GORGE ORWELL HAS ADOPTED ALICE IN THE WONDERLAND THAT IS NOW THE UNITED KINGDOM

I suppose it`s not being too late with the news that once more magistrates courts` sentencing powers have again been increased to 12 months custody for a single offence. The reason given by the MOJ is that prison overcrowding will be eased.  But does this simple explanation stand up to simple scrutiny?  Forget all the statistics except this; for decades the rate of immediate custody in the lower courts has been no more than 3% - 4% of all sentences.  On an individual level I have yet to meet a magistrate who enjoyed acquiescing to such a sentence. Indeed a personal guideline which in days gone by I offered to a new magistrate was a case which has stayed in my mind for 20 years when discussing custody for assault: it went as follows: a man in his mid twenties with a previous record of violent behaviour living with a partner in the late stages of her pregnancy  pulled her down a flight of stairs by her hair at their home.  We sentenced him to the maximum six months immediate custody.  The proposed new guideline will mean that more either way offences will be tried and sentenced in magistrates courts.  Perhaps in its wisdom the MOJ will remove that choice.  In any event why would the number of custodial sentences be reduced?  There does not seem to be any logical reason.  What will happen is that the waiting time at crown courts will be reduced.  However an unintended consequence for this chopping and changing trial horses in mid gallop is that there will be a frantic increase in attempts to have more magistrates and perhaps an increase also in the number of appointed District Judges[MC].  A rushed recruitment programme for demanding jobs inevitably leads to a lowering in subsequent performance.  Police forces throughout the country having lost long serving officers by the thousand since 2010 are facing a similar situation with fewer "old hands" available to bring their knowledge and experience on the streets to their new young colleagues.  The new Secretary of State by publishing another sentencing review is just following on the pious words of so many of her predecessors.  How long she will be around to see it fail is a moot point.  

In view of the fact that Scotland has the worst drug problem in Europe there was an interesting answer to the following Freedom of Information Request:- In the last five years how many people have received the maximum sentence permitted for contraventions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, in relation to possession, possession with intent to supply or being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs in the High court?  The short answer is not one.

It seems that the push of some Muslims to associate many social issues to the situation in Gaza should be a cause for concern.  Thankfully this country has a record of church and state mainly (but not always eg House of Lords) being separated.  Whilst not like a constitutional requirement as in America our fumbling way through such matters and others similar seemed to be effective........until now.  The banking arrangements between Tesco and Barclays Bank should be a matter only for the companies concerned.  For these Islamists who can be described as political Muslims our society should be re-aligned to their long term desire for sharia.  These and other early signs of political Islam unfortunately are not being faced by the government or perhaps Keir Starmer hopes that the public is blind to such matters. With a population now of 3.4 million Muslims he might be correct but with a projected population of 13 million in 2050 the chickens will be coming home thick and fast to do their roosting. 

All too often from TV to Twitter [X] we are being informed of the remarks in the workplace or elsewhere that are taboo and worthy of legal action.  Another reference can now be added to the plethora currently classified as verboten.  Calling a man "baldie" is now to be viewed as sexual harassment. Truly this country is in wonderland, down the rabbit hole or through the looking glass. Whatever you might choose we are at a period in our history when George Orwell has adopted Alice.  

SJP JUGGLERS DROP THE BALL OF JUSTICE

Sentencing of newsworthy serious criminals on live TV is no longer in itself a newsworthy event.  Pioneered in Scotland such opportunities  to show  the law in action are an indication of how the MOJ wants the public to perceive the state of justice perhaps to disguise the failure of the last 14 years during which from police to prisons and all posts in between only a rabid optimist would opine that  the public is well served against criminality. When multiple murderers are sentenced in effect to die in jail the tool makers in Petty France can almost be seen as clap happy with their mutual back slapping as national media take up the stories. However it`s at the local level whether on line or in print that tens of millions of people have their glimpses of the law in action. One would have thought that the recent furore initiated  belatedly  by the Magistrates Association in respect of the Single Justice Procedure would have invited criticism as to why it has taken nine years to reach the eyes and ears of the general public.  It has not.

