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?

---

ARE LES MISERABLES WAITING FOR US?

My post last week began with an extract from the Gettysburg Address.  To avoid repetition I repeat that opening. Constitutional experts have written millions of words on what are the prerequisites for a successful government.  These can be funneled into two requirements:  sovereignty and commanding public confidence.  The former emanates from the people and it must secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.  The latter requires leadership that can command the confidence and trust of key stakeholders and the public. From them  follows a system of laws that dictates the extent of government powers and the rights of citizens providing a predictable and stable environment.

However in a democratic society these foundations cannot be  powerful enough on their own without trust in the government by those who voted them into power.  

Since 2010 the system of justice in this country has been decimated by intent and largely ignored by parliamentary oppositions and media.  The only aspect which gained attention has been the consideration for victims.  As a cynical observer I would opine that these innovations have been as much about persuading the public that government was on the side of the people.  However this government and the current holder of  the boss of this department must be neck and neck with failing Grayling  Justice Secretary September 2012 – May 2015  as the most incompetent not to be trusted Secretaries this century.  

There are arguments for restricting trials by jury but none is as obtuse as the claim that it will better the chances of victims having their day in court.  Crown courts operating today can be found here.  This site does not indicate how many courtrooms are actually closed.  Information on the backlog is available here. 

Judges have been restricted on their total number of sitting days as a direct matter of government policy.  Lammy is being shown to be as trustworthy as a £3 pound note.  When in opposition he was a strong defender of jury trials describing them as "fundamental" to the justice system and a "filter for prejudice". He specifically stated that "Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea".  Although District Judges [magistrates court] have been sole arbiters as fact finders and sentencers every decision can be appealed without undue formality that will not be the case in Crown Court where the appeal process requires expertise. Presiding magistrates surely have enough experience to sit with a judge as assessors as they do with appeals from magistrates courts. Removing all either way matters would also reduce the crown court burden.  

The Tory and coalition governments deliberately salami sliced the justice system in all aspects from police numbers to prison spaces.  They got away with this predation with the silent acquiescence of Labour Party.  Lammy being in his post is expediency over good sense, a faculty lacking in 10 Downing Street overwhelmed by political inertia as a result of Marxist wolves in Labour sheeps` clothing threatening to blow the house down [please excuse the mixed nursey tales]. 

Rachel Reeve`s proven lying on her CV gives little confidence in anything she now tells us. Rome wasn`t built in a day and its final sacking took a bit longer: the Vandals sack of Rome (455 AD) lasted for two weeks, from June 2 to June 16.  But the cracks in the imperial edifice were apparent many years earlier. We are now in that preparatory period when extremists are trying to offer to us that which democratic rule has failed.

The barricades are being assembled mentally if not yet physically as in Paris in 1848.   

I am leaving in a few days to attend a wedding in Sri Lanka.  So I  wish my reader a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS

 

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".  Readers, I`m sure, will recognise that phrase from what is considered one of the most famous speeches in recorded history.  Its relevance to us almost exactly 162 years later is manifold.  There are probably millions of words written and spoken by thousands of learned people about the significance of those words but they were triggered in my mind by the recent announcement that government ministers can hide their criminal records from the public they ostensibly are sent to serve.   

As a background some facts of what in general is termed "disclosure". 

1. Most jobs cannot legally ask for spent convictions.


Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) once a conviction is “spent”, the individual normally does not have to disclose it.


2. Some professions are exempt from the ROA (“Exempted Professions”). These can require all convictions, including spent ones often via an Enhanced DBS check.

3. Certain roles are separately regulated and have statutory fitness-to-practise rules requiring disclosure of all past criminality.

Some professions are legally allowed or required to demand disclosure of criminal convictions. Among those are:-

Solicitors, Barristers, Legal Executives

Medicine & Healthcare Professions (Doctors, Nurses, Pharmacists

Police / Law Enforcement

Teachers / School Staff / Education Professionals

Judges, Magistrates, Court Officers

Regulated Financial Roles

Members of Parliament

Professions Working With Vulnerable Adults or Children

Military

Taxi & Private Hire Drivers

Accountants (Chartered, Certified)

There are certain exception clauses and amendments. However that government ministers can be in office with an undisclosed criminal conviction is a travesty of what is supposed to be an open democracy.  On November 12th the Information Commissioner`s Office rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office.  

