Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Showing posts sorted by date for query judge to sit with magistrates. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query judge to sit with magistrates. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, 1 July 2025

PERVERSE ACQUITTALS AND THE WEAPONISATION OF JURIES


 
One of the great fictions clung to by our legal establishment is the untouchable wisdom of the English jury. Twelve men and women, good and true, convened to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Except of course when they don't. And occasionally, spectacularly so.


From time to time there are assault cases reported where despite video, multiple corroborating witnesses and visible injury or similar evidence, unmoved by the forensic and testimonial parade a jury has returned a majority not guilty verdict. Court reports would mention "sympathy for his circumstances"; he’d lost his job, the victim had a prior caution etc. The facts apparently irrelevant in such cases being secondary to other factors .


We’ve seen it before. Climate activists gluing themselves to roads  acquitted despite clear breaches of the law because juries “understand their cause.” For many decades there have been instances where protesters trespassing at military bases have walked free. It’s not the legality being judged but the politics and in some cases perhaps the charisma of the defendant.
 

These aren’t just quirks; they’re known quantities. Litigants in person can ask juries to ignore the law; barristers can`t. Barristers sometimes count on jury “common sense” to ignore the law when it doesn’t suit. It’s supposedly the unwritten safety valve of our system. The formal word is “jury equity”; the informal reality is selective application of justice.
 
 
To be clear, most jurors do their best. But unlike magistrates who are trained, appraised, and generally held to some level of consistency, juries operate as legal mayflies: brief,  unaccountable and gone before the consequences have landed.


Perhaps it is time we considered more transparency: not full public disclosures of deliberations; no one wants mob-judged justice but at least a recognition that jury trials are not infallible. A verdict isn't necessarily right simply because it came from twelve people in a room with a foreman and a checklist, an appeal being rejected by the Court of Appeal  and has been dismissed by the The Criminal Cases Review Commission.
 

The problem of course is that criticising juries is something of a taboo. It's a bit like that totem, OUR NHS, our national treasure. If we are to have an honest conversation about justice in 21st century Britain we must be prepared to acknowledge that not all verdicts are wise, just or even comprehensible. To pretend otherwise is to indulge in comforting fiction and fiction has never been much of a foundation for justice.
 
 

It takes a certain type of chutzpah to boast about acquittals before a trial has even begun. Yet that is precisely what a member of Palestine Action recently did remarking, "The public is on our side. Remember that being acquitted can happen and we’re seeing it happen now.One might imagine such a statement would raise eyebrows among those concerned with the rule of law. After all, if verdicts are anticipated not on the basis of evidence or law but on the perceived sympathy of a jury what does that say about the state of our justice system? The message is clear enough: The law might say one thing but juries will say another because they like us. In other words conviction or acquittal is not necessarily tethered to legal merit but to public sentiment. That’s not justice; that’s a popularity contest. The courts are not supposed to be arenas for ideology. Yet in recent years certain activist groups, Palestine Action among them, have learned that the courtroom can double as a stage. They’re not just seeking to defend their actions but to put the system on trial. And juries in their secretive deliberations sometimes oblige. Today activist groups are increasingly calculating jury psychology as part of their tactical toolkit. Legal guilt is almost secondary.


There’s a disturbing logic to this: break the law, make the right noise and rely on a jury’s reluctance to punish those who claim moral high ground. The more emotive the issue; war, climate, colonialism the better the odds. It’s not just courtroom drama; it’s calculated legal theatre. Since some suggest that being a barrister is akin to treading the boards we should not be surprised that even some members of the legal profession agree that there are colleagues who are willing participants in this charade. And the consequences are far-reaching. When certain causes are seen to receive jury indulgence public faith in even-handed justice begins to erode: one rule for activists another for everyone else. Ask the man convicted of criminal damage for scratching a neighbour’s car if he had the luxury of moral justification that the hooded trespassing paint sprayer of military jets claims.


Juries are a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. But they are not infallible nor immune to influence. When defendants begin campaigning to jurors, not before the judge, the balance has already shifted.
 

One might have hoped that those charged with criminal offences would meet their day in court with humility, not hubris. But humility is in short supply when you’ve discovered how to turn the jury system into a political loophole. Consider that open boast above from a Palestine Action member, made with the confidence of someone not fearing justice but anticipating a sympathetic audience.  Will we have to follow the Americans in extending the right to exclude would be jurors?


