How far into the depths of authoritarianism are we prepared to descend in order to ensure our streets are safe? Even a decade ago such a question would have been or seemed ridiculous; not anymore. Analysis of many public attitudes 2025 does not make for comfortable reading. Opportunistic street crime including shop theft can affect anyone and everyone. There can hardly be a single person who is unaware of a friend, relative or colleague who has been a victim of or witness to such everyday events.
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 If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.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, 22 April 2025
KNIFE CRIME FROM NOW TO 2029?
How far into the depths of authoritarianism are we prepared to descend in order to ensure our streets are safe? Even a decade ago such a question would have been or seemed ridiculous; not anymore. Analysis of many public attitudes 2025 does not make for comfortable reading. Opportunistic street crime including shop theft can affect anyone and everyone. There can hardly be a single person who is unaware of a friend, relative or colleague who has been a victim of or witness to such everyday events.
Tuesday, 15 April 2025
BENEATH THE TIMES
Lessons will be learned. How often is that the final sentence uttered by somebody reading or writing from a prepared script to apologise for the failings of some authority, organisation or quango when public ire has forced remedial action to be taken over long known failings which more often than not have been covered up by those in the know. So many Chief Constables and other senior police officers have resigned or been fired in the last 15 years that there is no easily obtained source to see the extent of their failings and/or wrong doings. In similar fashion many hospital trusts have been castigated for being unable to deliver the required standard of care demanded medically and in some cases legally. When such happenings are finally recognised government drags its feet to the shame of all of us whose trust has been misplaced. The current scandal at the post office took a TV programme to shame the government. The tainted blood scandal going back decades is, to this very day, not fully resolved but with every dying victim the compensation will be lessoned. Retribution for the Hillsborough tragedy might still to be said, incomplete after over 30 years.
- Shoplifting, robbery and anti social behaviour
- Knife crime and gangs
- Violence against women and girls
- Cybercrime and fraud
- Terrorism, radicalisation and online harms
- The role of technology
- The causes of crime
- Policing
- The courts
- Sentencing
- Prisons and probation
Tuesday, 4 March 2025
INEQUALITY OF ARMS + UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD
The Victim Personal Statement scheme was introduced in England and Wales in 2001 following a commitment in the Victims' Charter of 1996. The right to submit a VPS is contained in the Victims' Code. In contrast to other jurisdictions the right is not currently based in statute. The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales is available here. The VPS doesn`t affect the nature of the sentence on its own but its purpose is to help the judge to make a better informed decision on sentencing by taking into account the overall effect the crime has had on the victim. It follows that the quality of the statement might persuade a judge to override the level of sentence according to the guidelines. Can it honestly now be the case that the system is truly neutral when the result of an action according to the prosecution [victim] is a consideration indicating that crimes of ostensible equality result in unequal sentencing? The concept of equality before the law or level playing field is supposed to convince British citizens that long standing traditions now brought up to modern standards are the birthright of all. And despite rare exceptions we are expected to believe that the old adage British is Best applies to the forms of justice encountered daily not only through the legal system but with myriad councils, tribunals and supervisory bodies etc. In polite terms there will be little disagreement that the preceding sentence is now wishful thinking or perhaps colloquially, bollocks.
Early training as a magistrate in the years before the millenium emphasised that the so called legal level playing field between state and defendant was a pillar of justice. How compliant my colleagues and I were to listen blithely to the trainer. Equality of arms was another euphemism employed to imbibe we newbies with the philosophy that nowhere on this Earth was there a justice system where individuals were more able to be assured that they would receive a fair hearing and trial where they would have every opportunity to plead their innocence.
I think my disillusionment was triggered by the establishment of the victim surcharge introduced in the UK in April 2007 as a flat rate of £15 initially only applied to offenders receiving a fine; however it has since been expanded to apply to most criminal sentences with the amount varying depending on the severity of the sentence and the offender's age, essentially making offenders contribute to the cost of supporting victims and witnesses of crime. The current rates are available to view here. But the proceeds are not ring fenced for actual victims of crime: proceeds are pooled into a general fund used to finance victim support services in general. Unlike fines the charge is not means tested.