Local print media, the vehicles which in times past by their reporting of local magistrates courts when indeed such were actually "local", were  once the "name `em and shame `em" engines of a type of neighbourhood watch all but absent now in our collective rush to the keyboard.  At one time the option for local newspaper proprietors would have been to try and increase circulation by offering content that social on line media and mass media print by their very structures could not.  However nowadays it seems the business plan for local press is to restrict their on line availability to subscription only.  By playing chicken with their readership as to who will give way first; those prepared to buy the hard copy, those who would pay subs or those who refuse either option, it`s increasingly unlikely that truly local news will be reported.  It is likely news agencies` synchronised   stories will become the mainstay for many.  And so the "news" of the Magistrates Association`s self critical and snivelling statement posted here last week has been widely repeated almost word for word up and down the country.  My point is why has it taken so long for this overdue criticism to reach the public.  A large cadre of defence lawyers must have been the first to be aware of the iniquities involved.  Their representatives within the Law Society would surely have been in the loop to lobby MOJ.  But most of all individual magistrates not worthy of their appointment have been complicit since 2015 in presiding over a court system that they must have been aware was acting contrary to their oath: "  I... swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lord King Charles the third, in the office of Justice of the Peace and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will."

I have yet to see, hear or read of the contrition of any single or group of magistrates for their actions.  In my time on the bench we had an annual general bench meeting where any subject deemed suitable by the bench chairman and his/her committee could be discussed and voted on.  I understand that such process has been discontinued.  This is unsurprising since the take over by HMCS, the abolition of magistrates courts committees and subsequently the establishment of HMCTS, was to that end; the magistrates courts must be taken under complete government control.  So much for the joke concept of "local" when ascribed to justice. 

It`s apparent that unless magistrates form a new body to actually represent themselves as a professional association the operation of the lower courts system will increasingly be weighted to the needs of a government and less to the application of the law for local communities.  I always thought that magistrates being the only members of a branch of the judiciary not being financially beholden to government could and would use that independence for the public good.  On a personal level I resigned before my designated retirement date because I did not want to implement impending legislation.  I wonder how many sitting as Single Justices have had any doubt about their position?  They are as jugglers trying to keep five concepts airborne when they`ve trained for three.  There is the inevitability of public failure which should be accompanied by humiliation but rarely is.

 I do not expect this site will be flooded with comments.  

TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS

Sometimes this retired magistrate notices a single incident which might be of interest to those who give a few of their valuable minutes to read his opinions. On some occasions a few legal happenings from magistrates courts to the Appeal Court can shine a light on principles underlying the law and/or the legal system. Today is such an occasion. 

Time and time again I have railed against the system allowing dangerous drivers to avoid disqualification.  It is known as the exceptional hardship argument. Use the search box with that input for previous comments.  It seems that dozens of times daily solicitors are making vast fees by persuading muddled headed magistrates of an argument for which no legal definition exists and which relies solely on said solicitors making the bench feel sympathy for the recidivist erring driver who has previously accumulated penalty points.  In this particular case his argument; ""I now work as a delivery driver for ASDA and I am the sole breadwinner in my house because my wife looks after our four children. "Living in the countryside, most of the jobs that are available are ones that you have to drive to so even if I went for a job that wasn't a driving one, it would still be difficult. That would mean that we would lose our home and so I don't know what we would do." is heard time and time again in court. It is a spurious argument .  I won`t repeat now what can be found in those previous posts referred to above. The matter was reported in Lincolnshire Live. 

ASBOs, CRASBOs and their like have become a way of life over the last twenty years for police and councils. They are Civil orders thrown at those where criminal actions cannot or are unwilling to be proved in a magistrates court. They are akin to raising the volume on a TV set when the problem lies in the viewer`s having a hearing problem. I have a personal interest in Criminal Behaviour Orders having sat on the very first such action ever brought in England.  FYI  it was badly drafted and my bench threw it out. The ASBO was but the preliminary of many such so called orders to be promulgated.  Currently Football Banning Orders are in the headlines but this is a typical example.

By the actions of more than a few, MPs are behaving as if the law and shame are not parameters of their behaviour or actions.  Such is the scandal of Claudia Webbe. Now that her custodial sentence has been overturned she does not face a re-selection process.  She can continue with impunity to supposedly represent her constituents. This is just a single and not the worst example of how our society is disintegrating in a morass of political effluent. 

It doesn`t happen often in magistrates courts but I have personally (in agreement with my colleagues of course) intervened in a case and dismissed the charge there being no case to answer.  A recent case in Scotland might be of interest for the principle applied in that decision being reversed.

I would imagine that very few criminal lawyers are in favour of judge only trials.  That in itself is a paradox because one doesn`t hear them complaining of trials presided over by a single District Judge but many are quick to criticise a three person jury comprising JPs. This actor had his nose put out of joint when he was refused a jury trial.  

Having many years ago been personally involved in a case of employee status which ended up in the Appeal Court in front of a high court judge and two assessors this caught my attention. 

I was well ensconced in the middle chair when reference to defendants` bad character was officially introduced in the lower court under strict conditions. This is an interesting case which might provide thoughtful opinions for those who are not too familiar with the nuts and bolts of the requirements for its introduction. 

