury acquitted despite the admitted intended use of the items; commentators argue this reflects juror sympathy with protest aims trumping statutory definitions of intent.

The common factor of the above might be that the widespread misinformation of the events that began on 7th October 2023 has forged a bond between "progressive" environmental  agitators and supporters of Hamas terrorism.  In activist cases, “perversity” is less about legal error and more about disjunction between state expectations and verdict outcomes especially when activism intersects with public sympathy or human rights protections. Jurors or magistrates might empathise with the activist cause even while the act technically breaches law. This is especially visible in cases where activists engage in non violent civil disobedience although the term "non violent" is itself open to interpretation. Magistrates courts are a common venue for such verdicts because evidence is often minor or symbolic (road-blocking, locking-on) and legal defences emphasising rights, necessity and proportionality are easier to adjudicate at lower levels.

It can be opined that magistrates courts tend to acquit when disruption is minimal, evidence of intent is ambiguous and political context or a "necessity" defence is considered.  In addition trials are shorter with arguably less formal evidence procedures and more flexible handling of activist defences.

Of course before those cases above and all others are set down for trial they are filtered by police and the CPS.   Since the hate marches in London which began the day after 1,200 Israelis were murdered and 251 hostages taken in October 2023 and more recently when West Midlands Police were found to have lied about the situation prior to an Israeli football club playing in Birmingham there have been whispers that Muslim influence has been politically active within the criminal justice system.  Certainly with some MPs lending themselves to descriptions as eg the MP for Gaza and other highly motivated political figures stopping just short of ouverte antisemitism there is cause for concern that the very term "perversity" in this context is becoming the norm.  If indeed there is substance to that possibility it heralds a fundamental change in our society; a change which perhaps was initiated by the revelations of abuse which lay quietly hidden and conveniently overlooked for over twenty years by those entrusted with the safety of young victims in Rochdale and elsewhere.

Political activism cases are almost certain to increase as faith in our democratic processes decreases.  They are especially prone to divergent outcomes because of rights based defences, eg necessity, public interest and protest legitimacy when  different panels on the same evidence yield different outcomes according to some jury variability studies.

But of course none of the above is of concern to the MOJ.  All that concerns them at Petty France is dancing to the tune of the Treasury.  

ADDENDUM  4th February 2026

If proof were needed of the inroads into the belief that our courts can deliver justice when faced with a jury that holds its belief in a "cause" so outrageous that law can be transgressed, it happened today when smashing the spine of a police officer with a sledge hammer and there is video to prove it, results in an acquittal.

MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION TOADIES UP TO GOVERNMENT: IT`S IN THEIR NATURE

The air around Petty France these days must be fairly poluted with proposals, consultations, recriminations and conclusions.  On 13th January I posted on the very small numbers of appeals from magistrates courts to the crown court where the case is reheard by a judge sitting with two magistrates. That statistic indicates that the lower courts very rarely get it wrong, an offender is unaware of his/her rights or is simply relieved to have the matter over and done with. But just as important is that the offender has the right to that re hearing provided the necessary papers are lodged within 21 days of the verdict and/or the sentence.  It would appear that without much fanfare that right is going to be resticted. 

Under the government`s proposals this automatic right would be ended. Instead a defendant would need to seek permission (leave) to appeal and that permission would be limited to points of law not a full rehearing of all aspects of the case as is the current practice.

The government`s reasons for this substantial denial of rights of appeal are firstly that this would ease the backlog on crown courts.  That argument is as thin as the clean air around Petty France.  Such are the aforesaid limited numbers of  appeals and that a courtroom and judge would be engaged for at least one sitting if not a whole day, to consider that the minimal benefits of such a change would ease the backlog is a disgrace to common sense even for this government which has shown such a facility is deeply lacking around the Cabinet table.  We are supposed to accept their argument that such a change is a necessary improvement in efficiency as opposed to a fundamental erosion of  rights.  

This anticipated change combined with the reduction in jury trials, the increase in magistrates sentencing powers and the transcribing of magistrates courts` hearings is being discussed to support the new appeal regime where only legal points are reviewed.  The change makes it likely that vital safeguards against wrongful convictions would be removed.  Vulnerable or increasing numbers of unrepresented defendants who might have had fact based grounds to appeal under the current system would be disadvantaged, to put it mildly. 

The government`s statements on this matter include, “The appeals process from magistrates’ courts will be reformed so that automatic appeals to the Crown Court in criminal cases are replaced with a permission stage, limited to points of law.” [my bold].  The official parliamentary statement of 2nd December 2025 reads as follows, "Magistrates’ courts sentencing powers will increase to 18 months, with provision to extend to 24 months if necessary to relieve pressure in the Crown court."