Translation? Break the law, wrap yourself in a fashionable cause, and let the jury do the rest. Legal guilt is negotiable when ideology is your shield.
 

This isn’t brave resistance; it’s cynical manipulation. It’s trial by politics not trial by evidence. What these defendants are really banking on is not the strength of their case but the predictable failure of jurors to apply the law when feelings get in the way. And they’re not wrong. Recent acquittals of activist vandals some caught red-handed have shown that for certain juries a cause deemed righteous excuses criminal damage. Smash up a weapons factory or spray paint government buildings and if you cry “human rights” loud enough, you might just walk free. The more performative the better. Hence the accusation at the investigative stage against police and CPS of two tier justice.
 
  
For those of us who sat for decades on the bench striving for consistency, fairness and fidelity to the law this is not just frustrating. It is corrosive. It mocks the entire foundation of the criminal justice system: that the law applies equally, regardless of politics, passions, or protest signs. 
Worse still, this selective indulgence sends a message to the public: some offenders are more forgivable than others not because of what they did but because of why they say they did it. That’s not rule of law; it’s rule by narrative.
 

Let’s be clear: jury trial is a cornerstone of English justice. But when it’s treated as a get-out-of-jail-free card for the ideologically aligned it risks becoming a constitutional liability. If the law bends only for those who shout the loudest we don’t have justice: we have judicial theatre with a pre-approved script.
 

Perhaps a modernised version of the system witch finders employed for centuries in determining a woman`s guilt or innocence to a charge of practising witchcraft is a sub conscious underlying feature of facts being abandoned: the woman was tied to a stool which was immersed by a wooden beam in a lake or river.  After one or several immersions if she survived she was considered guilty and punished and if she drowned her innocence had been established. 


It`s increasingly obvious that it`s only after they retire that the most senior judges voice their often critical comments on the legal system.  Of course their conversations with government whilst they are active are top secret.  I suppose that process succeeds depending on which side of the judicial fence one is standing to view it.  


And those of us who actually believe in equal justice? We're expected to sit quietly and clap from the gallery.
 

No thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, 17 December 2024

HOPE OVER DESPAIR


Justice to many people is reading or hearing of the apparent ever lengthening sentences handed down to rapists, terrorists and child murderers.  As of 18 January 2021 Kit Malthouse said that there were 13 million person records, 58.5 million driver records and 62.6 million vehicle records stored on the Police National Computer [PNC]. The PNC is currently directly managed by the Home Office.  According to a Ministry of Justice extract of PNC data there were 9.4 million offenders of working age (16-64) with a nominal record as opposed to the population of 42.4m.  I suppose it can be assumed that around 40%- 50% of the adult population can be considered as having at some time been classified within the system as offenders the majority of whom will have been registered as guilty at a magistrates court hearing.  


There are around 14,000 magistrates, 140 District Judges{MC} and a similar number of Deputy District Judges {MC}. With the backlog in summary matters reaching chaotic proportions the MOJ is once more scratching its bewigged head in how to expedite the situation before its total collapse.  Legal eagles of all denominations will be crying "here we go again".  This time Sir Brian Leveson, he the author  of the controversial "Leveson Review" of 2012   has been handed the poisoned chalice.  Disregarding the closure of half the country`s magistrates courts and apart from such minor changes as increasing magistrates courts sentencing powers from 6 to 12 months custody and then reversing that decision a short time later, the integration of  the courts into His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service, the introduction of digital technology has probably been the main updating of the whole system.  


At the turn of the millenium Lord Justice Auld was similarly charged.  At that time there was relatively little pressure on the system as we now understand it.  The review was more an intellectual exercise in improving what we had by examining existing resources.  As far as magistrates were concerned the general political argument by the then respected Magistrates Association was the more power to jail offenders the better.  From Auld`s point of view the structure of the courts, the utilisation of manpower  and the costs were his paramount concerns.  There is speculation that the impending review might recommend an intermediate level of jurisdiction where a District Judge would preside assisted by two magistrate wingers as is the composition  at crown court appeals where the judge is of the crown court or a recorder.  I can confidently predict that the M.A. would resist that and be prepared "to die on that hill."  Indeed Auld himself rejected that innovation. 