Level playing field or equality of arms is currently just a joke akin to the Hollywood advice, “Never bring a knife to a gunfight”. A ruinous combination of legal aid lawyers` derisory fees and increasingly raised income levels before an application for legal aid is possible, loads the odds firmly with the state and against the defendant. The introduction of the Single Justice Procedure in 2015 was an anathema to those who considered that it was a step too far in favour of the state. Between 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2023, some 3,102,392 criminal cases were processed by the Single Justice Service as the S was renamed.
Statistics on SJP are hard to come by. What can be said is that about 40,000 cases monthly are processed but the whole process is a carbuncle on the face of justice. A Freedom of Information Request of 2021 is copied below.
request-@whatdotheyknow.com
Disclosure Team
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 2xxxxxxxx
Thank you for your request received on 5th June 2021 in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
1. How many cases have been dealt with by the Single Justice Procedure annually?
2. Of the above how many defendants in each of the years above responded with a
plea?
3. Of the pleas from question 2. how many were guilty pleas?
4. Of those pleading not guilty in each of the above years since inception how many actually went to trial at magistrates courts?
5. Of those at trial per Q4. how many were acquitted?
6. How many cases brought under Covid 19 regulations have been pursued through the SJP in 2020?
7. Of the numbers per Q6. how many responded with a plea?
8. Of those in answer to Q7. how many were guilty pleas?
9. Of those pleading not guilty in Q7. how many elected trial at magistrates court?
10. Of those electing trial as per Q9. how many were acquitted?
11. How many magistrates are currently trained and eligible to be included in the approved list as Single Justices?
12. Please list the courts where the SJP is functioning.
It has been answered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) on behalf of MoJ.
The information that you have requested in these questions would be held in individual case files for the last three years (In accordance with MoJ Record Retention and Disposition
Schedules), but in order to provide it HMCTS/MoJ would have to identify the files in question and then locate them, retrieve and extract the information requested. We believe that the cost of doing that would exceed the appropriate limit. Consequently, we are not obliged to comply with your request.
time period covered by your request and / or specifying particular Courts to be included in scope. Please be aware that we cannot guarantee at this stage that a refined request will fall within the FOIA cost limit, or that other exemptions will not apply. In particular you should be aware of the FOIA exemptions that apply under Section 32 and which relate to information that is only held for the purpose of the Court Record.
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
The number of cases dealt with by the Single Justice Procedure annually since its inception. 12,660 357,006 687,645 738,028 786,546 529,408
The number of cases brought under Covid 19 regulations and pursued through the SJP in 2020.3,610
NOTES relating to the above data.
• The case count is based upon the case completion date falling between each reporting period (eg. 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2015) where the initiation type is equal to Single Justice Notice.
• Data are taken from a live management information system and can change over
time.
• Data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics.
• The data provided is the most recent available and for that reason might differ slightly from any previously published information.
• Data has not been cross referenced with case files.
• Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.
Plea entered
Guilty No plea entered
plea
Not guilty plea
2015 12,031 2,779 286 8,966
2016 329,406 83,333 10,196 235,877
2017 696,935 169,585 24,121 503,229
2018 761,995 185,107 26,276 550,612
2019 784,325 199,279 23,136 561,910
2020 535,590 145,605 11,612 378,373
2020 4,007 437 23 3,547
• SJP offences under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, allows cases involving
adults charged with summary offences to be dealt with in a single magistrate sitting without the prosecutor or defendant being present.
• Only one offence is counted for each defendant in the case. If there is more than one offence per defendant that complete on the same day, a set of validation rules applies to select one offence only and these relate to the longest duration, seriousness and the lowest sequence number of the offence.
