RE - ARRANGE DECKCHAIRS AND IGNORE SINKING; AKA DRINKING BANNING ORDERS

Under the Labour administration of 1997 – 2010 we have had introduced over three thousand new laws; Police Community Support Officers, revamped traffic wardens with powers to issue penalty notices in addition to parking tickets, ASBOs which are civil orders the breach of which can lead to lengthy custodial sentences are some examples.



Since 21/08/2009 Magistrates` and County Courts have had the power to make Drinking Banning Orders. DBOs on conviction came into force on 1st April 2010 in 25 Local Justice Areas. Latest available figures are that a total of only 625 DBOs was issued to 31st December 2011. It has been recognised by many statistical analyses that around 70% of all crime is committed by offenders addicted to alcohol and/or drugs. Considering that many more individuals are addicted to the former rather than the latter the number of alcoholics with a criminal record must number in the millions. The NHS estimates that around 9% of men in the UK and 4% of UK women show signs of alcohol dependence. The miniscule number of DBOs ......a single order per day for England & Wales is an indication that magistrates` courts have more sense than the government which introduced them. All they do is disperse the problem elsewhere. Indeed it is just another reason why alcoholic offenders should be treated as medical cases and if necessary by compulsion just as schizophrenic and other mentally unstable patients can, under certain circumstances, be forcibly incarcerated in places of safety for themselves and the general public who must be protected. Hardly a week goes by without headline stories of the havoc wreaked by such people who are supposed to be being “cared for in the community” but are walking the streets.



And yet the new publicity seekers within the law `n order brigade, Police and Crime Commissioners, still consider that shouting louder makes for understanding. The latest of these loudmouths making a noise is Adam Simmonds P.C.C. for Northamptonshire whose local online media have spread his hope that magistrates inter alia will increase their use of Drink Banning Orders. The object of his wrath was an individual who was sentenced to such a disposal at the local crown court by an order banning him from entering any pub, club or bar in Northamptonshire. He is being set up to fail. It is not reported whether or not any ancillary orders were made.



Public drunkenness is now a regular and frequent feature of high streets from Andover to Yarmouth. Where it can be controlled as on public transport or at sporting events it has brought a metaphorical breath of fresh air to the vast crowds who use or attend these places. But on our streets it seems the ubiquitous DBO is being applied like a Band Aid to a bullet wound. Such orders IMHO are a complete waste of time and resource. Invariably those subject to such orders can without much forethought figure out how to evade them. Breaches cannot be punished by a custodial sentence. All they do is displace the problem drinker from one area to another. If ever legislation is seen to be like moving the chairs on the deck of the Titanic DBOs are a prime example.

DUE LEGAL PROCESS

Freedom of the press is once more a hot topic. But perhaps of equal import is the sometimes careless sub editing of articles or their headlines. From time to time as J.P.s we are responsible for the granting or refusal of search warrants for which police have applied. We (or sometimes a single Justice) will review the merits of what is placed before us and decide whether or not the information is fit for purpose. In my court this procedure is usually conducted after the court has been cleared for obvious reasons of security.

In Yeovil, District Judge Maurice Champion must have heard an application to close down an alleged crack house in open court such is the lengthy report of the proceedings in the local on-line “This is Somerset”. Note the article`s headline:- “Judge refuses to shut alleged crack house”. The very fact that the judge refused to accept the allegation leads logically to question that headline. The impression from its double negative connotation is of a judge failing in his duty to assist police and so failing the local neighbourhood. The sub editors seem to have overlooked the minor constitutional point that judges (and magistrates) are in post to ensure that due legal process is observed.
 

If the day comes when judges are merely rubberstamping the demands of police or government this country will really have hit rock bottom.

THE WITNESS OATH//AN OPPORTUNITY WASTED AT MAGISTRATES` A.G.M.

Unsurprisingly there has been only limited publicity in national media to a motion to be debated at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting of the Magistrates` Association. This event has historically been a talking shop for the small numbers attending and of little interest to anyone else.  However in the light of the momentous changes affecting magistrates  which have taken place since 2010, are in current progress  and/or are likely to be activated in the next few years, changes which affect the functioning of the courts through which over 90% of criminal cases begin and end,  some might consider that one of the two resolutions for debate ; “this Annual General Meeting believes that the present oath and affirmation are no longer fit for purpose and should be replaced by the following: ‘I promise very sincerely to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I understand that, if I fail to do so, I will be committing an offence for which I will be punished and may be sent to prison.’   is a peripheral matter and not worthy of the time allocated for its discussion.   

