This week an article in the Spectator clearly reveals the reality of a body politic which has been infected by a policy virus which has been zealously transmitted to police and prosecutors alike. As with all such plagues in history it will eventually sow the seeds of its own destruction when the infected hosts become too few to sustain its pathogenicity. But by that time countless lives will have been damaged or worse. When western society is experiencing the politicisation of cults in the form of Trump, Sanders and Corbyn followers who worship the man before the politics and who are supposedly adult in status all we can do is hope that like the Beetlemania of teenagers of another era it will pass and ideas will eventually prevail over personality.
Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.
Tuesday 9 August 2016
CULTS AND THE PATHOGENICITY OF SUPPOSED HATE CRIME
This week an article in the Spectator clearly reveals the reality of a body politic which has been infected by a policy virus which has been zealously transmitted to police and prosecutors alike. As with all such plagues in history it will eventually sow the seeds of its own destruction when the infected hosts become too few to sustain its pathogenicity. But by that time countless lives will have been damaged or worse. When western society is experiencing the politicisation of cults in the form of Trump, Sanders and Corbyn followers who worship the man before the politics and who are supposedly adult in status all we can do is hope that like the Beetlemania of teenagers of another era it will pass and ideas will eventually prevail over personality.
Monday 8 August 2016
JEREMIAH AND NEW JUSTICES OF THE PEACE RULES
Whilst in office I tended not to attend events arranged by the social committee. Generally I liked and/or respected my colleagues but there were exceptions as I suppose there are in all similar gatherings. But when it came to bench meetings I rarely missed the three or four times a year evening. Apart from the formally constituted annual election meeting the other two or three in the year usually allowed a wide range of discussion around an agenda often used for that very purpose. That was until HMCTS took control and the Justices` Clerk, not the affable and familiar Deputy, assumed a greater role in the proceedings. Indeed I well remember an occasion when that J.C. told the bench chairman as I was on my feet that the particular topic and point raised was not a matter for the bench. He was told exactly where his authority ended. Such occasions might now be stymied. On July 31st Justices of the Peace Rules 2016 came into practice. Within these rules amongst other things regarding bench meetings it is written:-
7.
Justices for an area shall meet no less than once per year between 1 April and 31 March to carry out the purposes in paragraph 8.
8.
The purposes of Bench meetings include:
a). enabling justices to liaise with other bodies to share information relevant to the
work of the magistrates’ court;
b). representing the views of Justices (principally through their Chairman or Deputy Chairmen) including to the Judicial Business Group and other governance groups of justices;
c). making recommendations to the relevant body responsible for training for inclusion in an annual training plan and any training necessary to ensure that Justices maintain their competence;
d). providing a forum for training agreed under the training plan.
By stipulating the minimum single meeting required (the election meeting) it is likely that many benches will abandon the idea of having any other meetings throughout the year. Thus there will be less opportunity for bench members to discuss matters important to them but not necessarily contained within the above parameters. This will increase the power and influence of HMCTS and reduce yet again the ability of individual justices to have some control of their judicial career.
I hope I`m just a Jeremiah making noises off stage but I doubt it.
By stipulating the minimum single meeting required (the election meeting) it is likely that many benches will abandon the idea of having any other meetings throughout the year. Thus there will be less opportunity for bench members to discuss matters important to them but not necessarily contained within the above parameters. This will increase the power and influence of HMCTS and reduce yet again the ability of individual justices to have some control of their judicial career.
I hope I`m just a Jeremiah making noises off stage but I doubt it.
Friday 5 August 2016
THE UNACCEPTABLE WORDS OF A DISTRICT JUDGE
Last week at Kirklees Magistrates Court a lay bench of J.P.s disposed of a charge of racially aggravated threatening behaviour............a very woolly offence which in some circumstances can be conjoured up over a very minor and spontaneous atypical verbal outburst........by the imposition of a 12 months conditional discharge. From the report which has only the barest of details it appears it was another example of a police officer milking a situation for all it was worth. Nevertheless West Yorkshire branch of the Police Federation made a big splash about what they described as, "an utter joke of a sentence". As the police trade union there was nothing exceptional about its opinion being put into the public domain. What followed was indeed exceptional. The same offender, earlier this week on August 3rd, appeared before District Judge Michael Fanning at Huddersfield Court on charges of breaching court orders. During that hearing the judge commented, "He got a conditional discharge and I can’t see how when you commit a racially-aggravated offence in these circumstances for which you were convicted in your absence. It seems to me that it was dealt with very lightly".
