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

data.access@justice.gov.

5th July 2021

Dear 
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):

Since its inception;
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.

Your request has been handled under the FOIA.
It has been answered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) on behalf of MoJ.

I can confirm that HMCTS/MoJ holds the information that you have requested. However, to provide it as the request currently stands would exceed the cost limit set out in the FOIA. Section 12(1) of the FOIA means a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if it estimates the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days determining whether the department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

The MoJ publishes information regarding the outcomes of criminal proceedings. However it is not possible to separately identify case outcomes for Single Justice Procedures (SJP) from the centrally collated Courts Proceedings Database. As such it is not possible to answer questions (5) and (10) within in the specified cost limits.

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.

Although we cannot answer your request at the moment, we may be able to answer a refined request within the cost limit. You may wish to consider, for example, reducing the
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.

Where Section 12 applies to one part of a request we refuse all of the request under the cost limit as advised by the Information Commissioner’s Office. I am therefore not obliged to answer the remainder of your questions. However, under Section 16 of FOIA It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it. Within that, I can tell you that some of the data that you have requested is held within different HMCTS / MoJ systems and we have extracted it as below. Please note that this data is taken from different sources and cannot necessarily be reconciled with other data provided.

Regarding questions (1) and (6):
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.

Regarding questions (2) to (4) and (7) to (9), it has been assumed that they all relate to numbers of defendants.

Year All defendants
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

Of which: COVID-19 offences
2020 4,007 437 23 3,547

NOTES relating to the above data.
• 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.

• Estimates from Q3 2020 exclude a small number of cases which have transitioned to the Common Platform system in the early adopter site (Derby and Chesterfield magistrates' courts) from September 2020.
• 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.

Regarding Question (12), I can confirm that SJP is regarded as functioning at all Magistrates Courts in England and Wales. However, the information requested is exempt from disclosure under FOIA Section 21 because it is reasonably accessible to you. The information can be accessed via the following links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_courts_in_England_and_Wales and https://www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal

For guidance on how to structure successful requests please refer to the ICO website on the following link: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/pdfs/uksi_20043244_en.pdf 

Appeal Rights
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

Disclosure Team, Ministry of Justice
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.

Yours sincerely (on behalf of MoJ),

On the topic of equality before the law the situation is becoming very clear that that supposed fundamental is now but a historic myth. Over the last few months the attitude to public disorder by police is either confused or deliberately slanted so that some miscreants are more liable than others to be arrested many for s.5 offending. As an example "speedy justice" was applied to those found guilty after the riots following the Southport murders.  In addition they were punished in many cases at the upper end of the scale whilst offending non violent keyboard behaviour in some cases was more harshly treated than many observers considered it was warranted. 

A highly publicised case of the MP who assaulted a constituent in the early hours is interesting.  His sentence of immediate custody was appealed and subsequently suspended for two years.  Surely for a person in his position the sentence should have increased on a similar basis to that of another offender whose personal circumstances and/or status are used to seek to minimise the sentence; eg the doctor on call who succeeds with "exceptional hardship" to reduce a driving ban or the father with extensive caring responsibilities whose custodial sentence over Christmas is suspended.  A person in a highly responsible position with all the trappings of a good life should not be molly coddled.  

Immigration is a huge topic in the western world.  When our legal system seems to be operating in woke mode that perception rightly or wrongly can often speak louder than any pacifying  statements from government.  Below is a story from Today`s Times.  It wasn`t the first of its type and most certainly not the last.

The criminal justice system might be beyond repair.  With current developments demanding that circumstances unforeseen even a month ago necessitate budgetary rethinking it would take a brave [or foolhardy] observer to have much confidence in court waiting times to improve to any great extent although if some police forces continue to ignore requests for neighbourhood crimes to be investigated running to stand still might be an accurate description for the Ministration Of Justice. 

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 society doesn`t disintegrate  from the top down.  Certainly those in control have a lot to answer for.  Failures in policies conceived by incompetents and carried out by those in hoc to their masters to put bread in the mouths of their starving children have been a blight on the face of civilisation for millenia.  Today`s government and society are little different from those of medieval England except the errors and miscalculations are magnified in their effects.  Indeed in his new book published this week Boris Johnson likens Richi Sunak`s betrayal as Brutus`s was to Caesar.  