Witnesses in court currently are offered the opportunity to take the oath on an appropriate holy book or to affirm.  The wording of the former is, “I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.  Those who choose to affirm say, "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 historical terms oath taking can be traced back to the Book of Genesis.  Virtually all ancient civilisations recognised the taking of an oath as the highest level that an individual could place upon the truthfulness of his words.  The Christian tradition from which current English court practice is derived originated at a time when the population believing in a literal translation of the Bible was in awe of the Church and the divine retribution for lying having taken the Lord`s name in vain.  There were notable exceptions particularly Quakers who to this day will affirm rather than swear.  Similar religious objections to swearing the oath are held by orthodox Jews.  The manner in which a witness is asked to swear or affirm is of some significance.  I have often heard a legal advisor say to a witness, “Do you want to swear on your holy book or affirm?”  Other forms of approach are, “ Do you have a religion?”  and variations thereof.   Unless the witness has a belief in divine retribution it seems to me that the oath indeed is superfluous even if it is followed by a warning of the consequences of lying.  From that point of view an affirmation to tell the truth is more realistic.  Over the years I have noticed that the majority of police officers declines the oath and affirms.  I would leave readers to make their own conclusions on that observation.  It is usually the case  that very rarely if ever does a witness who might be considered Muslim or ethnically of Arab heritage decline to swear on the Koran.  It seems that even when such witnesses in their evidence attest to behaviour forbidden by the Koran they have chosen not to affirm.  There are certain conclusions that might be drawn from this equivocal attitude to religious belief or lack of and not just by Muslims  that might be more suitable for another occasion by other commenters.   

The threat of court proceedings in the event of a witness having been shown to be a liar  is  99% an empty threat.  In 2010 only three defendants of 37 charged were found guilty of perjury in a magistrates` court and one of those was given a conditional discharge.  That is the real situation of truth telling and lying in the lower court.  

The taking of the oath has significance only to a small minority.  I therefore support the motion but wish the M.A. would have relegated it to a lower level of discussion and allowed more significant changes to our situation to be the subject of debate at the A.G.M.

DEFECTIVE TYRES

One of the more undignified situations which can befall us in the winter months is to slip on an icy patch of pavement or road; if the latter a lack of dignity is the least of the possible outcomes.  Those few square inches of leather or rubber on the soles of our feet just did not have sufficient friction to prevent our losing balance.  It is incredible to consider that about the same such area is the area a tyre has in contact with a road surface. All that steering and braking technology has zero value if the tyre behaves as our footwear on that icy street. 

Apparently over 87% of the 10,228 prosecutions for defective tyres last year were proved.  My personal experience of such cases is that other charges are often brought in addition.  Rarely is the maximum fine of £2,500 imposed but the three penalty points are mandatory and can lead unsuspecting drivers to the totting limit of twelve.  Considering that the cost of tyres, economy brands included, is so relatively low the price for neglect in this regard can be extremely high in every meaning of that word especially when considered as an aggravating circumstance in a more serious charge.

AFTER DINOSAUR J.P.s; THE DAILY MAIL: HEAVEN PRESERVE US!

Yesterday I posted on publicly reported remarks made by a J.P. at his retirement.  I have no doubts that his opinions are shared by some if not many of my colleagues.   My own position is quite clear; there is a direction from the very top levels of government to limit the numbers of offenders being sent to immediate custody.  Of course nowhere will there be a direct quote from those responsible.  But the evidence is as clear as daylight.  On 27/09/2013 the prison population was 84,430;  operational capacity is 87,788.  Simple arithmetic shows that the prisons are running at over 96% capacity.  In NHS hospitals in England there are 19,710 beds available for overnight occupation from a total of  136,471; i.e. hospitals which are maligned for the failure to provide sufficient beds are running at 85% capacity.  Sentencing Guidelines provide further evidence that the hurdles especially to imprisonment for lower level offending have been raised.   Nowhere is this more apparent than in the offences of driving whilst disqualified, assault and theft (shoplifting). 