It is my strong opinion that by criticising disparagingly in front of the offender in a public courtroom the sentence previously handed out to him by the lay bench this judge has brought the law into disrepute. I hope the chairman of the bench in West Yorkshire has the cajones to complain to the Senior Presiding Judge on behalf of all his/her colleagues.
Thursday 4 August 2016
EBB AND FLOW OF RUSSIAN PAGE VIEWS
I don`t know whether I`m pleased or not that the sudden influx of page views from Russia last weekend seems to have passed. Currently it is unlikely that the daily numbers of the comrades will reach three figures. Such is a graphic example of the ebb and flow on the world wide web.
Wednesday 3 August 2016
SILENT WITNESS & AN IGNORANT GOVT. MINISTER
Yesterday I posted on the words used by a High Court judge during a hearing within the family division. Perhaps it is only politicians as a group who should care more for their public utterances. When ministers of the crown offer their opinions especially outside Westminster they should be doubly mindful of what they say. When the minister is one of the few remaining former barristers (Kenneth Clarke MP is another) still flaunting in his biographies the courtesy title of Queens Counsel awarded to members of that profession purely as a result of being elected to parliament and certainly not as a sign of recognised excellence, a practice quite correctly discontinued about 25 years ago, we gain a glimpse of the inner man. Notwithstanding that background the Hon.....oops......Rt Hon gentleman is now Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice. Recently he made an official visit to Liverpool Crown Court where he commented on the improvements taking place within the courts` system. Amongst other things in a report in the Liverpool Echo he was quoted as saying, “This court is one of the first to use new technology, which allows
cross-examination of a witness, which is recorded in advance. “It means they know that they have given their evidence and that is that. It gives them a sense of closure. “They
have already had a horrible experience. To come to court and have to
live it again and experience cross-examination, which could be very
long, was difficult." This all very laudable. As is the current fashion he appears to place "victims" at the centre of the justice system; a practice that will be seen in time as great endeavour but highly misplaced. However, of more significance, he goes on to say, "Sometimes the jury cannot agree on a verdict and you can then have a retrial, when they had to go through it all over again. “We don’t need to when we have already got their evidence pre-recorded."
Think about that. The necessity of a re-trial as he is discussing is because a jury cannot agree a majority verdict. And that in itself indicates that the evidence presented is not sufficient to erase that shadow of doubt in the minds of at least three jurors. The logical next step is that the evidence of witnesses at a re trial should be further cross examined to remove any lingering doubts before another jury. The very idea that the same video being presented to it which might have left unanswered questions at the previous trial should simply be replayed on the second occasion is frankly nonsense. Indeed it is more than nonsense. It is an abrogation of the function of a trial by jury. For such an opinion to be propounded by the minister responsible is a travesty. Once again the arrogance and ignorance of a senior politician is before us for all to see.
Think about that. The necessity of a re-trial as he is discussing is because a jury cannot agree a majority verdict. And that in itself indicates that the evidence presented is not sufficient to erase that shadow of doubt in the minds of at least three jurors. The logical next step is that the evidence of witnesses at a re trial should be further cross examined to remove any lingering doubts before another jury. The very idea that the same video being presented to it which might have left unanswered questions at the previous trial should simply be replayed on the second occasion is frankly nonsense. Indeed it is more than nonsense. It is an abrogation of the function of a trial by jury. For such an opinion to be propounded by the minister responsible is a travesty. Once again the arrogance and ignorance of a senior politician is before us for all to see.