When it suits the moment governments will laud the reduction in crime overall or those parts which will gain sympathetic momentum in the media.  In doing so like a driver whose speed is breaking the limit, the foot will lift from the accelerator and the car allowed to slow.  If it`s judged still to be going too fast the brake will be applied.  In a financially crippled justice system such crime reduction will be an excuse to reduce the appropriate budget.  So now we have a stop start policy on knife crime.  Stop and search effectiveness varies according to the politics of the observer; or so it seems.  Albert Einstein also had noted that an observer can change the facts in his theory of general relativity causing him to publish his theory of special relativity a decade later.  

The Sentencing Guidelines on bladed articles and knives is IMHO taking a sledge hammer to crack the nuts of the angels dancing on a pinhead.  Common sense has been left behind it seems in an effort to ensure that every associated fact or action can be incorporated in what it thinks is an appropriate sentence.  There is no doubt in my mind that within a decade these guidelines will be replaced by algorithms with the bench left to decide on what manual interventions would be justifiable to make the particular circumstances of each case fit the crime.  Meanwhile with the courts and prisons in chaos, reduced court reporting in local print media and serious knife offending being news headlines almost daily I have gathered below just a few recent cases where the hot air of politicians on and off the hustings can be seen for what it really is; bluster and deceit to fool the British public and especially the parents of teenage boys that there is active control to reduce knife crime. 

Kai Kiernan Nanpean, St Austell Age: 19

On or about July 7 at Leamingston Spa had with him, without good reason or lawful authority, in a public place Victoria Terrace an article which had a blade or was sharply pointed, namely a machete.

On August 1, at Queen's Crescent, Bodmin, had an article which had a blade or was sharply pointed, namely a kitchen knife with a blade exceeding three inches.

Suspended sentence order: two months, suspended for 12 months. Mental health treatment: 12 days. Rehabilitation activity: 20 days.

                 -----------------------------------------------

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.

Jamie Buckenham, who is of Bloomsbury Close in Lowestoft, admitted having a flick knife in Seago Street in the coastal town when he appeared at Great Yarmouth Magistrates’ Court.

He was given a three-month prison sentence that was suspended for 18 months when he was sentenced by magistrates for a single charge of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.

The flick knife was taken by police and the defendant must complete a 40-day rehabilitation programme.

The incident happened on September 22 last year, a court listing confirmed.

As well as the suspended sentence, Buckenham was also ordered to pay £85 in costs to the Crown Prosecution Service told to pay a surcharge of £154 and complete 100 hours of unpaid work.

A collection order was made for the sums.

The defendant's guilty plea was taken into account when magistrates decided on his sentence.

                 --------------------------------------------------------

 A man begged magistrates not to send him to jail after he was caught with a banned knife, having already been convicted of numerous offences of violence. 

Several members of the public had called 999 to report that Kieran Eames, 26, was in Loughborough town centre with a folding butterfly knife.

At Leicester Magistrates' Court on Monday he admitted possessing a blade in public.

Eames, of King Street, Loughborough, had to be repeatedly asked to keep quiet after entering the courtroom. He apologised and told the magistrates: "I'm just really worried.

"I don't want to go back to prison. I'm begging you."

Prosecutor Peter Bettany told the magistrates Eames had previously been convicted of various offences of violence - including assault by beating of a police officer in May 2022 - but had never been convicted of having a knife before.

Eames's solicitor, Rachel Gaffney, told the magistrates: "He made no attempt to conceal it. He didn't brandish the weapon at anyone and he said in his police interview he didn't know it was a criminal offence to have such a weapon on his person in a public place."

Probation officer David Charlton told the court Eames had issues with drink and drugs, but had refused to speak to probation to give them more information. He added that Eames was "extremely vulnerable" and that prison would be a "dangerous place for him to be".

The chair of the bench, Elizabeth Needham, told Eames they would be giving him a suspended sentence instead of sending him to prison. She said: "You need to keep yourself out of trouble."

Eames replied: "Thank you. You won't see me again. I've been petrified for months thinking I'll be going back to jail."