On top of Keir Starmer`s gifts of spectacles and suits from sundry sources in its short period in power it`s becoming increasingly obvious that this government is pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour to equal or exceed the breaches of the 14 years of Tory mismanagement and sleaze. It seems almost daily that from the woodwork of Downing Street and the Victorian edifices of Whitehall democracy devouring weevils are hard at work filling their already bloated bellies with as much as they can before their inevitable demise as the tidal deluge of night extinguishes their brief follies in the sun of power.  

Scandals involving Government, police, NHS, military  and others  seem to be in the public eye with ever increasing frequency.  The corollary, however, is the extent of cover ups in many aspects of our "open democracy" of which we know little.  I posted last week on the secret lives of judges. Perhaps the literary legacy of another American politician less well known to the British public, Donald Rumsfeld in 2002,  is worth repeating here, "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know."

CONFIDENCE IN DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON CONFIDENCE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM

With widespread social media available to all with topics and sources  designed to lure individuals from tots and teenagers to astronomers to zoologists there is little that can be kept secret from prying eyes especially if these eyes know where to look. If an optometrist does not perform his/her duties to a required standard there is the General Optical Council to convene a disciplinary committee to investigate. The General Medical Council`s disciplinary committees have been busy of late and the dental profession has similar oversight. Indeed where the public is putting its faith in a licensed profession there are public processes available to those aggrieved with the performance of those licensed. But in that part of the UK`s often and perhaps optimistically termed "unwritten constitution" which is as Churchill described USSR in 1939 "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma" no public accountability when judges fail in their professional competence. 

Whilst the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) investigates complaints of misconduct by judges it has no part in sanctioning judges for any apparent failing in their application of the law.  Judicial capability issues are managed entirely within the judiciary under the final authority of The Lord Chief Justice (LCJ). A capability concern is usually identified by: 

A senior judge reviewing court performance

Repeated issues flagged by other judges

Feedback from court staff, legal professionals, or persistent patterns in appeals

Serious problems noted during case audits

Appeal rates themselves do not automatically trigger anything but patterns can lead to internal monitoring.

If a leadership judge (e.g., a Resident Judge, Designated Family Judge or Presiding Judge) believes a judge is struggling they may initiate:

Private meeting with the judge

Advice or mentoring

Adjusting case allocation (e.g., fewer high-complexity cases)

Support from a senior colleague

If considered appropriate LCJ  can order observation in court by senior judiciary

Mandatory retraining

Performance improvement plans

Regular monitoring

Temporary removal from sitting

If a judge cannot meet judicial standards even after support, the LCJ and Lord Chancellor jointly have the power to suspend  or remove the judge from office (in extreme cases).

But all of the above is hidden from us; the great British public. Some cases do become newsworthy; the following recent examples where incompetence or unacceptable performance are in the public domain are a world away from misconduct cases investigated by the JCIO; eg the judge who fell asleep on the bench. Perhaps the most newsworthy example of late became public knowledge only because it was revealed during the inquiry into the Post Office Scandal.  Former senior prosecutor Sir David Calvert-Smith publicly criticised a number of judges for not scrutinising the prosecution’s case deeply enough in the Horizon IT scandal leading to wrongful convictions. He argued that some judges failed to challenge prosecution evidence or push for disclosure in the trials.  Sometimes information of judicial failings is revealed only as a secondary factor in a public inquiry an example being  the inquiry into the Lucy Letby case (the deaths and collapses of babies at Chester hospital) Dr Michael Hall, a neonatologist and medical expert, strongly criticised the opening remarks made by Lady Justice Thirlwall.  Hall asserted that Thirlwall’s comments mischaracterised those who questioned the convictions and said that some of his expert medical evidence (and possibly that of other defence experts) was not sufficiently presented in the original trial. Thirlwall defended her position but the fact that such critique came out in an official inquiry means the judicial role was publicly challenged.