"I recommend that in the exercise of their summary
jurisdiction:
• District Judges and magistrates should not routinely
sit as mixed tribunals to deal with the general range or
any particular type of case or form of proceeding,
though there may be training and local ‘cultural’
advantages in their doing so from time to time"


But that was then and this is now.  There is little doubt that district judges sitting alone without the need for a legally qualified clerk would cost not much different from lay magistrates` expenses plus the salaries of legal advisors. They would also get through more work without the need to retire as often or confer. There is also the question of whether the intellectual quality of the magistracy is as it was a generation ago now that there is high pressure for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).  


Lord Justice Auld`s Review was masterful in his analysis of the magistrates courts.  The impending exercise will have a political blueprint as much as an economic or judicial point of view.  It has been ordered from current weaknesses; its predecessor`s was from a neutral position.   My experience tells me that a majority of criminal lawyers would welcome the limiting of the lay magistracy to non custodial matters.  Indeed they would probably welcome the Scottish form of a Justice of the Peace who hears cases limited to theft, minor assault, antisocial behaviour and road traffic offences where their powers are limited to fines of up to £2,500, prison for up to 2 months, disqualifications and unpaid work in the community.

Although at this time of year hope should overcome despair, for most of the public all this will appear to be a new government`s further attempt to move on from the previous ineptitude of the last 13/14  years.  With the history of the failures at Petty France in full view who can say that that opinion has no validity? 



Finally I thank those who give me some of their valuable minutes to read my opinions.  Whatever one`s religious or non religious affiliations please respect and enjoy the peace and goodwill associated with Christmas and New Year.





Tuesday, 3 December 2024

CRASS COMMENTS AND A FUTURE MAGISTRACY


There can`t be many people who are unaware of the circumstances around the following statement videoed to the great British public a couple of days ago; “middle-class women of a certain age”. That that crass statement by a man who has been made a household name and extremely wealthy by the BBC was offered by him in riposte to allegations of misogyny and worse indicates a certain arrogance or worse. Even at a distance it demonstrates an inability as Robbie Burns observed “o wad some pow'r the giftie gie us to see oursels as ithers see us!”


In our woke infected world it is almost beyond belief that there are still those whom one would have imagined to have their woke antennae at the ever ready sensitivity position. Nowhere is that awareness more active than those working for, with or employed by the Ministry of Justice. Magistrates being hybrids in the system but as over regulated as the rest of the judiciary or perhaps more regulated are subject to being overseen as closely as any character from "1984". Considering the extent that supposedly top functioning appointments committees are responsible for the selection of JPs they certainly allow some crass individuals to fall between the cracks in the system when one reads the results of some investigations of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.


"The expedited process in the Judicial Conduct Magistrates Rules 2023 enables the JCIO to advise the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice that a magistrate should be issued with formal advice or a formal warning where—

(a) there is no dispute as to the facts set out in the complaint;

(b) the alleged facts relate to conduct which the JCIO considers that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice would be very likely to decide amounted to misconduct; and

(c) the JCIO considers that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice would be very likely to decide that formal advice or a formal warning was the appropriate disciplinary sanction.

The declaration and undertaking signed by all magistrates on their appointment states that they will agree to be circumspect in their conduct and maintain the good reputation of the magistracy at all times, in their private, working, and public lives. They should avoid situations which might reasonably reduce the respect for judicial office or which might cast doubt upon their judicial impartiality. This includes avoiding use of the ‘JP’ status in ways that could be perceived as trying to gain influence."


Take the case of Mr Timothy Nathan JP quoting the report of 1st August this year.

"Following a hearing in March 2024, two magistrates who had sat with Mr Nathan on the bench, complained to the London Conduct Advisory Committee that Mr Nathan had been using his iPhone and iPad during the proceedings to read and respond to personal messages and emails. One of the magistrates reported that they had seen Mr Nathan using his iPad on a separate occasion to send personal messages to his partner, a fellow magistrate, who was sitting at the back of the court, having finished sitting for the day.

Timothy Nathan JP’s representations

Mr Nathan accepted that he had used his personal devices to send and receive messages, in relation to his self-employment as a professional pilot, during the long pauses in the hearing. He denied that there was any effect on his performance at the hearing or on the dignity of the court. The only people affected were the two magistrates who were sitting with him, as no other court users were aware of what he was doing. Whilst he did not recall, the other incident mentioned in the complaint, he confirmed that it was possible that he was having a text conversation on that occasion with his partner regarding travelling home arrangements."