Eames was given a 20-week sentence, suspended for 12 months, and was ordered to pay a £154 victim surcharge.

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". 

And so to today when figures show that nearly half of all knife possession cases recorded by police in 2023 led to no further action.  The government has stated that it intends to “end the practice of empty warnings by ensuring knife carrying triggers rapid intervention and tough consequences”.  There is also the promise to ban ninja swords, lethal zombie-style blades and machetes and strengthen rules to prevent online sales with the executives of online companies that flout these rules being personally held to account through tough sanctions.  In short this government, like those which have gone before, since the the time of the saintly Thatcher who bestowed rose petals wherever she walked, tells us it will make the streets safe for all to walk through the witching hours even with £50 notes stuck to their foreheads and targets on their backs.   

And so the loop plays on.  The justice system in its entirety from arrest to zombie knives and all matters between might be termed the cinderella of a failed economic policy since 2008.  Unless they face a penalty for a road traffic infringement on one hand or have the misfortune to have had a bike or mobile phone stolen from the other most people are distanced from the courts which are in a spiral of despair for all connected with them.  Of course that disconnect does not seem to have affected the lawyers and oligarchs arguing over the sources or destinations of billions of $$$$$$$ in often ill gotten gains.  

Like those in charge of our armed forces those controlling the law and its constituent parts continue to fob us off with their words with no meaning as the generals and admirals do about an army with no ammunition  and aircraft carriers with no aircraft.  

Last night there was a super Moon owing to its distance from Earth being 15% closer than the furthest point in its orbit.  That looping or elliptical lunar orbit was observed by the ancients and will continue until the solar system is consumed by a black hole. Although Justice delayed is justice denied  is an old adage with biblical origins I fear the resurrection of our justice system might take a little longer. 

IT was THE BEST OF TIMES//NOW IT is THE WORST OF TIMES

I`m old enough to remember occasionally reading in newspapers of the abject state of the judicial system in India where thousands of untried defendants were languishing in ancient prisons built during the Raj unlikely to have their day in court not just for many months but for many years.   The daily average number of adults in prison custody in England and Wales in 1974 was 26,234. This figure represents 78 adults per 100,000 in the population. In April 2024, the prisoner population of England and Wales stood at 87,481 while the operating capacity of prisons was 88.889. In 2022 there were 159 per 100,000.  These numbers are just a snapshot at the hard end of our justice system. But what of the other end?

Governments and legal sources with their in built biases have for generations told the British public that their legal and justice system is a system of which they cannot be too proud: that it has been exported to many countries mainly from the days of the Empire for which these now independent nations are forever grateful.  We are also told not just that the system is a glowing testament to the British concept of "fair play and fairness" but that the practitioners within that system can hold their heads up high with pride in their probity and efficiency.  Tell that to the people of Hong Kong (in a whisper behind closed doors) and they would laugh and cry simultaneously if they were able as confusing thoughts and emotions compete with each other in a manner with which the brain cannot cope.  They would cry at the naivety of the British government when it handed the colony back to China according to the terms of the agreement signed in 1898 when Britain obtained a 99-year lease for the New Territories.  They would laugh at the thought that amongst some others, bigwigs of the British judiciary since 1997 have been presiding over Chinese imposed legislation in Chinese courts over Hong Kong citizens accused of transgressing that Chinese legislation; legislation which is designed to stifle any aspect of what our society terms free speech.  Information of these former judges from the highest ranks of British judiciary was first posted  here 16th March 2021.  There was an update on 8th March 2022.  

In the last few days without any major announcement  former Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and UK judges Lord Jonathan Sumption and Lord Lawrence Collins have resigned from Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal.  What has taken them so long to leave the posts which any reasonably minded person could see was a fig leaf to cover the totalitarian nature of the Chinese so called government which was following the processes of similar dictatorships of the modern era?  

At all levels owing to financial starvation since 2010 and an unashamed arrogance of many practitioners the legal system is floundering where it matters; at the lower end of the spectrum whilst a relatively few exorbitantly overpaid  solicitors and barristers snaffle millions from representing Russian oligarchs trying to keep their ill gotten billions and ridding themselves of their trophy wives.  And there are many others with pockets filled with gold from the Arabic speaking world to keep busy other experts in Chancery Lane in exchange for $$$$$ Roubles or Rials.  