Our legislators are abysmally ignorant of the realities. Rehmen Chishti MP is the sponsor  of his forthcoming Drink Driving (Repeat Offenders ) Bill which he hopes will curb this anti social and dangerous behaviour.  His proposal is that the current maximum sentence of six months should be increased to two years.  Considering that the offence is summary only that would mean it should become "either way" and be tried before judge and jury thus increasing time and cost.  Perhaps Mr Chishti is unaware of some facts. When I was appointed in the `90s it was not uncommon for a second offence of drink driving to be punished by a custodial sentence up to six months.  That now rarely happens owing to this and the previous government`s desire to reduce prison  numbers.  It is only after a third similar offence or an extremely aggravated second offence that prison is considered appropriate and often the sentence is suspended.

Assault on the streets is cited as a very common fear especially by younger and  paradoxically older members of the population.  Around half a million summary non motoring offences are dealt with annually at magistrates` courts.  It is almost impossible for this non research fellow to ascertain the rate of immediate imprisonment for assault by beating.  Anecdotally I would suggest that the rate is considerably less than it was twenty years ago.  The ubiquitous “Suspended Sentence Order” appears so often now on pre sentence reports that I wonder if the writers understand that the custody threshold must be passed before consideration of suspending such a disposal is in the public interest.  The SSO itself to have any meaning must have the default imposition of immediate custody applied following a further conviction within the period of suspension.   All too often that does not happen and IMHO that brings the law into disrepute. The following case was heard by South Durham Magistrates sitting at Darlington Magistrates' Court:  comment without full knowledge is dangerous but examples such as this are commonplace.  What might be the view of the citizen of Darlington reading this short report?

“SENTENCE BREACH: Abigail Rae Noble, 21, of Middleton Street, Darlington, admitted two breaches of a suspended sentence order imposed by Teesside Crown Court. As punishment, magistrates imposed an eight week curfew, valid between 7pm and 7am each night, and ordered her to continue with community requirements of the original order”.

Many official statistics consider that 70% of acquisitive crime is due to addicts, whether of drugs and/or alcohol, seeking funds to feed their habit(s).   Shoplifting by any other term is often their preferred route to raising cash.  Sentencing Guidelines allow immediate imprisonment for such offenders even when the sum in question is only a few pounds.   Magistrates have a public protection duty in addition to consideration of the criminal`s  circumstances.  All too often I feel that that consideration is overlooked.   

A bench at Warwickshire Justice Centre chose not to impose prison terms on two individuals with what might be regarded as a propensity for thieving.  I can say that having sat on many similar cases I feel that that obligation for public protection is now not a consideration for many of my colleagues.

Perhaps when dinosaurs like me have retired the Howard League and its supporters will succeed in banning all prison sentences of less than six months.  Heaven preserve us all if we have to rely on the Daily Mail to plead our cause.

SAYING IT LIKE IT IS BUT ONLY WHEN RETIRED

Of all the prohibitions on the activities or actions a Justice of the Peace can undertake none is taken more seriously than talking to the media on the record.  The Media Guide for the Judiciary is the rod with which a J.P.`s back can be broken if it is considered that s/he has stepped out of line.  Colleagues have been removed from the magistracy for such failings.  So it is hardly surprising that just as former generals or senior civil servants wait until their pensions are assured before going public with criticisms of systems or institutions, criticisms which would have had much more significance if they had been delivered whilst the bearer was in post, Alan Bissell J.P. waited until the moment he retired from the Flintshire Bench before lambasting procedures with which he (and others) had been forced to comply.   His main outpouring was his belief that the concept of punishment had been diminished by the actions of government over many years. Certainly he would have received a letter from the Office for Judicial Complaints if he had made his remarks, which must have been co-ordinated with the press who reported them,  a few weeks or months earlier.   

Of course Grayling, like his predecessors, can and does produce volumes of statistics to show that whatever is the real situation crime is diminishing, police are not failing and the courts are more efficient than ever.  But there is one factor that by its very nature cannot be abused by statisticians because it is a negative and everyone knows that negatives are very difficult to substantiate.  And that is the increasing tendency of the Crown Prosecution Service to undercharge on assault from the summary charge to the most serious life threatening offences.  Other forms of criminality eg fraud are also undercharged but for magistrates it is assault with which we are most familiar.  I would posit that there is not a single colleague who has not sat on simple assault by beating and thought that the CPS was failing in its public duty of protection by not  using the more serious charges that the case details warranted. The reason for such dereliction of duty in an organisation which has rid itself of 10%+ of its lawyers and is operating on a much reduced budget is not difficult to find.  The other side of the same coin is well illustrated in a case on which I sat a few weeks ago.  One simple incident when a young white woman who had been observed drinking from a can of cider and shouting at her friends  pushed a  black policeman in the back shouting “black trash” was charged with being drunk & disorderly,  assault P.C. and s.5 Public Order Act racially aggravated.  She was, as I recall,  convicted by majority of all three offences and the CPS`s statistics were duly enhanced. 