With the Home Secretary and the Attorney General recently accused of sailing too close to the legal wind in some of their recent comments and commentaries on the law, various legal matters and the legal ramifications of some government actions  Lord Burnett the Lord Chief Justice commented in a speech last night that the Lord Chancellor aka the Secretary of State for Justice must inter alia, ‘In imposing an obligation on the lord chancellor to have regard to defending the independence of the judiciary he is required to be active in support of the judiciary, within government and, if necessary, in public when that independence is threatened or attacked.’  A report is available here.

Many of the preceding observations might by some be considered  of only marginal interest to magistrates although I would of course disagree but a topic that gets down to the  nitty gritty of the state of current and future development of justice at the lower court is the Single Justice Procedure initiated in 2015 supposedly on the basis of how Tesco operates; pile it high and cheap.  Simple non custodial offences are adjudicated upon by a single JP sitting in a private office advised by a legal advisor. Previous posts can be accessed through the search box where a regular reader will not be surprised that I am certainly not in favour with such a system. As if the iniquity of the process is not enough it seems that the know alls at the MOJ are about to squeeze the justice lemon of even more pips by cutting the numbers of legal advisors to a third of the current level i.e. one such advisor will oversee the actions of three so called courts simultaneously.  And so continues the decline of  what was once the finest and fairest justice system in the world.  I suppose it still might be if you`re a Russian oligarch or married to a Premier League multi millionaire. 

POLITICS AND THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

Perhaps the single most reasonable criticism of our courts is that to many observers the sentence doesn`t fit the crime.  Very few matters, especially at magistrates courts, are reported in a degree of depth that allows knowledgeable and fair criticism. That in itself is IMHO a valid enough reason why media outlets and government should explore the benefits to each of live TV or on line screening of the day to day happenings at magistrates courts initially and crown courts in due course.  This post inter alia consists of extracts from recent newspaper reports which indicate sentencing which some readers might find disturbing (to paraphrase some of the ridiculous woke pronouncements heard every day prior to the showing of some TV programmes)  insofar as the apparent variation or inconsistency shown by the benches in question. Thousands of similar cases are heard every year.     

 The following case was heard at Reading Magistrates’ Court Friday, May 21

JORDAN HINDS, 27, of Holberton Road, Reading, admitted possession of cannabis in Reading on October 9, 2019. He was also convicted of two counts of driving under the influence of cocaine and one count of driving under the influence of cannabis on the same date. He was banned from driving for 12 months, fined £530, ordered to pay court costs of £620 and told to pay a £53 victim surcharge.

 A ROUND-UP of recent cases heard at Newport Magistrates’ Court.

MATTHEW WILLIAMS, 27, of George Lansbury Drive, Newport, was jailed for six weeks and banned from driving for three years and 21 days after he admitted drug driving in an Audi S3 with cocaine derivative benzoylecgonine and cannabis derivative delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in his blood on Ringland Way on December 27, 2020. He was ordered to pay a £122 surcharge.  

16th August The Mail Barrow in Furness South Cumbria Magistrates Court

Barrow drug driver disqualified for 12 months

MAN from Barrow has been disqualified from driving for 12 months.Liam Clawson, of James Watt Terrace, Barrow, was found to be over the legal limit for benzoylecgonine whilst driving on Island Road on February 10. Clawson, 33, admitted the offence at South Cumbria Magistrates' Court last Tuesday, where he was also fined £150. 

DRUG driver has been banned from driving for 15 months by magistrates.Mr Kamen Alty, of Maple Avenue, Ulverston, was found to be over the legal limit for cannabis whilst driving an Audi A3 along Quebec Street on May 28. He admitted the offence at South Cumbria Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, August 10, and was also fined £300.

The following are the latest results contributed by HM Courts Service, for cases sentenced by West Sussex Magistrates’ Court sitting at Worthing and Crawley from July 30 to August 6, 2021.

Alan Young, 66, of Ham Close, Worthing, was fined £186 after admitting drug-driving (118ug/l benzoylecgonine) in Clifton Road, Worthing, on January 1, 2021. He was also fined £186 and must pay £115 costs after admitting drug-driving (106ug/l benzoylecgonine) in Tarring Road, Worthing, on February 23, 2021. He was disqualified from driving for 24 months.

Andrew Brown, 44, of Ruskin Road, Worthing, was given a community order and must carry out 80 hours’ unpaid work after admitting drug-driving (5.5ug/l Delta-9-THC) in Penfold Road, Worthing, on January 16, 2021. He must pay £85 costs, £95 victim surcharge, and was disqualified from driving for 36 months.