The result for him was being issued with "formal advice".  


On 1st October this year the decision on Mr Michael Woodhouse JP was published.


"A legal adviser complained about the manner in which Mr Woodhouse had spoken to her at the end of a court day. She said that she had informed him that he could not invite a member of the public who was considering applying to the magistracy into the retiring room for a conversation. He asserted that he had invited prospective applicants into the retiring room for years and would not be told what to do in ‘his’ court. He demanded in a raised voice that the complainant call her senior legal manager and line manager to verify the information. He then repeated these sentiments in a conversation with the member of the public, which the complainant heard.


Mr Woodhouse’s representations


Mr Woodhouse accepted the allegations. He agreed that his behaviour was unacceptable and excessive and that the discussion should not have taken place in open court. He offered two further written apologies for his behaviour. He said he had been surprised at what the complainant had told him as it was contrary to advice he had received for several years. His frustration was not aimed at her but at court communications. He had apologised to the complainant and prosecutor on the day. He had also immediately called the senior legal manager and complainant’s line manager to apologise, and promptly reported his behaviour to his bench chair. In mitigation, he detailed several personal difficulties he was experiencing which he believed had affected his behaviour."



His transgression according to the investigating judge amounted to misconduct and resulted in a sanction of formal advice.


On the same day as the above, Mrs Jean Banford JP heard of her fate. 


"A complaint was made to the North West Conduct Advisory Committee that Mrs Banford referred to her status as a magistrate during a heated dispute with a neighbour about the neighbour’s dog. Mrs Banford was said to have repeatedly emphasised her knowledge of the law given her position as a magistrate, when telling the neighbour that their dog could be destroyed.

Mrs Banford’s representations

In her representations, Mrs Banford accepted that in hindsight her comment could be deemed as inappropriate, but explained that the neighbour’s refusal to accept that the dog was putting people in fear and could be destroyed as a result, caused her to emphasise her knowledge of the law."


For her inflated ego she was issued with a formal warning.


On 11th October Ms Lynn Killoran JP was issued with formal advice for misconduct.  Her misfortune was as follows:-


"A fellow magistrate complained that during two conversations with him, Ms Killoran made remarks which displayed an unconscious bias of an antisemitic nature. He alleged that she spoke about her work in the charity sector and a correlation between Jewish charities and fraud.

She stated that Jewish charities are believed to make use of the ‘Jewish Accounting System’, whereby money disappears without a trace and reappears later at a much higher value. The magistrate, himself Jewish, was concerned that Ms Killoran was relaying antisemitic stereotypes.

Ms Killoran’s representations

In detailed representations, Ms Killoran denied making the majority of the comments alleged in the complaint and asserted that what she did say had been taken out of context. She denied that her comments were antisemitic."


The 16th October saw the publication of the misdeeds of Miss Tessa Smith JP;  resulting in her being given "formal advice".


"The North West Conduct Advisory Committee (NWCAC) received a referral about a reference relied on by a defendant in a criminal case, which was given by Miss Tessa Smith JP. In the reference, Miss Smith described her own judicial role and used the JP suffix.

Tessa Smith JP’s representations

Miss Smith took full responsibility of her actions and apologised. Miss Smith explained that she had been a magistrate for less than a year. She accepted that she should not have used the JP suffix and should have given the reference in a personal capacity."



On 24th October 2024 Mr Jeremy Betts JP found out what his ill considered remarks cost him.


"Mr Betts and his colleagues were sentencing a youth following the recent imposition of a 24-month Detention & Training Order (DTO) at the Crown Court. The defence advocate made representations to the bench regarding the recent sentence and the sentencing remarks of the judge who, in the knowledge of the upcoming case at the Youth Court, said they had sentenced the youth with the intention that no additional sentence would be added.

It was alleged that, following these representations, Mr Betts said, “I’m not having some judge tell me what to do”.

Mr Betts’ representations

In his representations Mr Betts denied that he had made the comment in open court but admitted that he had made the comment, or a variation of it, in the retiring room."


His copybook is now blotted with "formal advice".


The 25th November saw the results published of the indiscreet comments by Mr Thomas Rock JP.