• Includes cases completed in the magistrates' courts during the specified time period,
where no further action is required by the magistrates' courts.
• Includes cases that are committed to the Crown Court.
• SJP cases are identified in the centrally collated data based on the ‘initiation type’ recorded against the case. It is known that a small number of cases have incorrect initiation types recorded against them, with incompatible offences under SJP included within the overall reported counts, e.g. triable either way, indictable and summary imprisonable offences categorised under 'Other offences'. It is estimated that this accounts for well under 1% of the total defendants dealt with across the series. Where errors do exist the levels are monitored and appropriate action to understand and improve data quality are taken.
• Following a technical issue during the LIBRA Management Information System refresh, a small amount of data was not included for a single day in September. It is estimated this that has resulted in a small number (less than 1%) of case disposals being omitted from the latest quarterly totals. A refresh of the data will take place next quarter.
• Offence classification and categorisation as per the latest published 'Offence group classification' available at the following link
(https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterlydecember-2020).
• All Not Guilty pleas under SJP are regarded as going to trial.
• The defendant counts supplied are sourced from the same underlying administrative system as the case counts, however they are distinct extracts taken at different points in time and as such caution should be taken when comparing absolute
volumes across the series.
• The defendant counts form the basis of the published criminal court statistics timeliness measures released by the Ministry of Justice. The overall counts may differ from HMCTS caseloads due to the validation which is applied to this data stream, e.g. defendants removed from underlying counts where timeliness validation checks are failed such as blank dates or dates out of logical sequence.
• Published criminal court outcomes statistics released as part of the Criminal Justice Statistics bulletin series does not allow for the separate identification of Single Justice Procedure cases. As such it is not possible to produce statistics which detail the volume of acquittals for SJP cases/defendants dealt with. Also, regarding Question (11), as at May 2021 HMCTS had 12333 adult magistrates. As a matter of practice, newly appointed magistrates are not allocated until they have passed heir appraisal (threshold appraisal). This takes approximately one year and so not all of these may be finally allocated at the date of writing this letter. HMCTS management information systems do not hold data specifically regarding the number of Magistrates within their first year and the FOIA does not oblige a public authority to create information to answer a request if the requested information is not held. The duty is to only provide the recorded information held.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_courts_in_England_and_Wales and https://www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/pdfs/uksi_20043244_en.pdf
If you are not satisfied with this response you have the right to request an internal review by responding in writing to one of the addresses below within two months of the date of this
response.
data.access@justice.gov.uk
You do have the right to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal
complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning their investigation.
Tuesday, 1 October 2024
KNIFE CRIME WILL NEVER BE "UNDER CONTROL"
Posts involving offences of the use of a bladed article or knife have been amongst the most frequent to have occupied these pages in the last 11 years. Indeed my first post on the subject was published in 2014. The French language best sums up the repeated attempts by His Majesty`s Governments to contain this scourge; PLUS ÇA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST LA MÊME CHOSE.
-----------------------------------------------
A woman was found hiding in bushes near a pre-school in Bridport with a large knife, a court has heard.
Rebecca Wilson, aged 41, pleaded guilty in Weymouth Magistrates Court to possessing a knife blade/sharp pointed article in a public place in Bridport.
This related to an incident which happened in St Andrews Road on June 21, 2024.
Christina Norgan, prosecuting, told the court that at 9.10pm, police received a 999 call from a member of the public that a woman was seen in possession of a large knife in the bushes next to St Andrew’s pre-school in Bridport.
When she was detained, Wilson told police officers “I’ve got a knife.”
A kitchen knife was subsequently retrieved from her waistband and she was taken into custody.
Wilson was previously convicted in 2012 for wounding.
Simon Lacey, mitigating, presented a mental health form on Wilson’s behalf to the magistrates’ bench and asked for it to be taken into consideration before sentencing.
Stephen Takel, chair of the magistrates' bench told the defendant: “The reason these sorts of offences are treated in this way is because of the risk of knife crime.