Robert Walters, 19, of Monterey Gardens, Bognor Regis, was given a community order and must carry out 60 hours’ unpaid work after admitting two charges of drug-driving (85ug/l benozylecgonine, 5.6ug/l Delta-9-THC) in Crookthorn Lane, Climping, on January 1, 2021. He must pay £85 costs, £95 victim surcharge, and was disqualified from driving for 12 months. 

Aaron Pelling, 35, of Angola Road, Worthing, was fined £80 and must pay £34 victim surcharge after admitting drug-driving (300ug/l benzoylecgonine) in Findon Road, Worthing, on November 13, 2020. He was disqualified from driving for 12 months. 

For those convicted of drug driving in the magistrates court the penalties are:-

a minimum 1 year driving ban

an unlimited fine

up to 6 months in prison

Many high street solicitors make a handsome living for defending those accused of drug driving. A single and well reasoned example can be accessed here. 

The Sentencing Council`s latest guidance on drug driving is copied below:-

Driving or attempting to drive

Triable only summarily

Maximum: Unlimited fine and/or 6 months

Must endorse and disqualify for at least 12 months   Must disqualify for at least 2 years if offender has had two or more disqualifications for periods of 56 days or more in preceding 3 years – refer to disqualification guidance. Magistrates: consult your legal adviser for further guidance

Must disqualify for at least 3 years if offender has been convicted of a relevant offence in preceding 10 years – consult your legal adviser for further guidance

I would assume (hope?) that on the bench all magistrates (and of course DJs) would have that guidance before them. However since the concept of local justice by local magistrates has been effectively discarded it is even more important that the national guidelines and guidance is applied fairly across the board.  Raw annual statistics poured over by broadsheet newspapers and academics is no substitute for bringing home to the public the results of what is happening in the courts.  Indeed the secrecy of the Single Justice Procedure makes this increasingly necessary.  When the public loses interest in the law government smiles.  I have previously here argued for what is simply called Court TV.  It has long been available in USA and there is a TV channel of that title available on Sky.  Partial televising of a criminal court process has been undertaken in Scotland and the Supreme Court is available on line.  But make  no mistake; this government is withholding itself from scrutiny in many aspects.  It is being disingenuous on the supposed construction of new hospitals, on the numbers of "new" police officers; in the latter case attempting to replace the same number removed from the service since the Tories took over from Labour in 2010. Open justice being seen to be done is a pillar of any democracy. There is however apparently little interest from those supposedly looking after our liberties in seeking this objective.  Perhaps it`s because most of those people and groups are of a leftist persuasion and IMHO there is little doubt that the capitalist media would have to be the partner to government and that would not sit squarely with their politics. So once more I assume that the politics of the situation outweigh the interests of justice.     

RESEARCHERS MUST BE ALLOWED INTO THE JURY ROOM

A major "problem" with any justice system is that apart from those who are involved with its functioning and therefore derive their ability to put bread on their family`s table from its continuance, is that the majority of the public who are uninvolved in serious law breaking whether as witness or defendant rarely express any interest in the subject.   Their knowledge of the legal system and its many ramifications in a democratic society are derived from the various media available which now means the sometimes rabid utterings in Twitter or Facebook and the like.  Indeed that is one reason why I have written here not a few times bewailing the lack of old fashioned local newspaper court reporting and the corollary of my wish to see local live TV court reporting. However to return to the reality of today; what some would say is the bedrock of our justice system, the jury, is under severe criticism from both ends of the legal spectrum; judges and victims or their families.  On 27th April I referred to the situation in Northern Ireland where the then current practice as in Great Britain "a jury of one`s peers" could not cope with the incendiary civil disturbances of the Troubles. The problems in England and Wales caused by the current pandemic exacerbated by a decade`s under spending imposed on the Ministry of Justice by successive Tory administrations have led some senior judiciary to contemplate the suspension of jury trials.  Not all lawyers are opposed to the idea or at least are open to a detailed investigation into the possibility of changes to the hallowed jury of 12.   Wikipedia offers a fairly comprehensive but not total understanding of the jury system. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 allowed for the acceptance of majority verdicts. I think it is fair to say that investigations and inquiries into the jury system have been more theoretical and statistical than practical.  No outside observers are allowed into the jury room and jurors are not allowed to comment subsequent to their trial involvement. It would seem that the prime requirement for a juror would be an ability to understand the English language and not just every day language but the more defined language of the legal system and its operatives.  A well recognised authority on this topic and its findings is available here with an emphasis on English language proficiency of those who have immigrated here. It would not seem unreasonable that there should be a check on language ability as a requirement for jury service. It would also seem sensible that a person`s ability to be able to reason and differentiate credibility of evidence of witnesses as essential to wade through the statements given in the witness box where there is always the possibility  of deliberate lying or distortion of the truth.  Finally in this very short opinion piece I would opine that it is inappropriate that a person who is not a British citizen can be selected for jury duty. Surely when we talk of a jury of peers a fellow citizen fits that requirement and a non citizen does not. 