"A complaint was made to the North West Region Advisory Committee about a comment which Mr Rock had made during a panel discussion with fellow magistrates in the retiring room. The panel was due to hear a case of possession of the controlled drug, Khat in the afternoon session. During the discussion, it was mentioned that Khat was commonly used in Pakistan. In response, Mr Rock made the remark that they had to keep people in Pakistan subdued or they’d be off joining the Taliban.

Mr Rock’s representations

Mr Rock expressed his concern that the complaint had been made and explained that he was previously unfamiliar with the term ‘Khat’ and had been trying to enlighten himself by discussing it with a colleague.

He explained his belief that high levels of poverty in Pakistan, where it borders with Afghanistan and where there is a Taliban presence, feeds into the recruitment into rival gangs/factions operating in the use and production of drugs."


His misconduct resulted in a formal warning.  


Elizabeth Slamer JP`s  comeuppance arrived last week on 26th November.  


"A complaint was made to the Midlands Region Conduct Advisory Committee after a letter entitled ‘Single parenthood’ was published in The Times on 26 July 2024. The letter, written by Ms Slamer, included her status as a family court JP. Ms Slamer’s letter, sent in response to a letter from a different author about the failure of the Child Support Agency, remarked on the “relentless rise in the acceptability of” absent fathers than of “single mothers”.

Elizabeth Slamer’s representations

Ms Slamer accepted full responsibility for her actions and admitted that she had included her judicial status in the letter to add weight to her argument and highlight her experience. She stated that she had reacted in the moment to a perceived unfairness in the original author’s comments, who she considered had unfairly identified single mothers as the sole reason for the problem of demands on benefits and housing. Ms Slamer accepted that she had failed to consider the lack of impartiality that this could indicate."


That lack of impartiality resulted in "formal advice" for Ms Slamer. 


For Mr David Payne JP the day of reckoning was 27th November.  


"Mr Payne was referred to the Midlands Conduct Advisory Committee regarding his use of social media.

Mr Payne had identified himself as ‘Presiding Justice’ on his Facebook page and checked in at Wolverhampton Magistrates Court when he was sitting there. He had also shared posts on politically sensitive topics such as refugees and the government’s winter fuel policy.

Mr Payne’s representations

In representations, Mr Payne stated that he had a limited understanding of how Facebook worked and that a family member had set the account up for him and it was they who had identified him as ‘Presiding Justice’. He explained that he had used the check in feature as a means of keeping in touch with relatives that lived abroad and that he had shared the posts because he thought they were humorous.

Mr Payne admitted that he had not made himself aware of the guidance on the use of social media and, having read this and reflecting further, he realised that others may see the posts differently.

He also confirmed that he had deleted his account."


A formal warning was the outcome. 



To sum up:-  Judicial misconduct is categorised as minor, serious, or gross and the sanction for misconduct is determined by the seriousness of the conduct:
Formal advice: A sanction for lower level misconduct
Formal warning: A sanction for more serious misconduct
Reprimand: A sanction for more serious misconduct
Removal from office: A sanction for the most serious misconduct 

The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor jointly agree on the sanction for each case of misconduct. Factors that are considered when deciding the sanction include:

Whether the office-holder accepted responsibility for their actions

Whether the conduct affected others or damaged the reputation of the judiciary

Whether personal issues affected the office-holder's behaviour

Any previous disciplinary findings against the office-holder


Having regard to the selection of the above recent rulings I find it astonishing that those selected for the position of Justice of the Peace with all the responsibilities of that office can allow their tongues to be light years ahead of their brains. Personally when active I reported winger colleagues whose activities included whilst on the bench sleeping, doodling, mind blowing incompetence and agreeing with every argument guilty or not guilty when discussing verdict in the retiring room. But these complaints were put to the Deputy Justices Clerk who had private words with those involved. However when I saw a letter in a newspaper signed by a Mr X J.P. I did report him to the advisory committee. 



I am of the opinion that considering there are 14,576 magistrates in post across England and Wales as at 1 April 2024, up 9% compared to the previous year those reported today are a small minority. But the rate of increase is perhaps outpacing the resources available to ensure adequate training especially with the imminent retirement of experienced presiding justices notwithstanding the ability to sit until aet 75 which some [many?] will not undertake. It`s no secret that many of the judiciary and legal profession would prefer to see the end of or at least a diminished role for magistrates. I do think that on a scale of zero to 100 where 100 represents the end of the magistracy in its current form we are at around 70. Time will tell.