A Commons inquiry report in 2022 suggested that judicial independence may be under political pressure. The report found that certain ministers had conflated “decisions with political consequences” with “political decisions,” giving a misleading impression that judges were acting outside their constitutional role. 

Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lord Chancellor can remove a judicial office holder (below High Court level) for “inability to perform the functions” of the office but only after a tribunal under section 135.  There do not appear to have been in government, judicial or academic sources  a removal tribunal convened since 2020 that publicly concluded a judge was “unable to perform their duties” (i.e., a formal “capability” removal).  There seem to be no secret “Lord Chancellor competence investigation” culminating in removal of a judge for legal incompetence.  A reasonable conclusion could be that either such cases are very rare or very secret or even both. 

The legal professions from whom judges are chosen are becoming ever more aware that they and/or their members are being associated with political/constitutional opinions; leftie lawyers, immigration tribunal judges and family court judges have all had more than their fair share of recent publicity but after the newspaper headlines have receded any further investigations as to their competence will have ascended to cloud cuckoo land.  There are those who will proudly say this is the British way.  This point of view has little left to commend it. There are many criticisms of the continental way of running a nation or of an America where many posts are dependent upon election and not appointment as in UK. A certain conclusion is that if there is doubt in the competence of the legal system and its supervision there will arise doubt as to the efficacy of the democratic conventions from which it arose and developed. 

BLADED ARTICLES

 

I have posted here more than a few times that there are statistics and there are criminal activity statistics. Perhaps none of those is of more concern to ordinary law abiding people than those on knife crime. Along with illegal drugs, possession of knife or bladed article is a prime reason why stop and search is so important to the safety of communities and especially to the teenage members of such communities. When these communities are of a high proportion of ethnic minority citizens the consequences for a number of reasons can be volatile.


Police-recorded possession offences in 2024 were similar to those of 2020. The number dealt in magistrates’ courts has been broadly stable or slightly lower in the 2020–2024 period. Courts were closed during 2020 lockdowns. Immediate custodial outcomes for knife/offensive-weapon offences fell in the most recent year to 2024.

The proportion of offenders receiving immediate custody has fallen from around ~33 % in the earlier years to ~29–31 % in more recent data

For the year ending March 2024: offences = 18,572. 

For the year ending December 2024: offences = 20,422. 

Proportion receiving immediate custody for year ending March 2024 = 29%. 

Proportion receiving immediate custody for year ending December 2024 = 30.9%. 

Prior to 2020/2021 levels: the proportion had been as high as ~38-39% in years ending June 2020. 

It`s interesting to note that the percentage of offenders receiving immediate custody has fallen from ~38-39% in around 2020 to ~29-31% in more recent years. The much vaunted mantra of Justice Secretaries for decades has been to reduce knife crime and to severely punish those guilty of such.  It would take a brave and overconfident statistician to argue that their targets have been achieved.  

And finally for those who prefer a single picture to 1,000 words:-

 

SHORT AND NOT SO SWEET

 

So you`re thinking about becoming a magistrate?

MURDER, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY, SECURE HOSPITALS AND DEMOCRATIC PARADOX

In the last couple of years this country has seen what at first glance appears to be an almost monthly number of convicted murderers having their crimes reduced to that of manslaughter by diminished responsibility and sentenced to time in a secure psychiatric hospital such institutions known to my generation colloquially as loonie bins. With ever more frequent live television of the sentencing of such offenders the question arises whether or not there is a causal relationship between such killings and the closure of aforesaid psychiatric hospital beds. 

A case which still makes news sources is that of Valdo Calocane who killed three people and attempted to kill three others in Nottingham in June 2023. Although initially charged with murder the prosecution accepted his guilty pleas to manslaughter based on diminished responsibility. This decision was supported by four psychiatrists who concluded he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which impaired his ability to make rational judgments and exercise self-control. Calocane received an indefinite Hospital Order instead of a prison sentence.  That decision sparked public outrage and calls for reviews of homicide laws.