Tuesday 2 August 2016
HIGH COURT JUDGE HAS LOST HIS MORAL COMPASS
Long before my occupation of the middle chair I came to the conclusion that legal advisors and lawyers were often unaware that the language they were speaking was almost unintelligible to the court users to whom it was addressed. When I was authorised to occupy the middle chair I was in a position to remedy these failings. Lawyers mildly chastised along those lines invariably accepted with good grace and usually a smile that my interruption was merely to speed up the process for all. Pointers in the other direction whether of substance or style were usually of more substance. Criticism of a High Court during proceedings is a rare event. However outside the courtroom it obviously has no legal effect but the ramifications can be explosive. Mrs Justice Hogg and the Ellie Butler case was an example.
Another High Court judge of the family division, Mr Justice Holman, made remarks in a recent case that seem to have been largely overlooked. A Saudi father has kept his British daughter in a cage for four years at his home in Jeddah. Whatever the rights and wrongs involved, (a report is available here,) the judge did nothing to enhance the reputation of British jurisprudence when he said, "We have to be careful about asserting the supremacy of our cultural standards."
It is just this levelling down of the basis of our legal and cultural heritage which I find nothing less than nauseating. Taken to its logical conclusion we must assume that in the judge`s mind there is no moral, legal, cultural, historical or religious basis for the way in which we conduct or attempt to conduct our society in what we consider the most satisfactory manner for the benefit of all of us. Mr Justice Holman might be a High Court judge but if these comments are a reflection of his thinking processes the Appointments Committee missed a trick granting him the honour and privilege of occupying that most prestigious of chairs. He has lost his moral compass.
Monday 1 August 2016
HIS LORDSHIP WAS TOO IMPORTANT TO SUFFER COURT DELAY
We are all equal before the law or so we thought. I would opine that equality is not limited to the accused, whether king or commoner, being granted a right to a fair trial to be judged by his peers but also to other witnesses without whom there would be no system of justice in which we could have confidence.
As with many institutions there are timetables for the working of our courts. These are drawn up months, weeks or days in advance depending upon the detail involved and allowing if and when possible for last minute adjustments. These timetables or listings by their very nature must allow for variation and adaptability. For trials at magistrates` courts witnesses are generally required to attend at 9.30am or perhaps 10.00am for morning sittings and 1.30pm or 2.00pm for those in the afternoon. Depending upon the circumstances of the day the bench will decide the order of priorities when dealing with more than a single matter listed for a sitting. These decisions will depend upon the time previously allocated for the matter(s), witness readiness, advocates` preparedness, advice from legal advisor and any other circumstances deemed important. Whilst witnesses and defendants are expected to attend there is generally no compulsion upon the former except in the relatively few cases when a witness summons has been served.
Last Tuesday at Highbury Corner Magistrates` Court in north London a certain Lord Glasman was in attendance as the prosecution`s chief witness in a trial in which it was alleged that the accused had attempted to rob him of his briefcase. However for reasons unknown the trial did not proceed at the time listed; presumably 10.00am. His lordship being a very important man with an appointment to participate in a meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England and others decided, after being kept waiting over an hour to be called, that his meeting was more important than the trial and left. As a result the trial had to be been adjourned until August 9th. Obviously there is a cost to his lordship`s inabilty to monitor his diary and schedule his time appropriately. Other witnesses might have had their time wasted. A CPS prosecutor and a defence lawyer have had their preparation time wasted and the accused is required to endure a (extended?) curfew until the new trial date. In simple terms this supposedly important personage has placed his personal responsibilities ahead of his civil duties as a responsible citizen.
And what of the hundreds of witnesses daily who attend trials at magistrates` courts? Do they not suffer the frustrations of being kept waiting? Do they not allow for delay in their timetables? I can understand that an ordinary working man or woman unfamiliar with the courts and their systemic problems of delay might be caught short in their personal schedules eg in matters of childcare or responsibilies to employers but in this case we are dealing with a highly educated member of the House of Lords.
IMHO he is a disgrace to that House and a man whose arrogance to the court is just another example of the disfunction between the ruler and the ruled. Indeed he is so self important that he hasn`t spoken in parliament for almost three years. It is unknown whether or not the defence will table a wasted costs order at the close of the proceedings.