Is this the best way of applying the too oft repeated mantra, “We are the party of law `n order”? I wish Alan Bissell a well earned retirement from the bench.  Long may his cup runneth over. 

WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TIN

My last sitting saw me in the courtroom for six hours.  Those unaware of the wall to wall inefficiencies to be encountered in magistrates` courts might utter, “so what”.  They would be right to do so.  The time wasted in courts presided over by me and my colleagues has to be seen and experienced to be believed.  I won`t rehearse the reasons.  Everyone bar the number crunchers and greasy pole climbers at HMCTS and Justice Ministry who behave like the three monkeys is well aware that the withdrawal of capital from the system has wrought changes which if not readily reversed will have ever lasting detrimental effects on what was once one of the  world`s fairest justice systems where in timely fashion it was almost beyond reasonable doubt that the innocent were acquitted and the guilty punished with punishment appropriate to the offences committed. 

But returning to my recent all day session;  the morning was taken up by the trial of a youth of nineteen; a refugee  from a war torn central African state, who was charged with assault.  When he was identified we asked our L/A to have him confirm his date of birth.  William Hill would have given odds on he was no more that 15 given his slight build and height of about 5ft 6 inches.  However he insisted he was 19 and CPS called the complainant, a cruiserweight to the accused`s featherweight status. African boy spoke a very educated English and displayed a certain confidence bordering on arrogance when he gave his version of events.  Severe cross examination did not put him off his stride.  The evidence, however, was so overwhelming that we wondered how legal advice had allowed him at this 3^rd listing to continue with a not guilty plea. 

With his previous good character, a part time evening job at a supermarket and confirmation of his excellent grades at college we were satisfied that a conditional discharge and advice to avoid alcohol which seemed to be responsible for his errant behaviour was an appropriate disposal.  The relief on the face of his mother in the public gallery was an indication that his offending might have been nipped in the bud. 

Our afternoon was occupied by the case of a Sudanese man from the Nubian region.  He was about 60 and walked with the aid of walking sticks in each hand.  He had the classical features of his race.  His jet black skin, sculptured cheekbones and classical brow would not have been misplaced on a hieroglyph from ancient Egypt.  His authoritative manner matched his appearance.  He had previously been tried in absence and found guilty of s.4 public order and was before us with his lawyer applying to have his case re-opened.  After lengthy legal argument which I personally found particularly intellectually stimulating he failed. Post sentence we wondered just what damage he could have been capable of if he could have moved freely without his crippled lower limbs being assisted by the walking sticks occupying his hands.

The standard has been set.  I doubt that there will be another non remand session before  2014  where my all day sitting will be what it says on the tin. 

THE ARROGANCE OF A LOCAL COUNCILLOR IN BOURNEMOUTH

From Hillsborough via the Stafford hospital scandal, by passing numerous “baby bashing” cases and child grooming the authorities concerned have generally tried to avoid personal responsibility by staff members for actions ranging from misconduct to manslaughter.  These staff members have ranged from chief executives to individual professionally qualified personnel.  Blame has been placed on procedures, culture or institutional deficiencies of one sort or another.  Overseeing authority has also been reluctant to place blame where it is or has been deserved.  The recent BBC debacle has been a prime example.  So when an authoritative source names names, feathers are ruffled.  And so it seems were the  burghers of  Bournemouth. 

Since magistrates` courts had taken from them licensing duties which had been in their domain for decades their remaining function in this regard has been as a court of appeal.  And councillors in the Dorset seaside town went to the press with their anger at remarks at such an appeal.  The bench chairman had, in the councillor`s opinion, the temerity to make clear the court`s reasons for rejecting an appeal by said council.  The reasons reported included criticism of evidence given to the court by council officials. Apparently that upset a fine upstanding  local representative.  His own display of pique and arrogance by somebody who should know better was an indication of his limited understanding and appreciation of what the law is about.  The magistrates concerned will of course say nothing more in public about their decision.  Their reasons are already in the public domain.  They are above local political shenanigans.  If a council officer was deserving of criticism in the proceedings it was their duty to say so publicly. 