And then we have The Criminal Cases Review Commission; supposedly the last stop in the journey of ensuring justice has been done.  This was a subject posted here 5th September 2023.   Since then the Post Office scandal has had some light shone upon those lawyers within the company who failed in their obligations to their profession and to  judges who were reticent in exercising their powers of intervention when such intervention would likely have saved the heartache to which many postmasters were brutally subjected.  

The case of Andrew Malkinson is perhaps the most telling of miscarriages of justice this century.  Every professional involved must share some blame for his being in the Kafkaesque situation of being kept in prison despite evidence available to throw doubt on his conviction because he refused to admit his "guilt".  Perhaps those involved in this disgraceful process hadn`t read "The Trial".   

The iniquities of the Single Justice Procedure have been exposed here many times and don`t need to be repeated. The failure of judges to sentence appropriately for knife crime, the "shoplifters go free" policy set down by MOJ, the failure of the Metropolitan Police in particular to clamp down hard on racist abuse during supposedly peaceful but intimidating  marches and the aforementioned  sentencing to suit prison accommodation available are just some of the factors which are now the accepted norm in our society.  

It would take the proverbial optimist high on whatever favourite substance addled his/her brain to think any future government would be able to turn around this sorry state of affairs.  Meanwhile an ever increasing minority would like to impose sharia law on this country and are beginning to exercise their electoral muscle to this effect.  

Salam alaikum.

ADDENDUM 14.00 11th June 2024

Latest update on the Post Office Inquiry courtesy of the Law Society Gazette

ADDENDUM 14.00 18th June 2024 courtesy of the  LawSocietyGazette 

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.  

With a general election expected before Christmas pollsters will be bombarding the media with the results and opinions of their paymasters on what is likely to influence the electorate in our individual voting decisions.  No doubt previous successes from before the age of Tik Tok  will be rehatched to reach a generation that was in short trousers when Labour ended its 13 year reign in the House of Commons.  “It's the economy stupid” was a phrase coined by James Carville in 1992 when he was advising Bill Clinton in his successful run for the White House.  Like the rotten boroughs of times past, by all accounts an extra £1,000 per annum in the pocket of Mr, Mrs or Ms average earner`s bank account will be enough to buy a vote.  The esoteric notions of foreign policy or mass hysteria over a foreign war are unlikely to be considered worthy of mention in any through the letterbox leaflets.  Unfortunately the deliberate break up of our once admired justice system will be similarly classified; not worthy of debate but arguably in its many forms just as likely to affect our lives as a penny on or off any taxable item.  

We all depend on the police.  Their popularity with the public seems to rise and fall like a child on a trampoline.  On one hand events of the years since the brutal murder of Sarah Everard have exposed that there aren`t just some misbegotten rotten apples but rotten barrels full of misbegotten rotten apples.  But on that other hand it is the police who stand between peace on the streets and anarchy.  When PC Paul Fisher was acquitted of dangerous driving in November last year four years after  he crashed on his way to the scene where Sudesh Amman had stabbed two people  there were some murmurings that he had "got off".  That he was on trial at all for attempting to save innocent lives seemed incongruous to many within and without the policing and legal professions.  His case seems to sum up the push me pull me of Dr Doolittle fame in our attitudes to policing.  

Whilst I was active the persistent shoplifters had a pseudo legal adornment to their propensity to steal; "prolific", the essence of which was that even when an individual case was of low value an offender with a history of dozens or perhaps hundreds of previous convictions was to be treated for the entirety of his convictions thus ensuring that the maximum sentence of six months immediate custody was available as a true reflection of his/her law breaking.  That was the theory but the practice was very different last year.  Recorded offences rose 25% but charges fell.  In the year ending 30/6/23 police recorded 365,164 shoplifting offences but only around 12% of suspects were charged.  In the year before Covid almost 19% of suspects were charged. This decline is just a symptom of failures for more serious matters.  If the government proceeds with its stated intention to remove custodial sentences from the arsenal of disposals at magistrates courts one can expect an exponential rise in theft from shops and an increasing number of stores having security guards  inside and outside their premises as in most large retail premises in America. 