"The right of defendants to elect for a jury trial will be removed, meaning that it will be for the court to determine where a case will be heard, based on the severity of offences."

"A new bench division will be established in the Crown court for triable-either-way cases with likely sentences of three years or less, heard by a judge alone."

It is of no surprise that amongst the legal profession there is much scepticism on the reforms.  However the Magistrates Association in line with its toadying up to any and every government proposal issued the following statement:-

"We have long called for radical action to deal with the crisis in our justice system. The system is in a mess, with the crown court backlog so acute that some cases are being scheduled to start in 2029. Every day that a case is not heard, is intolerable anguish and uncertainty for victims, witnesses and defendants, so measures that can speed up justice are needed – as long they balance efficiency with quality of justice."

"So, we welcome the government’s plan to enable magistrates to hear cases that carry a maximum sentencing range of up to eighteen months’ imprisonment (up from one year currently), with the option to extend it to two years. This can be introduced speedily and means that more cases will be dealt with in the magistrates’ courts, where they can be dealt with more quickly – making a dent in the huge backlogs of serious cases in the crown courts."

"The measures announced today are a big vote of confidence in magistrates, but to maximise the success of these changes, and so ensure speedier justice, we need to see more resources put into the magistrates’ courts. These include:

ensuring there are enough, trained and well-paid legal advisers (without whom magistrates cannot hear cases)

repairing and maintaining the crumbling court buildings and court rooms so they are safe and fit for purpose,

agreeing a long-term and strategic plan for the recruitment, retention, training and recognition of magistrates – so that people from all walks of life will want to volunteer as a magistrate, and will not be left out of pocket for doing so.”

It would seem that the M.A. is oblivious to the government`s failure in its repeated attempts to recruit more magistrates or more likely ignoring the reality of the situation.   

The quoted press release does not specifically repeat or quote text on the change to appeal rights (i.e., replacing automatic rights of appeal to the Crown Court with a permission stage). However the context of the press release as a response to the Government’s statement  which did include the appeal rights change  implies the MA is broadly supportive of the overall reform package so long as necessary resourcing accompanies it.  M.A. chief executive Tom Franklin said, " We welcome the government’s plan to enable magistrates to hear cases that carry a maximum sentencing range of up to eighteen months’ imprisonment…”  “In addition, we supported Sir Brian Leveson’s original recommendation to create a new tier of the crown court, and we argued that those cases should be heard by a judge and two magistrates … We would like to see magistrate involvement in these, and we are ready to help should the government decide to revert away from this model…”

The conclusion must be that the M.A. is reluctant to be seen criticising with any effort the loss of these current automatic rights of appeal from magistrates courts to crown court.  An observer on that proverbial electric Clapham omnibus might conclude that addressing that core but little known principle of our justice system would be a prominent subject of discussion.  But then again like a friendly feline lying on its back to have its stomach stroked the M.A. relies on limited participation from its members when it comes to voicing support for government; any government, for like the scorpion stinging the frog as it is being carried across the river by the frog  ensuring  both their deaths, it is in their nature. 

THE SUNSET OF JUSTICE

"For an unpaid responsible public position it`s little wonder that recruitement is below published expectations." I wrote that in my post last week. I had intended to enlarge upon the possible reasons for the MOJ failing consistently to achieve its level of new magistrates sorely needed for appointement to an organisation with members` age as below:-


Median age ~58 years
Mean age ~59 years
% aged ≥50 81 %


Perhaps the onerous requirement to sign up to an annual unpaid 26 half day sitting commitment in addition to training days is a prime reason especially when the MOJ`s almost fanatical diversity programme strives to recruit younger more "diverse" and perhaps lower income magistrates to "reflect the communities they serve". To that end I have endeavoured to extract from official publications how many magistrates actually are sacked for failing the above sitting requirement and to note if there is any prevailing trend.

The latest J.P. to fall at this hurdle was disclosed yesterday as Mr Imtiaz Ahmed JP whose fate will be published in next year`s statistics. To quote from the official announcement; "removed for failing sittings requirement." Recent years saw results as follows for that same failure:-



For year 2025/26


Removal: 0
Reprimand: 2
Formal warning: 0
Formal advice: 0


For year 2024/2025


Removal: 6
Reprimand: 0
Formal warning: 1
Formal advice: 0



For 2023/24



Removal: 1
Reprimand: 1
Formal warning: 0
Formal advice: 0



For years 2021- 2023 there are no on line detailed figures now available. Whether year 2024/25 is a statistical outlier is beyond my capacity to interpret. The JCIO’s formal annual reports contain aggregate totals but rarely list every individual and many earlier statements are no longer on the website due to publication period limits. However it is my experience that many of those under sitting are dealt with informally by the courts` Deputy Justices Clerks who are in day to day control of magistrates courts.