There has been too much circling of the wagons to protect poorly performing publicly paid council workers however senior.  If the courts cannot make known their reasons including criticism of such people we should all start learning Mandarin.

LONDON PROBATION TRUST DRIVEN BY SERCO

I would imagine that anybody reading here would by now be aware of changes being forced upon the probation service.  The underlying theme is payment byresults.  There is vociferous opposition to this initiative much of it coming not unnaturally from those professionals  who will have to undertake their work where the motivation is profit as opposed to performance.  Protagonists would argue that performance leads to profit and one cannot be achieved without the other.  That might be a sound point of view except that the statistical bases on which PBR is and will be judged  are open to much scrutiny.   Indeed considering all the controversial decisions at the Ministry of Justice since 2010 this change to the concept of probation services must rank near the top of the list.

I have been sent a programme attached to a regular newsletter for an event on 3^rd October being hosted by London Probation Trust in its new partnership with SERCO.   I will leave readers to form their own opinions but a thought does strike me that the glossier and more upbeat a programme looks the less substance is at its core.

CONFUSION ARISING FROM PROPOSED SMOKING BAN IN PRISONS

There are three constituent parts of any criminal justice system, the process of catching suspected offenders, charging and convicting them in the courts and incarcerating them in prisons. The first two components consist of many people with corresponding checks and balances to ensure justice is done with fairness to all and is seen to be thus done. However when it comes to the running of prisons in general the governor is "king" and almost but not quite an absolute monarch. Controversy erupts from time to time when it is revealed that governors have supreme  power and are using that power to release prisoners far sooner than anybody had authorised.

If prison governors are "kings" then prison warders are the "nobles" and as we learn in history kings and nobles were often in conflict as to where the power would lie. In prison it is forbidden for inmates to possess or use mobile phones, drugs, or to use networking sites. So there is no drug problem in jails.....? no criminal activity involving mobile phone contact between convicts and the outside world.....? And  of course using Facebook and similar sites is forbidden so nobody in prison does it......?

It has been said by many with knowledge that the Prison Officers Union is the last bastion of left wing union extremism where union power and not the management is in control of the work place.  Similarly it has been said that whilst drugs are illegal if they were totally excluded from jails there would be serious riots with the result that to a certain extent a blind eye is turned to the illegal supply in prisons. If using Facebook is contrary to prison rules how does a dangerous inmate access it without the knowledge of those paid to keep him secure and out of contact with the public at large?  With the government`s intention to ban smoking by all within a prison`s gates should we be grateful for its benevolence in trying to wean offenders from that most deadly weed?  The Prison Officers Association has been in the vanguard of those seeking a smoking ban in prisons. The Association is of course in favour of all the other restrictions mentioned above but its members seem a tolerant lot to the transgressors  and it`s easy to understand why; those incarcerated for long hours in overcrowded cells need little to change them from docile dependent individuals to angry aggravated  resentful objectors to their situation.  Cigarettes, for those addicted, in addition to being a currency in prison allow a sense of satisfaction when that craving is assuaged.  Take away that small amount of pleasure to be substituted by nicotine patches and it is not unlikely that life will become more intense for warders and negate any benefits accruing from the removal of secondary inhalation of nicotine.  

But governments of the current colour and that previous seem to operate as if by mantra. Human Rights law being applied to army personnel in a war situation appears to be totally incongruous. And applying a no smoking philosophy in line with current legislation on the tobacco habit in prisons is as surely a recipe for disaster as was the coalition`s West Coast rail contract, its contract for courts interpreter services, its proposed “pasty tax”, its proposed forestry sell off and a dozen other U turns.

If prisons are being run for the benefit of a quiet life for their employees as a first consideration and the protection of the public as a second I find this whole process of a smoking ban difficult to understand.