 Knife possession and knife crime have both increased and despite the wooly words of Justice Secretaries since 2010 the proportion of knife offences resulting in a suspended sentence has increased by almost 100% to the end of September 2023 resulting in almost a quarter of such offenders avoiding prison.  Further statistics show that even for repeat knife offenders in the same period 40% were not sentenced to immediate custody despite legislation that instructed judges to do just that.  

Between 2017 and 2021 more than 35,000 of the 142,275 motorists who totted up 12 points avoided being banned due to claiming 'exceptional hardship'. From my own personal knowledge and experience [posted here many times and available using the search box]  magistrates are too quick to offer relief to drivers with 12 or more penalty points.  A Google search shows that hundreds of solicitors are advertising their expertise in arguing successfully for "exceptional hardship".  Their lucrative income stream and magistrates misplaced sympathies must surely come under scrutiny by a future Justice Secretary and be formalised.  

And so to our judges who can be castigated for speaking out of turn but can be incompetent in their sentencing without retribution unless the case is particularly a high profile one attracting photogenic witnesses, available finance or public relations experts and sometimes all three.  In the last 20 years prolific offenders represented nearly half of all convictions; 243,000 people aged over 21 with at least 16 convictions or cautions. In 2022 hyper prolific offenders with 45 or more convictions or cautions offended almost 10,000 times and were subject to non custodial sentences 53% of occasions.  

Hundreds of judicial decisions in sentencing miscreants, which have been made according to the Sentencing Guidelines, have been tossed aside.  Known only to individual judges offenders who should be in jail are walking the streets because the MOJ has instructed the judiciary to use non custodial outcomes because the prison population is at breaking point.  Recent police and judicial decisions regarding the treatment of those who openly spout religious hate in their marches for so called Palestinian freedom from "the river to the sea" are bringing this government to a point of no return in the interface between anarchy and democracy.  Simple but deep philosophical questions on the freedom of judges` sentencing options, jurors` rights to bring in "perverse" verdicts, police interpretations of the law in conflict with parliament`s interpretation of said law, prison governors` and parole boards` decisions in overriding original sentencing decisions and many other policies and decisions below the public horizon are about to be tested. MOJ spending figures show a planned 4.8% cut in operational spending on justice to £10bn in 2024/25 from £10.5bn in 2023/24.  Russian oligarchs, their estranged wives, Arab property developers, disgruntled media stars and others similar might consider London the best place to spend their favoured currency on their favourite high priced KCs but for Josephine Bloggs alighting from the Clapham all electric omnibus needing help on a dark winter night as she walks home the legal future is bleak.  Is the end nigh for British justice? Can somebody help?

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. 

Knife offending in this country is endemic.  Hardly a day goes by from Cornwall to Cumbria without such an offence taking place.  And still, this government like so many others, is by passing immediate custody  and offering ever improved sentences for offenders as if they were offering new improved washing powder.  

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."

The complete document on knives and bladed articles is available here. 

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.

Governments of all shades, Secretaries of State for Justice and Home Office Ministers have spouted on for decades about what they`ll do about knife crime.  It`s fair to say that very few of the public now take anything they say on the subject except with a large pinch of salt.  The old adage of the boy who cried wolf has survived for centuries owing to the underlying truth, reasoning and logic conveyed by those few words.  What is not immediately flagged up is the effect on a society when a government duly elected operates under that very proverb crying wolf so often that electors finally disregard its words and as a result seek the apparent simplicity of the demagogues who offer manna from a utopian heaven the price of which, unsaid, is the loss of democratic rights.  I am fearful that we are slowly entering that period when the value of almost any political policy promised by government or those who seek government is discounted, disregarded and held as an example of the need by some voters for "strong government".  The lesson is there before us. The point is whether the sheep are listening to the politicians who cry wolf.  

SOCIETAL BREAKDOWN//CONSERVATIVE "BLAH" OR OPPOSITION "RHUBARB"

 

Below is the main headline from today`s Times newspaper.  