“We noticed in the interview report you were confused why it was taken so seriously. The reason is that knife crime is very serious and people die. The authorities don’t know what a person’s intention is.
“If you are in possession of a knife in public, you are considered a risk to others.
“My recommendation would be to not go out of your house with a bladed article full stop to avoid future offending in this way.”
The defendant was given a 12-month community order.
Wilson, of Dorchester Road, Weymouth, must also attend 12 sessions of mental health treatment with a clinical psychologist to understand her triggers and trauma.
She must also complete 15 days of rehabilitation activity requirement days.
She was fined £120 and must pay courts cost of £85 and £114 surcharge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A 43-year-old east Suffolk man has been handed a suspended sentence after being caught in the street with a knife.
Tuesday, 20 August 2024
JUSTICE ON A LOOP LIKE A SUPER MOON
As a retired magistrate aged 70+ I have been plagued with arthritic issues as many of my contemporaries have been. In an attempt to tolerate the discomfort without the benefits of the world`s pharmaceutical industry I recently offered myself to a profession the history of which is lost in 2,000 years of Chinese time. Lying on a trolley with incredibly sharp needles piercing my limbs for twenty minutes I was subjected to what seemed an endless loop of piano playing and harp plucking which combined in a sophomoric lullaby with no discernable melody endlessly repeating itself. I was reminded of the new government`s pronouncements on knife crime and simultaneously pledges, assurances, intentions etc from an earlier Labour government in 1997. On 21/09/2008 Jack Straw then Minister for Justice in his speech at the Labour Party Conference said; " Yesterday we saw the determination of those affected by knife crime as they marched through London. We stand firm with all those who know too well the devastating impact these crimes have and as Jacqui will be spelling out later, all of us pledge that we will relentlessly keep up our efforts to tackle it." Every minister responsible for policy on criminal activity since then has repeated a similar mantra as if it were looped on the internal sound systems of the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. So..........here we go again just like clockwork..........a government promising to go down hard on those carrying knives. We`ve been here so often before that it appears to be a right of passage for newly installed ministers at Justice to proudly announce their latest attempt to make our streets safer although no one name is more associated with this latest pronouncement than our esteemed Prime Minister who reminds us regularly of his history as the hard man DPP of 2011. And who can forget the oleaginous tones of his predecessor when he pledged in 1997 to be "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime".
Tuesday, 11 June 2024
IT was THE BEST OF TIMES//NOW IT is THE WORST OF TIMES
Tuesday, 19 March 2024
IS THE END NIGH FOR BRITISH JUSTICE?
Many will be no longer fascinated by the recent attempts by China, Japan, India, USA to land unmanned space vehicles on the moon. Perhaps those who were agog at watching live on TV the first time that human beings walked on the moon in July 1969 are now just passive observers to the many sociological and political changes that afflict the planet and have changed the face of this country as much as any war might have done in decades past.
Tuesday, 3 October 2023
SHEEP AND THE POLITICIANS WHO CRY WOLF
Notwithstanding the tens of thousands of individuals who are even loosely termed "court workers" the only people remotely interested in what goes on in the magistrates courts are perhaps just a few thousand who work in the mainly print media and of those the majority don`t work for the Daily Mail or The Times or other mass media; they work for the hundreds of local media companies struggling to financially survive against a tsunami of sometimes unregulated competitors on and off line. Local magistrates court reporting remains one of the few activities where such businesses provide information services which are usually unobtainable elsewhere. Having myself, from time to time whilst active as a presiding magistrate, been the subject [albeit with the offender] of such reports I have nothing but admiration for those undertaking this work. There is still a majority of the British public without their name on the police national computer. Unless involved academically these law abiding citizens have absolutely no conception of how the law works in the 97% of criminal cases which begin and are concluded in the magistrates courts until, of course, they are themselves accused of offending. The pressure and lobbying organisation Transform Justice has, for that very reason, initiated a court watchers group to inform on such proceedings. My opinion in that regard is that the project has merit but care should be taken by these folk that reporting on the court is one thing; offering opinion is another and I have noted that sometimes the twain are confused. Arguably no topic within the legal system is perhaps as significant as sentencing although it`s fair to add that the whole system rather like the concrete used to construct some of the court buildings has been crumbling from the top for over a decade: 2010 to be precise.