In October 2024 David Gower pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his wife, Jane Gower, by reason of diminished responsibility. The recognised medical condition was a moderate depressive disorder. Given strong personal mitigation his age and ill health he was sentenced to one year and eight months' imprisonment, suspended for two years.

Barry Donnelly (Court of Appeal ruling January 2025): While this case was an appeal regarding sentencing length the initial conviction was for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility due to schizophrenia. The Court of Appeal provided guidance on sentencing for such cases and dismissed the appeal finding the nine-year minimum term was not excessive.

A final example of recent cases of diminished responsibility being reversed in murder convictions is that of Shaine March.  He murdered his pregnant girlfriend Alana Odysseos in July 2024. He initially admitted manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility but during his trial an expert withdrew their support for the claim and he subsequently admitted murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. This case illustrates a situation where the defence was initially pursued but ultimately not accepted.

In those cases above and others similar including perhaps those in the headlines this week it is not outlandish to consider whether the closure of secure hospitals begun in 1979 and the corresponding increase in the numbers of those with severe mental problems on the streets has any relationship with the numbers of  random killings of innocent victims unknown to their assailants.  

The sentencing guideline for judges in such matters is here.  Hard statistics are just not available to consider directly whether the reduction of psychiatric beds is in any way related to those who are committed under the legislation.  As at 31 December 2020 there were 7,796 restricted patients in England & Wales.  In 1979 there were in England 88,425 available staffed mental hospital beds.  In 1987/88 there were 67,100 mental health beds falling to about 18,400 in 2018/19; a fall of roughly 73% in that period. 

England currently has three high-security hospitals, Broadmoor, Ashworth and Rampton.  These three hospitals have a combined accommodation of approaching 800 beds.  Whether or not there is a direct relationship between the reduced accommodation for seriously affected psychiatric patients/offenders and those committing serious crimes is not immediately discernible.  It appears that there are so many sources involved that it would take highly qualified researchers with access to perhaps dozens of sources and millions of bits of information to come to a possible conclusion.  My rule of thumb by a very basic read through indicates that there were the following cases of  murder being reduced to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility for selected years as below 

 2006: ≈ 32

2008: ≈ 36

2014: 23 (Sentencing Council reported value / sample)

2016:  ≈ 24

From the above a cynic might argue that with regard to those who for no apparent logical reason enter upon a killing spree our governments have and had literally no knowledge as to the causation and in particular that their own policies have contributed to the current situation. We hear almost daily about victims.  They are the unfortunate results of a country driven by its governors spending tax payers` taxes on aftercare and overlooking pre care. As in other societal aspects research on so many subjects is sacrificed to cosseting those who choose to spend their £ on TV contracts, gambling, holidays and other ancillary examples of their self defined entitled lifestyle.  

The disturbing conclusion is that perhaps our form of democratic government can no longer be relied upon to deliver that which is best for the majority of the population. The current Cabinet has made it quite obvious that its prime purpose is to be re-elected; a target which many within have realised is unobtainable. That same venerable cynic might suggest that faith in our leaders has hit the nadir. During his campaign for the Labour leadership in 2020 Keir Starmer indicated a desire for electoral reform and a move toward proportional representation (PR) saying that the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system caused millions of votes to be wasted and that this "has got to be addressed".  Then it suited his purpose to say that but how times have changed. In the run-up to the 2024 general election and after becoming Prime Minister he explicitly stated that electoral reform was "not a priority for me" and that Labour would contest the election under the existing FPTP system. Last year he also indicated that FPTP was "the right system" as it provides a strong and stable government. 

The debacle that has become our justice system with all the ramifications for all of us is the thin edge of a very large wedge in the shape of Marxists, Greens, Fascists and Islamists in a combined diabolical journey pushing at the boundaries of our very democracy. The timing of the democratic paradox is fast approaching when the will of the majority collides with individual rights and non democratic means must be employed to protect those rights. 

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.