All the above is theory, opinion and history.  The nefarious results of some jury trials are essential reading for most criminal lawyers.  Indeed such an event was the subject of my post 27th April referred to above. However an example of the more serious consequences of a possibility of a jury gone wrong was reported in some detail in long reads today. Of course we will never know why the jury acquitted; speculation is all we have.  However there is one speculation that has probably more credibility than any other: if the case had been heard in Scotland there would have been the possibility of the third verdict, unique in the western world, not proven. There are those south of the border who would be aghast at the very thought of such a decision being available to English juries their argument being that the innocent could be tarred with guilt and the guilty would forever be unable to claim their innocence. Given the case aforementioned above it doesn`t seem unreasonable to state that the true verdict was indeed that the level of proof required for a guilty verdict was lacking and that non proven is a more accurate understanding of what happened in the privacy and secrecy of the jury room.  We will never know. And that is the crux.  The conduct of juries being treated as sacrosanct is no longer tenable.  Selected academic studies must be initiated into this so called bastion of English justice if judge only trials in England are to be a non starter until revolution hits the streets of Westminster. 

COURT TV MUST SURELY BE COMING

Watching Prime Minister`s Questions today I couldn`t fail to remember that it was as long ago as 1989 when the House of Commons debates and proceedings were first broadcast live to the great British public. It had taken eleven attempts (all but the last defeated) and 22 years for the necessary legislation to succeed. Yesterday I happened to switch on "Court TV" to witness the live screening of juror number 2 being questioned by defence and prosecuting lawyers in the George Floyd trial preliminaries prior to the opening of the trial in Minneapolis which will be televised live. And to cap it this morning on Twitter as on most other days I read a series of news reports and reporters informing the world of video evidence not being available to report, of a dearth of reporters actually reporting events, of reporters being barred from proceedings and various other reasons why only the headline crimes make news these days and so much lower level crime is thus under reported. Add to the mix that as a result of THAT INTERVIEW more attempts and pressure from MPs and others are being urged to fettle even more the so called freedom of the press that we currently still enjoy. Surely it is only a matter of time for permission from government and the attraction of another source of revenue for broadcasters to allow direct court television in this country? I would envisage this initiative to begin at magistrates court level and progress eventually to crown and appeal court. After all the principle has been established in Scotland and in the live viewing of the Supreme Court. Admittedly this topic has been a bee in my post JP bonnet for some time [search court TV or similar in the search box for previous posts]

As I said; it`s only a matter of time unless our politics drifts too much to the extremes of Left or Right when extremists on both sides will, if true to form and history, have the objective to reduce public awareness of certain events and to increase control of their reporting with the Morning Pravda, Evening Pravda and Sunday Pravda our favourite media.

ALLOW MEDIA TO SPONSOR LIVE TELEVISING MAGISTRATES COURTS

For some years there have been musings from quarters on high on the televising of events at the criminal courts.  Since its inception the Supreme Court has been available for those interested to view on line. I`m sure that nobody then would have predicted that during the Brexit legal shenanigans prior to October 31st last year at its height over 2.8 million viewers gave up some of their valuable time to watch the live proceedings.  However with regard to the every day process of justice at magistrates and crown courts with the decline of local print media that process has become ever more invisible to the general public in England and Wales. However for those north of the border the criminal justice in my opinion bears much more relevance to this new millennium than its southern counterpart.  