From time to time I have offered cases where the invisible directive from the MOJ for sentencers to keep out of jail many who should be behind bars borders on political arrogance taking we the public for idiots. Politicians preach hard guidance and courts apply hand wringing misplaced benevolence. Below are just a pitiful few recent examples where the sentence does anything but fit the crime.
The dreadful cases of murder and rapes by serving Metropolitan Police officers and others provided a well earned shock to authorities who have shouted loudly that such cases, the tip of a known iceberg, will in future be treated with the severity they deserve. One such observation was that indecent exposure, an offence which most magistrates have had to listen to, would no longer be treated as a relatively minor offence. It would be treated as an indication that the offender was on an unstable ladder likely for him to lead to falling further into depravity. Academic studies have justified this reasoning. A sex offender denied his guilt until the day of his trial when he admitted indecent exposure to a 14 year old girl. Not only was that cowardly delay likely to have caused even more distress to the child his late guilty plea was of no avail insofar as he was sentenced to virtually the maximum available to the bench; 23 weeks but against all logic it was suspended. Obviously only those in the courtroom heard all the evidence and mitigation but common sense comments are valid. Those in the local area interested in the topic must be at best confused and at worst dismayed. The report is available here.
In Derby a 22 year old drunk driver was guilty of her third such conviction in three years. The Sentencing Guideline for this offence is here. Not only was she well over the limit she tried to deceive police by pretending she was a passenger in the vehicle; an aggravating circumstance if ever there was one. She was sentenced to 18 weeks custody which was suspended for two years. In addition she was disqualified from driving for four years and ordered to pay £199 in financial penalties. A 100 day alcohol monitoring tag was ordered to be attached and she was required to attend 25 rehabilitation sessions. How seriously all that will be monitored by an emasculated probation service we will never know. But how can we have confidence in our legal system when such a dreadful disregard for the law is treated almost as a misdemeanour.
Another case at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court gives me cause for disquiet. It seems to me natural justice that when a violent offence is committed against an obviously pregnant woman the law should punish the offender and mitigation if any should be treated with the utmost caution. When the court was told the same offender, the partner of the victim, was convicted for ABH against her in November 2022 immediate custody should surely have been the correct sentence. But no! The District Judge, to his shame suspended the sentence. Any right minded person must weep at this blatant observing of those aforementioned invisible guidelines from those who have underfunded prisons and their workforce since 2010. Such indifference to the public will lead to vigilantism and a further disregard for politicians and their public offerings of nirvana. The on line report can be read here.
I have taken the opportunity to publish below Proposals 4 & 5 of "Consultation outcome Government response to consultation and summary of public responses (accessible)
Updated 2 October 2023."
Proposal 4 - The Criminal Justice System should treat possession in public of prohibited knives and offensive weapons more seriously.
Question 10: Should the Criminal Justice System treat those who carry prohibited knives and offensive weapons in public more seriously?
81. We asked respondents for their views on whether the possession of a prohibited knife in a public place should be treated more seriously. We asked respondents to tick one of the following responses and explain the reasoning for their answer. The provided responses were:
Yes
No
82. There was a total of 2,333 responses to this question.
83. The majority of responses (65%) agreed with this proposal with comments from some respondents talking about the devastating impact knife crime has on lives and communities and that this change will better reflect the severity of the crime.
84. Some respondents, including practitioners working with young people, suggested that this proposal may impact negatively on young people who may carry knives in public for self-defence purposes or because they are coerced into carrying the article.