Tuesday, 31 January 2023

JCIO IS A SECRET CLOAKING DEVICE


Almost daily it seems but in reality probably monthly a supervisory body is found to have allowed bad things to happen in an organisation supposedly under its jurisdiction.  Police, hospitals, children`s services, building authorities and many others whose oversight has been found wonting generally issue a statement of self serving apology and assuring a sceptical public and their political overlords behind the bushes that steps are being taken to ensure that failures will be rectified.  Very occasionally people are removed from their jobs many to resurface months later with a new position and title often with an enhanced salary.  But what of those who appointed the supervisory or disciplinary body which failed in its sole purpose of supervising or disciplining? We, the great British public, just do not know who appoints the appointees.  Insofar as that most secretive of bodies, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, is concerned its members are approved by the Lord Chancellor but its workhorses who decide on any case are civil servants.  I posted the organisational chart that shows the staff involved on 18th October 2022  .  By typing in the search box JCIO previous posts on this topic may be read. 

However my reason today for re-visiting this subject is three fold; 
1. The identities of those who decide on the evidence presented by the JCIO whether or not to sanction the judicial office holder under investigation are not available to the public and 
2. Despite apparent clarity on its website the JCIO accepts or rejects without appeal in an arbitrary fashion. 
3. Secrecy is the fallback position of all inquiry.  The statement below from the JCIO website requires no interpretation

Please note: In accordance with Section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, information about judicial disciplinary cases which relates to an identified or identifiable individual is confidential and must not be disclosed without lawful authority. This does not apply to formal action taken at the conclusion of the disciplinary process, which is published on the JCIO’s website as per the Lord Chief Justices and Lord Chancellors’ publication policy. Personal data is protected under the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018

The JCIO is open to complaints including:-

Any action that amounts to misconduct. Some examples include:
    Bullying or harassment, for example of staff, colleagues, litigants, or legal representatives
    Using racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive language
    Loss of temper/rudeness/aggression, for example shouting   
    Misusing judicial status, for example to try to influence another person or organisation for personal     gain
    Misusing social media, for example posting offensive content, or content which could damage public     confidence in judicial impartiality such as remarks about government policy
    Failure to report personal involvement in civil, criminal, or professional disciplinary proceedings
    Delay in issuing a judgment or order (usually considered to be a delay, without a reasonable excuse, of more than three months)
    Falling asleep in court

It is not involved in any of the following:-
    
A judge’s decision or order
    Bias in a judge’s decision-making
    A judge allowing one party to speak for longer than another
    A judge refusing to allow a witness to give evidence or admit certain documents
    A judge appearing to react more favourably to one person’s evidence than another’s
    A judge saying that he or she does not believe a person’s evidence, questioning a person’s credibility  or criticising a person’s actions
    A judge making an error of law or procedure
    A judge expressing opinions about issues related to a case they are hearing
    The amount of costs or damages awarded by a judge
    A judge not reading documents before a hearing
    A judge refusing to transfer a case to a different judge or court
    A judge reserving a case to themselves
    A judge refusing to correspond with a party about a case
    Fraud or any other criminal offence
    Court staff, court bailiffs or the facilities and services provided by courts
    Other bodies such as the Police or Crown Prosecution Service
    Solicitors and Barristers

From the above it is very obvious that any matter in the first group is subjective.  At what stage and by how senior an operative is a decision to proceed with regulatory action is not for public consumption.  Indeed whether or not there has been a complaint about a judicial office holder is itself a closely guarded secret.  An example of late is that of District Judge (MC) Stephen Leake. Rumour mongering and whispers are possibly more rife in the legal fraternity as any other.  This is a natural consequence of a secrecy going back centuries which has still to come to terms with the openness expected from kings downwards.  I posted about DJ Leake 27th December 2022.  Gossip since then in the coffee houses of Chancery Lane tells of a complaint against the judge who has had a meteoric  rise in status being appointed Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ courts) in 2019, District Judge based at Medway Magistrates’ Court with effect from 1 November 2021and a member of the Sentencing Council since Monday 23 May 2022.  The alleged complaint centred around that widely reported case as above.  Since then further activity in the media reported that the judge`s remarks about being unable to sentence an offender to immediate custody because the prisons were full were refuted by MOJ spokesperson as being in error. Whether or not those remarks constitute reason for complaint we will never know.  Perhaps DJ Leake`s future as a judge of the crown court, high court and supreme court is already written in the stars or anticipated by some unknown propellant which has fired him above his peers with such rapidity. Time will tell all. 