It is apparent that the press office of the MOJ is gearing up for the forthcoming general election when the hacks therein employed will have to show they`re earning their salt by pushing the same propaganda they have employed for years past when their masters fear  their period of power is slipping ever more rapidly into the control of His Majesty`s Loyal Opposition.  All those involved in the criminal justice system know full well this is a ritual and like any ritual it is symbolic only.  Just as for Catholics the body of Christ offered by the priest is but a wafer the hang `em flog `em headline lacks substance and is but a modern variation of the rune or the entrails of a chicken to be interpreted in any which way it suits the reader. No doubt there will be further similar headlines ranging from abuse of the domestic kind to xenophobic outbursts on what must be done to stop the boats via increased punishments for knife crime and castration for sex offenders.  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

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.  

Of course when viewing the chart it must be remembered that in the wake of the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, the Premier League suspended its 2019/20 season on 13 March and it wasn`t until 17 June that once again spectators attended.  Nevertheless an average of only 347 offenders were issued annually with a banning order over those five years.  Delving a little deeper into those numbers, considering that there were approximately 190 Premier League games played and many hundreds of cup and lower league professional matches between 1st January 2018 and 31st December 2022 the total of 1736 banning orders for the period is derisory. 

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. 

KNIFE CRIME SENTENCING; THEORY & PRACTICE

We are expecting a general election next year. As a matter of curiosity I attempted to see a copy of the Conservative Party manifesto for the election of 2010.  A normal search indicated it was not available for public observation.  

Ever since I was appointed J.P. during the last Labour government  I naturally have taken an interest in crime and government statements on how  they are going to crack down on this crime or that offence.  Tony Blair in his first Labour manifesto famously declared, "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime."  Having been in office for 13 years the Tories are making yet again another effort to convince us they are tackling knife crime.  A new consultation paper on knives has just reached its final submissions date. Since 2010/11, the total number of selected offences involving a knife or sharp instrument has increased by 34% (from around 34,000 to 45,000) and the number of threats to kill using knives or sharp objects has nearly quadrupled (from around 1,400 to 5,500).The recent police recorded crime figures published by the ONS showed a 21% increase in the number of knife and offensive weapon offences recorded from 37,706 in year ending September 2021 to 45,639 in year ending September 2022. We all know that "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments but nevertheless it is in the courts that the final link in the chain of promises, manifesto commitments, parliamentary processes and legislation becomes manifest.  I recollect that the case known as Povey became standard approach to sentencing knife crime in magistrates court.  I kept a copy in my personal folder which accompanied me every time I sat.  Indeed my colleagues often requested a copy.  Throughout my appointment there was never a training session on such criminality. All such "advice" was supposed to emanate from our legal advisors.  Such ignorance must be bliss to so many now sitting in judgement on their peers being led by their noses under the control of HMCTS. In practice sentencing on bladed articles and knives seems no more or less than the pot luck of the last century despite all the exhortations and Guidelines. On so many grounds this offender`s sentencing even with the limited report seems a throwback.   This Deputy District Judge perhaps was "under orders" not to increase the prison population although such instructions from on high are always denied.  At the other end of the scale here is a case where logic and compassion seem to have been sacrificed to "the computer says no" attitude possibly encouraged by a legal advisor covering his/her arse.  

I have long looked forward to the time when live TV of magistrates courts to a local population becomes as commonplace as parliamentary TV.  Indeed with the dearth of local news media reporting court activities it has become essential for justice to be seen to be done by a wider public ignorant of its processes until Jo Bloggs has to appear herself.  I can find no statistics on the numbers of litigants in person conducting their own defence at trial in magistrates courts. From my experience the vast majority of defendants pleading guilty are unrepresented except perhaps when expert representation is needed in more serious matters eg driving disqualification or possibility of a custodial sentence  This academic study might be worth a few minutes of JPs` reading time.  

From all accounts there is a public perception that knife crime is out of control and sentencing is inadequate. No doubt until the general election we will hear the same old platitudes familiar to us all [at least those of us with long enough memories] from the days of tram cars and trolley buses whether referring to the Glasgow razor gangs or the Sweeney Todds of the East End : we will reduce knife crime and punish offenders.