To put these numbers in perspective in the five years since 2021 the numbers of magistrates has been fairly stable rising from 14,200 to 14,636 in 2025. It can be seen from the above that removals for under sitting are tiny and impossible to relate to any particular factor. 2025 was a spike and perhaps suggests policy emphasis or enforcement tightening.



An educated assessment of the consistent failure to recruit new magistrates could be a cause of concern to the MOJ especially as its proposals to increase the workload to relieve crown courts of their backlog comes under increasing scrutiny. 68% of Judges are aged 50 or over. Such a position requires years of experience in life as well as in affairs legal. The fixation in the MOJ with "local" justice is becoming increasingly distant from reality. District Judges [MC] are appointed on ability; not that they are paying council tax for living a bus ride from the court in which they preside over function in addition to fact finding and sentence. Archived materials suggest that around 10% of cases at magistrates courts are heard by DJs or Deputies. It seems logical to conclude that the current cheaper costs of lay magistrates cf DJs might soon have to be revisited and those costs accepted when the reality is that the backlog at magistrates courts midway through 2025 was around 310,000 to 361,000 unresolved cases. It has been estimated that if no additional cases entered the court system the current magistrates courts` backlog could be cleared in less than three months at the existing processing capacity. Of course that`s a fairy tale. There are currently about 1.3 million magistrates’ cases entering the system annually and timeliness to clear cases is rising. At more than six months, average times from offence to completion are now higher than pre‑pandemic. Extra sitting days and other reforms are intended to speed up justice overall but there is no officially published target for how long it will take once or if reforms are implemented. In simple terms there is an uncontrolable rise in the backlog unless what to some will be unwelcome innovations and/or changes are made. These could include:-


A. a major increase in the number of lay magistrates
B. an increase in their sitting requirements
C. a major increase in the number of DJs and Deputies or
D. revolutionary changes in the provision of diversionary availabilities.




It is difficult in the light of recent failed recruitment efforts as above to think A. is realistic. B. is possible but it would mean MOJ abandoning its flagship "diversity" policy and swallowing the reality that an older higher income strata of society might be willing to consider appointment. C. would be a realistic option if DJs would accept that they could run the court without the assistance of a legal advisor or at the very least accepting a lower grade lower paid clerk. D. is "in the clouds" thinking.




Since 2010 [even since 1997] the courts have been financially emasculated. Chickens are now home and roosting in their entrails. The current "proposals" will do nothing to change the situation. Cassandra has appeared on this site [and others similar] for many years. Many warnings were given by those on the inside as well as those offering advice from the periphery. The collapse, and that is what it is, of our once inernationally renowned justice system is now impervious to meaningful long lasting improvement. Government has so many other problems in future only rouble billionaires and their estranged ex wives, disinherited relatives of global AI innovators and others similar will consider London as the legal jurisdiction to decide their future. 

For the person  on that fabled electric bus to Clapham with an appearance pending in the criminal court as witness or defendant the sky might look orange but the legal situation looks bleak. It`s the sunset of justice.

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE ON APPEALS, BACKLOG AND JURIES

The most far reaching changes in our legal system in a generation have been proposed by the Secretary of State for Justice henceforth in this post to be referred to as "MOJ". Statisticians and others will be following their own political preferences and prejudices to paint them in their desired hue. This post is written by a  long retired magistrate and views the whole scheme of things as he has from the  beginning of this  in 2010(  https://amagistratesdiaries.blogspot.com) from the public point of view with the occasional volleys of common sense, incredulity and sceptism.

In recent weeks the Metropolitan Police have revealed that until recently their vetting processes failed insofar as hundreds of applicants secured positions when they should have been eliminated by the Met`s filtering procedure which failed.  In all probability this disastrous outcome was the rush to increase numbers after the wholesale reduction in police numbers owing to Austerity. The recruitment of magistrates has followed a similar pattern.  The application form was published here on 25th May 2017.  In short the vetting system employed character and eligibility questions, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, pre-appointment checks and assessment at interview stage.  For an unpaid responsible public position it`s little wonder that recruitement is below published expectations. Although half the nation`s magistrates courts have been closed since 2010 the workload in general terms has not. There are now about half the number of magistrates since then to deal with Britain`s lower levels of criminality.  There were 373,084 open cases at the end of last year. 