  
Guide to Jury Service Eligibility and Applying for Excusal in Scotland
Are you qualified for jury service?
Subject to the information included in boxes A and B below, you are qualified for jury service if:
 you will be at least 18 years old on the date that you start your jury service;
 you are registered as a parliamentary or local government elector; AND
 you have lived in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for any period of at least 5 years since you were 13 years old.
You are not qualified for jury service if you do not meet all of these criteria, or if anything in box A applies to you, and you should complete the enclosed application and return it to the court as soon as possible.
You are ineligible if anything in box B applies to you, and you should complete the enclosed application and return it to the court as soon as possible.
You may apply for excusal as of right if the information in box C applies to you. If you wish to apply you should complete the enclosed application and return it to the court as soon as possible.
WARNING: It is an offence to serve on a jury knowing that you are not qualified for jury service or are ineligible or disqualified from jury service.
Part 1 of your application
You must fill in this section carefully or the court will not be able to process your application. Please make sure that you include your name, address, person ID (this is the number which is in brackets after your name on the front of your citation, it is 7 or 8 digits long), date of birth (where requested).
Box A – Persons disqualified from jury service
You are disqualified from jury service if:
 you are on bail in or in connection with criminal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom;
 you have been sentenced, at any time, in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man –
 to a period of imprisonment for life or for a term of 5 years or more; or
 to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure, during the pleasure of the Secretary of State or the Governor of Northern Ireland (i.e. sentenced for murder while under the age of 18);
 or you have in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man –
 in the last 7 years (or 3.5 years where you were under 18 on the date of conviction) served any part of a sentence of imprisonment or detention, which was for between 3 months and 6 months; or
 in the last 10 years (or 5 years where you were under 18 on the date of conviction) served any part of a sentence of imprisonment or detention, which was for between 6 months and 30 months; or
 at any time served any part of a sentence of imprisonment or detention, which was for between 30 months and 5 years; or
 in the last 7 years been detained in a borstal institution;
 in the last 5 years (or 2.5 years where you were under 18 on the date of conviction) you were convicted of an offence and one or more of the following disposals was made:
 a drug treatment and testing order;
 a restriction of liberty order;
 or a community payback order;
under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995; or
 a community order under the Criminal Justice Act 2003;
 a youth community order under section 33 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000;
 a community order under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996; or
 a drug treatment and testing order under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.
Box B – Persons ineligible
You are ineligible for jury service if any of the categories mentioned below apply to you:
 you are a Justice of the Supreme Court or the President or Deputy President of that Court;
 you are a Senator of the College of Justice;
 you are a sheriff;
 you are a summary sheriff
 you are a Justice of the Peace;
 you are the chairman or the president, the vice chairman or vice president, the registrar or assistant registrar of any tribunal;
 you have, at any time within the 10 years immediately preceding the date at which your eligibility for jury service is being considered, come within any description listed above in this box.
 you are an Advocate or a solicitor, whether or not in actual practice as such;
 you are an advocate’s clerk;
 you are an apprentice of, or a legal trainee employed by, solicitors;
 you are an officer or staff of any court if your work is wholly or mainly concerned with the day to day administration of the court;
 you are employed as a shorthand writer in any court;
 you are a Clerk of the Peace or one of their deputies;
 you are a member of or staff of the Scottish Police Authority
 you are an Inspector of Constabulary appointed by Her Majesty;
 you are an assistant inspector of constabulary appointed by the Secretary of State.
 you are a constable of the Police Service of Scotland (including constables on temporary service within the meaning of section 15 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.
 you are a constable of any constabulary maintained under statute;
 you are a person employed in any capacity by virtue of which you have the powers and privileges of police constables;
 you are a special constable;
 you are a police cadet
 you are person appointed under section 26(1) of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.
 you are a member of the National Criminal Intelligence Service;
 you are a member of the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service or a person employed by that Authority under section 13 of the Police Act 1997;
 you are an officer of the National Crime Agency;
 you are an officer of prisons, remand centres, detention centres, borstal institutions and young offenders institutions;
 you are a prison monitoring co-ordinator appointed under section 7A(2) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 and independent prison monitor appointed under section 7B (2)(a) of that Act
 you are a prisoner custody officer within the meaning of section 114(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;
 you are a procurator fiscal within the meaning of section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, or are employed as a clerk or assistant to such procurators fiscal;