SPITTING IN THE STREET

I make no apologies for copying below  my post  earlier this year of  18^th February when I was still at my previous web address.   It is unclear from the report whether J.P.s or a District Judge(MC) presided.  I consider this a disgraceful bye law.  I can remember my late father with his health problems forced to spit in the street  before he could fumble about to find a handkerchief.  Anybody exercising his/her right to use the streets for strenuous exercise eg cycling or jogging {as I do} will at some time have to spit. 

 
Whilst I suppose being prescient on this topic has some sort of satisfaction for this blogger it reinforces his opinion of the restrictive nature that now envelops  our society.  We are not a nation ridden with T.B. and in any event in London where that disease has been imported in the main from Africa there is much more chance of infection from riding the Tube for a few stops than in the streets of an outer borough.   





Earlier this morning like thousands of others across the country with the hope of enjoying a healthier life I went jogging. And like those thousands of fellow non athletes who seek to counter the effects of a sedentary over caloried lifestyle the activity in the lower regions of the lungs attempting to produce an increase in oxygen supply provoked the action of expectoration, a reflex action of the body and not one borne of voluntary habit. I was not running in the London Borough of Enfield. The proposals of the ham fisted burgers of this area were the subject of a post here one year ago on 13/02/2012. A two line statement in a document of 176 pages entitled “Public Document Pack THE CABINET Wednesday, 5th December, 2012 at 8.15 pm in the Conference Room, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA" states as follows:-

The Council is leading on a new initiative to bid to ban spitting in the borough. If enough residents back the call Enfield will be the first council in the country to ban the habit.”

Apparently without further ado this aspiration to outlaw expectoration is now a bye law but in the neighbouring borough of Waltham Forest. Spitting is being considered as littering and offenders will be subject to a fine of £80. However nowhere on that Council`s website is mention made of spitting being classified as littering with all the sanctions that that offence produces.

It is an absolute certainty that within a year the refusal of an “offender” to pay such a fine will lead to an appearance at the local magistrates` court where colleagues will have an interesting debate on the lawfulness of such a bye law. As for me I will continue my exercise routine and hope that my principles are not put to the ultimate test if those interfering do gooding busybodies in my borough get up to the same tricks.

A LITTLE REST AND RECREATION

I`m off now to the land of lasagne and Leonardo.....ciao per ora.  Please look in again next week.  

HIGH SPEED SPEEDING

I think it is fair to say that for most honest and good citizens, i.e. without a record with the Police National Computer, it is when driving that contact is made with the law. Aside from anything else that is why it is imperative that police officers behave with the utmost civility when stopping drivers. Probably most do but we all have heard tell when they do not. Be that as it may in 2009 153,000 defendants were summonsed to court for speeding offences. In 2010 986,700 fixed penalty notices were issued for speeding. Fines and penalty points for speeding are calculated according to income and the recorded speed. The maximum recorded speed for the purposes of punishment has been fixed for umpteen years at 110 MPH. In simple terms that means that driving at that speed attracts the same punishment level as driving at 150 MPH or more. Others like myself who have driven in countries with no speed limit at very high speeds (in my case 200KPH) will be only too aware of the changing dynamics of a car at those speeds. There is no doubt in my mind that the Sentencing Guidelines should be updated to factor in the increased performance of even the most basic vehicles including motor bikes in the last 15-20 years. 

Last week Inspector Paul Cording, of North Yorkshire Police’s Roads Policing Group, said with reference to a speeder, “This sentence is a clear demonstration of the determination of all those in the criminal justice system to keep the roads in North Yorkshire as safe as possible. Barton’s speed was completely unacceptable and utterly reckless. It is simply not something we will tolerate. He not only put his own life at risk, Barton endangered the safety of other road users. Anyone caught using the roads of North Yorkshire as a racetrack should expect to face the same punishment when they are caught”. The offender, a Mr Barton, was caught riding his bike at 135 MPH on the A1. The report indicates his driving ban was for 56 days; the maximum available. He could have been given six penalty points and been a six months banned totter if he had had six points already on his license but that was a choice for the bench which had all the facts and circumstances placed before it. In the light of such speeding offences the cut off penalty at 110 MPH surely should be amended.