As with many institutions there are timetables for the working of our courts. These are drawn up months, weeks or days in advance depending upon the detail involved and allowing if and when possible for last minute adjustments. These timetables or listings by their very nature must allow for variation and adaptability. For trials at magistrates` courts witnesses are generally required to attend at 9.30am or perhaps 10.00am for morning sittings and 1.30pm or 2.00pm for those in the afternoon. Depending upon the circumstances of the day the bench will decide the order of priorities when dealing with more than a single matter listed for a sitting. These decisions will depend upon the time previously allocated for the matter(s), witness readiness, advocates` preparedness, advice from legal advisor and any other circumstances deemed important. Whilst witnesses and defendants are expected to attend there is generally no compulsion upon the former except in the relatively few cases when a witness summons has been served.
Last Tuesday at Highbury Corner Magistrates` Court in north London a certain Lord Glasman was in attendance as the prosecution`s chief witness in a trial in which it was alleged that the accused had attempted to rob him of his briefcase. However for reasons unknown the trial did not proceed at the time listed; presumably 10.00am. His lordship being a very important man with an appointment to participate in a meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England and others decided, after being kept waiting over an hour to be called, that his meeting was more important than the trial and left. As a result the trial had to be been adjourned until August 9th. Obviously there is a cost to his lordship`s inabilty to monitor his diary and schedule his time appropriately. Other witnesses might have had their time wasted. A CPS prosecutor and a defence lawyer have had their preparation time wasted and the accused is required to endure a (extended?) curfew until the new trial date. In simple terms this supposedly important personage has placed his personal responsibilities ahead of his civil duties as a responsible citizen.
And what of the hundreds of witnesses daily who attend trials at magistrates` courts? Do they not suffer the frustrations of being kept waiting? Do they not allow for delay in their timetables? I can understand that an ordinary working man or woman unfamiliar with the courts and their systemic problems of delay might be caught short in their personal schedules eg in matters of childcare or responsibilies to employers but in this case we are dealing with a highly educated member of the House of Lords.
IMHO he is a disgrace to that House and a man whose arrogance to the court is just another example of the disfunction between the ruler and the ruled. Indeed he is so self important that he hasn`t spoken in parliament for almost three years. It is unknown whether or not the defence will table a wasted costs order at the close of the proceedings.
Saturday 30 July 2016
PUTIN`S PROPAGANDA
Friday 29 July 2016
RUSSIAN VIEWERS//HURRAH FOR BLOGSPOT TRANSLATOR
Over the last few days I`ve noticed that an increasing number of page views of this blog originate from Russia. Yesterday there were close on one thousand. This is puzzling. Is a certain V. Putin putting his watch dogs on the blog? Does it pose a threat to the Kremlin? How can the occasional rants by a somewhat cynical perhaps confused capitalist with libertarian leanings and memories of a council house upbringing attract such observers? Maybe this is just a flash in the proverbial pan and my Russian readers will find somewhere else to augment their English language lessons. I say hurrah for blogspot translator.
MANDATORY CUSTODY FOR COMMON ASSAULT ON ULSTER POLICE
The Police Federation of Northern Ireland is a unique organisation in
the U.K. Its members are permanently armed and 18 years after the Good
Friday Agreement still face threats rare in the rest of the country.
Whilst the degree of misconduct amongst
PSNI is probably no better or worse than on the mainland inquiries into
shootings resulting in death seem rare. Assault on police on the
other hand are not uncommon. According to a FOI request "in the financial year 2014/2015 there were 2,866 assault offences where the victim was a police officer on duty."
The Police Federation of Northern Ireland is arguing that a custodial
sentence should be mandatory for every offender convicted of an assault
on their members. Their request to Stormont makes
clear that even those convicted of common assault where no harm occurs
should suffer that mandatory jail sentence. There cannot be a single
J.P. or criminal lawyer who is unaware and/or has no experience of the
most perfunctory "assault on P.C." being brought to court on the
flimsiest of evidence. The good burghers of Stormont should think
carefully before acquiescing to this request.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)