 you are a messenger at arms or sheriff officer;
 you are a member of a children’s panels;
 you are a reporter appointed under section 36 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or are a member of a reporter’s staff;
 you are a director of social work appointed under section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or are employed to assist such directors in the performance of such of their functions as relate to probation schemes within the meaning of section 27 of that Act;
 you are a member of the Parole Board for Scotland; or
 you have, at any time within the 5 years immediately preceding the date at which your eligibility for jury service is being considered, come within any description contained in the categories above in box B;
 you have, at any time within the 5 years immediately preceding the date at which your eligibility for jury service is being considered, been a member or employee of the Scottish Police Services Authority.
SCS003Pilot
 you are a member or employee of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission;
 you are a chief officer of a community justice authority established under section 3 of the Management of
Offenders etc. (Scotland) Act 2005;
 you are a person who is receiving medical treatment for a mental disorder and are either –
 for the purposes of that treatment, detained in hospital under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 or the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;
 for the time being subject to guardianship under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000.
Are you eligible to apply for excusal?
Box C – Persons excusable as of right
If you come within one of the categories noted below, you have the option to apply to the court to be excused as of right. Please Note: you will only be excused ‘as of right’ if you apply within 7 days of receiving the Jury Citation. If you apply outwith this period then you will be required to state a good reason for excusal. The clerk of court will consider your request, taking account of all relevant circumstances and you may be required to attend for jury service. This does not apply if you are aged 71 or over - in these circumstances you can apply for
exemption up until the date you attend court.
 you are a peer or peeress entitled to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords;
 you are a member of the House of Commons;
 you are an officer of the House of Lords;
 you are an officer of the House of Commons;
 you are a member of the Scottish Parliament;
 you are a member of the Scottish Executive;
 you are a junior Scottish Minister;
 you are a representative to the Assembly of the European Parliament;
 you are a member of the National Assembly for Wales;
 you are the Auditor General for Scotland;
 you are a medical practitioner; dentist; nurse; midwife; pharmaceutical chemist; or a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner (if actually practising your profession) and are registered (whether full or otherwise), you are enrolled or are certified under the enactments relating to that profession;
 you are a practising member of a religious society or order the tenets or beliefs of which are incompatible with jury service.
 you are a person in a holy order;
 you are a regular minister of any religious denomination; or
 you are a vowed member of any religious order living in a monastery, convent or other religious community.
 you are a serving member of:
 any of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces;
 the Women’s Royal Naval Service;
 Queen Alexandra’s Royal Naval Nursing Service; or
 any Voluntary Aid Detachment serving with the Royal Navy.
However, if your commanding officer certifies that it would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the force of which you are a member, should you be required to attend for jury service, you may apply for excusal as of right up until the date you attend court;
 you have attended court for jury service within the last five years but were not selected by ballot to serve on a jury (this only applies where your previous attendance was on a date prior to 10th January 2011);
 you have attended court for jury service within the last two years but were not selected by ballot to serve on a jury (this only applies where your previous attendance was on a date on or after 10th January 2011);
 you have attended at court for jury service and were selected by ballot to serve on a jury, within the last five years;
 you were excused by direction of any court from jury service for a period which has not yet expired;
 you have reached the age of 71.
SCS003 Pilot V19.02.19
Applying for excusal
Box D – Applications for excusal on the grounds of ill health or physical disability
If you wish to apply for excusal on the basis of ill health or physical disability then you must enclose a medical certificate along with your response. This can normally be obtained free of charge from your GP, in terms of Article 4 of Schedule 4 and regulation 25 of The National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Scotland) Regulations 2018 (2018/66). If your doctor considers your condition is long term or unlikely to change, please ask your doctor to include this information in your medical certificate.
Box E – Applications for excusal due to other special reasons
If you wish to apply for excusal due to another special reason, for example commitments at work, cancellation of which would cause abnormal inconvenience either to yourself or others, or holiday plans which would be difficult or expensive to rearrange, you should complete the relevant sections of part 3 of the form. You must also provide evidence of this, for example booking confirmation or letter from your employer.
Whilst all applications for excusal will be considered sympathetically, you must understand that court staff may not be able to excuse you from jury service. Rules of court state that a jury cannot be balloted where there are less than 30 of those named on the list of jurors present in court, meaning that it may not be possible for court staff to excuse jurors in all cases.