Government response
85. We note concerns raised in relation to this proposal having the potential to impact on vulnerable people who may be coerced into carrying knives. Similar concerns were raised in relation to proposal 3. The courts will always consider each case individually and will take into account mitigating factors, such as age, lack of maturity and vulnerability.
86. The government is clear that it is unlawful to carry knives for self-defence purposes. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 makes it an offence to carry offensive weapons in a public place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Carrying a knife is likely to entice knife crime in local communities rather than discourage it and will put young people at risk as a result.
87. The government will ask the Sentencing Council to consider amending sentencing guidelines on possession of bladed articles/offensive weapons to treat possession of a prohibited weapon in public more seriously.
Proposal 5 - A new possession offence of bladed articles with the intention to endanger life or to cause fear of violence.
Question 11: Do you agree with the proposal?
88. We asked respondents whether they thought the government should introduce a new offence of possession of bladed articles with the intention to endanger life or to cause fear of violence. We asked respondents to tick one of the following responses and explain the reasoning for their answer. The provided responses were:
Yes
No
89. There was a total of 2,361 responses to this question.
90. The majority of respondents to this question (64%) agreed with this proposal. Respondents in favour of this proposal argued that current legislation does not recognise the severity of carrying a knife with the intention to cause fear and the increased likelihood of escalation resulting in harm or threat to life. Respondents stressed the need to act before the actual act of threatening another person occurs.
91. Some respondents agreed with the proposal, but they shared their views that they thought it would be difficult to prove that there is an intention for an individual carrying a bladed article to endanger life or cause fear of violence.
92. There were also respondents who were of the view that this is already covered under current legislation; the majority of respondents who provided these comments had selected ‘no’ as their answer to this question.
93. Some respondents, including practitioners working with young people, suggested that this proposal may impact negatively on young people who may carry knives in public for self-defence purposes or because they are coerced into carrying the article.
Government response
94. The government will seek to introduce a separate possession offence of bladed articles with the intention to injure or cause fear of violence with a maximum penalty higher than the current offence of possession of an offensive weapon when parliamentary time allows.
95. We believe that there is a gap in knife legislation between simple knife possession and possession and threatening another person. This proposal mirrors existing firearms legislation that has been effectively implemented by prosecutors. We expect that this proposal will support the police in tackling violence before the actual harm has been done and where there is evidence, for example on social media, of taunting or threatening behaviour.
96. We note concerns raised in relation to this proposal having the potential to impact on vulnerable people who may be coerced into carrying knives. The courts will always consider each case individually and will take into account mitigating factors, such as age, lack of maturity and vulnerability.
97. The government is clear that it is unlawful to carry knives for self-defence purposes. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 makes it an offence to carry offensive weapons in a public place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Carrying a knife is likely to entice knife crime in local communities rather than discourage it and will put young people at risk as a result.
Tuesday, 1 August 2023
SOCIETAL BREAKDOWN//CONSERVATIVE "BLAH" OR OPPOSITION "RHUBARB"
Below is the main headline from today`s Times newspaper.
We are now at the cusp of another football season. And once again today`s Times provides the subject matter.
There is little doubt in my opinion that the referees will follow the hard line of their paymasters. Unlike those above, referees` emoluments and indeed their fitness to officiate will be judged at almost the speed of light by those who pull the financial strings within professional football. Whether or not football clubs` and police efficiency in identifying and prosecuting those supporters for whom the beautiful game is just an opportunity to cause havoc and mayhem will bring law `n order back to the terraces is another matter. The figures below for those hooligans who have been subjected to recent football banning orders do not offer high hopes that such disgusting behaviour will be any less in the forthcoming season as in the past.
It takes more than statistics for historians to decide when a society has broken down. Public disorder and its treatment or curtailment are one disturbing factor but combined with hidden and not so hidden police corruption the signs are there for all to see as is the failure of supervisory bodies in many professions and organisations. But it is for government to act. Over the next eighteen months we will find out if it is Conservative blah or Opposition rhubarb which wins the day.