It has been many years since the MOJ published details of appeals from the magistrates courts to the crown court.  MOJ announced "changes". There has been no follow up announcement of what restrictions are going to be enacted, for as certain as night follows day the MOJ is not going to make it easier and simpler for such appeals to be made.  Currently every sentence and/or conviction at the lower court can be appealed within 21 days and every magistrates court has the paperwork immediately available for offenders when they leave the courtroom. Indeed my personal practice was to make this information available in open court after every trial when appropriate.  The information that is available makes interesting reading. 

The last year for which fully transparent figures were made public for appeals was 2023 when there were  5,968 appeals from magistrates courts to the crown court (across conviction and sentence) out of well over a million magistrates’ cases total.  In 2024 there were about 121,500 cases received.  In the first half of 2025 there were 60,500.  Legal reporting (e.g., The Times) has quoted that over 40% of appeals against verdicts and 47% of sentence succeed in crown court. In 2021 during Covid appeals against magistrates’ decisions accounted for about 5 % of crown court caseload implying appeal numbers of only a few thousand per year at that time.   

The open crown court caseload was 79,619 by Q3 2025; a record high. It is indisputable that such appeals as above have a negligible effect on the overall logjam in crown courts and  they have not increased during the backlog crisis. Reducing appeal rights would affect thousands not tens of thousands of cases  and deliver negligible time savings. 

With regard to the proposals to reduce trial by jury specifically, cases with likely sentences under about three years and some complex cases would go to judge only hearings.  Consequently  magistrates would get greater sentencing powers so more cases stay in the magistrates’ courts, further reducing crown court demand. We have been told that those changes  would contribute to clearing the backlog by the late 2020s or early 2030s.  However The Institute for Government estimates that limiting jury trials would reduce crown court hearing time by only about 7–8 % overall and judge only trials would save just 1.5–2.5 % of court time on their own.

Those whose knowledge far exceeds mine have made clear that the backlog is due to:-

1. Court capacity limits (fewer judges, lawyers, courtrooms than needed.

2. Underfunding over many years.

3. High numbers of ineffective hearings (due to witness/defence unavailability, poor case preparation etc.).

The bottom line is the effect on the size of the backlog would be modest if the proposals were implemented. 

Changes which would improve matters are depicted below:- 

In simple terms:-

Jury-trial reform government estimates would improve matters by ~8%)

Extra judges would improve matters by  ~20%

More sitting days would improve matters by~30%

Abolishing jury trials would deliver the smallest gain while increasing judges and sitting days would do far more to reduce the backlog  without removing a constitutional safeguard.  So we are left with the obvious question; why has this government put so much effort into this proposal?  We continually are told it`s a government and justice system for victims.  Apart from the ideal that Justice is supposed to be impartial is not the underlying motive to be seen to be doing something and in its wake to abolish juries per se?  

Socialists always want more control over the lives of citizens.  By reforming magistrates courts sentencing powers [perhaps itself a temporary measure bearing in mind the ups and downs in available sentences of the last four years] it could pave the road to only District Judges sitting or with two magistrate wingers. Be that as it may the facts show that the MOJ is being less than truthful and as native Americans discovered about post Civil War treaties with the US government:- they speak with forked tongue.

JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A SIGNPOST

Having enjoyed or perhaps experienced my longest time overseas for over forty years the trickle of news I allowed to invade my quieter moments enabled my inner rants to coalesce in my mind even when the attractions of literally spending Christmas day gazing at palm trees and exploring the many concoctions that can be produced by mixing unknown fruits and well known  alcohols were all around.  Subsequently these incoherent abstractions permitted me to spend some of the long hours flying home  in trying to prepare the rant that follows.  

Since 1997 it has become increasingly difficult to sustain the comforting fiction that the weakening of the justice system is the responsibility of one political party alone. The evidence instead points to a prolonged period of bipartisan consensus that has steadily emasculated the machinery of justice. Decisions taken, defended and often renewed by both major parties have left the courts diminished in capacity, authority and public standing.

There is no shortage of areas where this consensus can be identified. Court reductions and closures have proceeded under successive governments of different colours  justified by efficiency arguments that rarely survive contact with reality. Disputes over judges` pensions and financial restrictions on the use of crown courts are current.  The loss of half the country`s  magistrates courts has not merely inconvenienced users of the system; it has weakened the principle of local justice itself. Longer delays, increased travel and overburdened remaining courts have become the norm rather than the exception.

Legal aid has suffered a similar fate. Both parties have accepted its contraction as a regrettable necessity despite mounting evidence that its erosion undermines fairness and efficiency alike. Litigants in person clog court lists, hearings take longer and outcomes become more erratic. A well-honed justice system is not an optional adornment of democracy; it is one of its load-bearing structures. When justice becomes slow, inaccessible or inconsistent, democratic legitimacy quietly drains away.