English requirements are available here. Perhaps the biggest differences between the two trial systems is that the Scottish jury of 15 has to meet only a simple majority for a verdict to be reached and that there is the third verdict of not proven available. In Scotland rather than the police who lead an investigation in England it is the procurator fiscal who takes a much greater role than the CPS in the active role of investigation. "Double- sourcing" evidence is unknown in English law. In Scotland it describes the corroboration of evidence which is all important in serious offences.  In practice in addition to a complainants`s evidence there must be additional evidence preferably DNA related or else the case cannot proceed. It could be said that some aspects of the process are akin to the French way of conducting matters insofar as their examining magistrates initiate investigations and issue warrants. Indeed I have long advocated here and elsewhere that Justices of the Peace take a more investigative position especially when trials involve unrepresented defendants. 

However the major difference is that those wise Scottish legal eagles have allowed television into the criminal court.  That decision was further reinforced recently when edited sections of a murder trial were on our televisions recently  Admittedly this was not a live broadcast but it probably dismayed those in the senior English judiciary who would still murmur in private that things have already gone too far in removing the supposed sacred aura surrounding the legal system. 

For the last decade successive governments have allocated ever decreasing funds to a justice system which is more and more seen as having to pay its way in contrast to the historical concept that it had been considered a public service and not a pay to use activity. The demise of local court reporting which has been commented upon more than once on this site has left the door open for enterprising media companies to sponsor live TV broadcasting from magistrates courts. The financial input would be welcomed by HMCTS and the idea of "open" justice would be a reality.  It might not be until the end of this decade but I have no doubt it is just a matter of when and not if. 

Previous posts which might be of interest are available here,  here and here.  

COURT TV IS OVERDUE

A literate population in times long past was considered a threat to authority. No clearer example was the advent of the printing press and the subsequent availability of the bible in the English language produced by William Tyndale in 1536A.D. whose efforts cost him his life. The first ever manuscript in English of the bible by John Wycliffe c1380A.D. led to his long dead bones being exhumed and crushed into powder on papal orders. With the advent of at least a rudimentary education for the masses in the middle and late nineteenth century the coming of mass media allowed sometimes lurid accounts of court proceedings to be brought to anybody`s attention for the price of one penny. Indeed court reports were a major feature of local newspapers until the increasing prevalence of a television set in most homes about fifty years ago gradually reduced the impact of the written word so far as news reporting was concerned.

From time to time MPs have debated televising the House of Commons. The first proceedings actually to be televised was the Debate on the Address in November 1989 and the first televised speech was by Ian Gow a Conservative opponent of the experiment. In July 1990 what had been an experiment became a permanent feature and it is now hard to imagine what the reporting of the political world was like without live T.V. from the House of Commons when it consisted of abridged newspaper reports mixed with opinions of newspaper editors and proprietors. Hansard was for the very few. There have been  limited transmissions in Scotland. With the Supreme Court being available live on Sky I hope this is just the beginning.

It is my opinion that those politicians charged with considering the possibilities of live programming of court are of the same mind set as their forebears of fifty years ago; the details might not be the same but the principles most certainly are especially at a time when this government like its predecessor is attempting to limit public access to legal proceedings in the civil courts and is in general under the blanket of reducing costs making life so difficult for defendants in some cases as to be impeding the maxim of innocent until proved guilty. Without doubt there are major areas of concern regarding witnesses but the principle of a public gallery open to all in 60” 3D and surround sound surely is the basis on which this innovation must be allowed to come to fruition however large the gallery.

PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY 2:1

A relaxed stay at home Bank Holiday weekend is not usually a time for profound or even not so profound thoughts but then end of season all to play for football matches are not the time for the glaring deficiencies in the game to be so rudely demonstrated. There were no debates over did it cross the line or did it not; this season cameras have seen to that. But there were debateable decisions on fouls which would and could have been beyond doubt if only the referee had had the cojones to stop play for a minute and consult a TV set on the touchline. One might say that FIFA rules do not allow for such confirmation but one day if a referee were to take such an action prior to making a decision nobody but nobody would fault him. 

And so it was that I considered the doubt that exists in juries and magistrates` benches. I can recollect sitting on the wing at a DV trial with the Bench Chairman of a joining amalgamating bench in the chair. We were split as to the defendant`s guilt. The chairman made his pronouncement which ended, “and we find the case proved beyond reasonable doubt”. Can a split bench truly justify such a verdict? Logic suggests otherwise.

Juries in Scotland differ from those south of the border in three major respects:-
1. There are three possible decisions; guilty, not guilty or not proven
2. There is an odd number of jurors…..15
3. A simple majority verdict carries the day
In England under the Juries Act 1974, a majority verdict (10 out of 12) is permitted in some circumstances. A bench of magistrates seems to be empowered with the worst of both worlds. A majority of 2:1 is not exactly overwhelming considering the “jurors” are well versed and trained in structured decision making with regard to an assessment of the facts agreed or in dispute. That majority decision cannot logically or sensibly indicate guilt beyond reasonable doubt if a third of the bench holds such doubt.

Currently no indication is given in open magistrates` court if a decision is split. English law could be aligned with that of the Scots and “Not Proven” be offered as an alternative to “Not Guilty”. Or if that were too radical surely justice would be best served if a split guilty finding led automatically to an appeal before a Judge and two Justices of the Peace at Crown Court? But on thinking about it, it is a near certaintity that this new government [or any other] would not consider justice has a priority over costs.

T.V. IN COURT

For a long time I`ve argued in favour of the televising of court proceedings in England. Scotland has been broadcasting trials for some years albeit on a very selective basis.  Two years ago  SKY TV began live coverage of the Supreme Court. Today  the go ahead has been given to widen the coverage of legal proceedings initially on a restricted basis.  So for the first time in many months I doff my hat to a proposal from the Ministry of Justice.