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS

 

I have from time to time offered the opinion commonly held that the adage of  there being three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics is applicable to all manner of numbers offered in the law `n order debate.  That now encompasses legal aid, its benefactors and its recipients.  Figures were released earlier this week; figures which I will make no attempt to analyse.  They are presented for those who wish to draw conclusions.  For me the situation in court  is that an increasing number of unrepresented defendants is appearing at trial.  One result is that prior to CPS opening its case the defendant as usual is asked if his plea remains as not guilty and when that question seems to be difficult to answer further questioning elicits what is in effect mitigation.  The result is often a change of plea and more wasted court time.  When the defendant has required an interpreter the costs escalate.  In my experience a defendant pleading not guilty at the first listing requires to be carefully questioned to avoid a wasted second listing as above.

 

These increased delays in proceedings will I suppose eventually appear as cracked or ineffective trial percentages but it is hardly likely that  a direct association with reduced funding for legal aid  will be made….lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

MAGISTRATES DURING THEIR SITTINGS ORDERED TO CONDUCT TIME & MOTION SURVEYS FOR HMCTS

I have previously expressed the opinion that we are more and more being considered by HMCTS as unpaid employees as opposed to the actuality that we are volunteers comprising the lowest level of the judiciary.  This situation has arisen purely and simply because our representatives have been impotent in the face of the steamrolling  actions of HMCTS and other parts of the Justice Ministry.  The supine behaviour of organisations eg Bench Chairmen and their talking shop aptly named Forum {definition:- a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged}.  show it has no power whatsoever and is an ego trip for its participants.  Of more significance is the continuing failure of the Magistrates` Association to confront (at least in public) government with opposition to the unsaid future of J.P.s being excluded from their primary function in our courts. 

The insidious traps which are salami slicing our functions baited with the honeyed proposals of Damien Green in his letter to magistrates of 30/08/2013 serve as a warning -

"1.      How do we ensure that magistrates deal with the right cases in court?

2.  How can magistrates play a stronger role in the community?

3.  How can we ensure that Magistrates are in the driving seat of improving performance of the justice system in their communities?"

With Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service the evidence is even more stark in their attitude to us.  We are to be part of a time and motion study of the performance of SERCO; a giant  organisational amoeba absorbing all the government contracts it can stomach as a result of the almost paranoid desire of Chris Grayling to rid his Ministry of any responsibility for its primary functions at the alter of payment by results.  An interested individual  has kindly provided proof of this in  documents sent to a Bench chairman.  These are reproduced below with some redactions.

Members of a bench are being instructed to effect a time and motion study on the orders of their Justices Clerk.  The requirement is to monitor the efficiency or lack thereof of SERCO in relation to its contract to produce prisoners in court on time.  This is stretching to an unprecedented level the co-operation which has historically been essential to the smooth running of magistrates` courts. If HMCTS wishes to know if its contract with SERCO is less effective than expected it should employ appropriate people to fulfil that function. Magistrates are not on the bench for such a purpose.   They  have been hitherto ready, willing and able to function as volunteers in a unique partnership with an essential limb of government.  That HMCTS has issued such a decree is nothing short of outrageous and it risks losing what little goodwill remains between it and many if not most of my colleagues if and when the process encompasses them personally.  

Reference is made in doc 1 to the Judicial Issues Group.  This organisation started off as the Justices Issue Group and when HMCTS was merely Her Majesty`s Courts Service  before the inevitable “bigger is better” mantra for such organisations saw it digest  the Tribunals Service to become the  monster it is today.   This document is the foundation of all relationships between Justices of the Peace and those who operate the courts. This was followed in 2006 by  the paper “Responsibilities for the leadership and management of the judicial business of theMagistrates’ Courts”.   2007 saw the publication of “The Responsibilities of Justices’ Clerks to the Magistracy andthe Discharge of their Judicial Functions”.

It seems impossible for the underlying themes within those documents to be compatible with what is happening re the monitoring of performances of SERCO by magistrates who are sitting in court exercising their judicial function.

Bench chairmen have or should have a lot of explaining to do.  The Magistrates Association is as impotent as a eunuch in ancient Egypt in its dealings with this Justice Secretary and his minions so it`s no surprise that this “initiative” has, as far as I know,  not appeared in its official publication although I am ready to be contradicted.   This fiasco is further proof if that were needed that the views and/or opinions of J.P.s are of no consequence whatsoever despite the usual arguments of representation at bench or M.A. branch level.  These are totally ineffective and allow weak representatives to be overwhelmed by the government machine.  

Who is there now who is confident that the majority of magistrates` courts in 2025 will be constituted as they are now; by three Justices of the Peace?