What is perhaps more corrosive than any individual policy is the degree of agreement between government and opposition. When opposition parties largely endorse the justice agenda of those in power the electorate is left with little meaningful choice. In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that growing numbers of voters turn to fringe parties or protest movements seeking improvement where the mainstream has demonstrably failed to deliver. This is not healthy pluralism; it is a symptom of institutional stagnation.

The broader deterioration in political standards only reinforces this dynamic. The failure not only to exclude an openly Jew hating Egyptian individual from citizenship but to opportunistically associate with or excuse elements of his support base is a stark illustration of how principle has been subordinated to political convenience. That this behaviour is observable across party lines speaks to a deeper malaise: a shared indifference to the moral and legal consistency upon which public trust depends.

Recent revelations concerning the Tel Aviv Maccabi football match affair and the conduct of West Midlands Police add a further troubling dimension. The exposure of misleading statements and internal manoeuvring has fuelled the perception that civil institutions are increasingly anxious to appease rather than apply the law impartially. Critics argue that this reflects a growing tendency to kowtow to Islamist pressures particularly in cases where political sensitivity intersects with public order concerns. Whether or not every such criticism is fairly made the damage to confidence is undeniable.

This issue cannot be dismissed as marginal. The Muslim population of the United Kingdom is currently estimated at approximately 3.4 million and respected demographers project that figure could rise to around 13 million by 2050. These are not alarmist numbers; they are mainstream projections. In a diverse and democratic society such change demands robust, impartial institutions capable of applying the law consistently without fear or favour. The perception that policing or justice policy is being shaped by apprehension rather than principle risks entrenching division rather than cohesion.

Against this backdrop, proposals to resolve systemic failings through headline-grabbing recruitment targets appear particularly hollow. The suggestion that the magistracy can be expanded by 2,000 individuals within a single year borders on the fanciful. Previous recruitment initiatives have struggled, not through lack of publicity, but because the role demands time, resilience, employer support and a willingness to operate within an increasingly strained system. Training capacity, mentoring and courtroom availability are already under pressure.

Magistrates do not function in isolation. Their effectiveness depends upon properly resourced courts, experienced legal advisers, realistic listing practices and a political culture that respects the seriousness of summary justice. Increasing numbers without addressing these underlying deficiencies risks weakening rather than strengthening the bench.

Democracy depends on more than the ritual of elections. It depends on institutions that are trusted, resilient and visibly committed to fairness. A justice system treated as a budgetary inconvenience or a political afterthought cannot fulfil that role. 

The lesson of the past quarter-century is unambiguous: when both major parties agree to manage decline rather than reverse it they invite disengagement, cynicism and the rise of political alternatives that thrive on grievance rather than governance. Rebuilding confidence will require not consensus but courage above all; the courage to place the rule of law back at the centre of democratic life.  

Western democracy is not embedded in our genes.  It is a relatively new manner of governance incorporated into our political system from a parsimonious beginning at the turn of the 20th century and refined post 1945.  The enormous swings in the 2019 election [overall Tory majority of 80] and in 2024 [overall Labour majority of 174] should have been a clear indication for we non  psephologists that something was amiss. There is absolutely no certainty or god given assurance that our democratic institutions will outlast this century.  Between now and 2029 the foundations of our future lives and those of our children and grandchildren are being laid. The state of the justice system is a signpost to our future.  

As I have not yet got my jet lagged brain into gear my reader might want to peruse my entry of 1st January 2011 of my Magistrate`s Diary soon to be published following on from my entries from 2010.  

D.W.P. AND 6.[1] COMMITTAL

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 01. Jan. 2011. – 15:38:54

In my time on the bench I have sat on perhaps one or two sect. 6[1] committals. As I recall they have not been subject to any training I have undergone. They have rarely been alluded to in the normal course of events. I have sat on many dozens of cases brought by the Dept. of Work and Pensions. None has involved a 6[1] committal. But it seems that this form of process is alive and kicking in Blackburn where the chairman of the Lancashire Council of Mosques is facing a magistrates` bench in February who will decide if he should face benefit fraud charges. There will be no oral evidence and the defence are not entitled to present any evidence at all, documentary or otherwise. The bench can discharge the defendant, but this is a comparatively rare occurrence because the prosecution only need to show that there is "sufficient evidence to put the defendant on trial" which is a low burden (equivalent to showing that there is a case to answer).

The defendant by his position could be called high profile. Perhaps somebody with knowledge and/or authority can offer an opinion as to how common such proceedings are?

---