Justice is not justice if it is not seen to be done.  That applies to the judges as much or more than it applies to the judged.  Senior judiciary is afraid to speak out until in receipt of a gold plated pension.  That is understandable or at least was understandable in  previous centuries.  But we are now in an era of instant world wide communication.  The mores of 1953 are unsustainable in 2023 as even King Charles has noted.  The current situation, where at the base of the judicial pyramid lay magistrates sit as a bench of one in secret and the pinnacle where their senior colleagues are subject to a secret protective layer of the invisible cloaking device of the JCIO, the future is not rosy.  We should all be concerned. 








Tuesday, 10 January 2023

LAWYERS DO NOT BITE THE HANDS OF THOSE THEY HOPE WILL FEED THEM


Type Single Justice Procedure into the search box and there will appear several posts of varying vintage of my thoughts on this topic. Last week the procedure was extended to companies.  In addition some wording accompanying this press release reveals, albeit subtly and unintended I`m certain, that the facade of this secret justice procedure is revealed as not being a court in the accepted sense of the word.  But more of that later. 

The traditional bench of three, but all too often two, lay magistrates has developed from being selected by and comprising  the supposed "great and the good" of a borough or county into a supposedly diverse and representative slice of a local society although for almost a decade the terms of service of JPs have been changed to allow them, in theory at least, to sit anywhere in England or Wales.  They have been constituted as finders of fact and sentencers with a legal advisor to ensure that their words and actions are lawful or perhaps not unlawful.  Such a composition continuously variable (consider how many combinations of three per a bench of eg  200) allowed a wide expertise to be exercised.  That has been the rallying call for at least twenty + years by the supporters of the process when attacked by the many legal proponents of employing only legally qualified District Judges for the lower courts.

The non imprisonable offences charged against companies can be a good deal more complex than similar against named individuals.  In addition some offences can be those in which company law is involved. * Annex A: Companies Act 2006, Schedule of Company Offences (SEE  FULL DOCUMENT BELOW)  shows the dozens of offences which the CPS could decide are suitable for presenting through the SJP.  Having sat and presided over a number of these during my tenure I am more than convinced that having another or two colleagues to discuss the details was essential to have complete confidence in a final decision.  The MOJ has until now presented the SJP as just an alternative form of court when in reality in most cases the magistrate and legal advisor are not even sitting in the same room within the court building. Either or possibly both would be working from home.  

This facade is now blown out of the water in the document referred to above.   Under the heading "SJP for companies"  is written; "As with all SJP cases, defendants can still choose to have their case heard in a court."  If ever there was an admission that even the MOJ itself does not consider the SJP a court in the accepted sense this is it.  A court can be defined as follows; take your choice...........


A place where trials and legal cases are decided, or the group of people who deal with legal cases there


A place where trials and other legal cases happen, or the people present in such a place, especially the officials and those deciding if someone is guilty


A place where legal matters are decided by a judge and jury or by a magistrate.


An official group of people (such as a judge and jury) who listen to evidence and make decisions about legal cases.



So there we have it. The SJP cannot be considered a court by the actual words of the MOJ.  So what is it?  It is a device to save money initiated in 2015 but conceived years earlier  by a branch of Tory government that was all too eager to demonstrate that its Secretary of State  Kenneth Clarke was up front in demonstrating his support for austerity by cutting 23.8% from his budget weeks ahead of his fellow cabinet members` declarations. It is difficult not to believe that the secret so called justice of the SJP is but a forerunner of what the Tories have in mind if they are still governing us in 2025.  However there are and will be no comments from His Majesty`s Loyal Opposition.  They too will be amassing their own stealth plans for 2025 when Justice as a pillar of a democratic society can be further whittled away.  As a nation we are not exempt for an authoritarian regime being installed at Westminster by a combination of public lethargy and corporate greed.  It is to the legal professions at all levels that in decades past I would have looked for reasoned argument to ensure our courts remain free and open.  I fear that along with their concerns over personal emoluments they will not wish to bite the hands they are hoping will feed them.  

*Annex A: Companies Act 2006, Schedule of Company
Offences

Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation

Part 3 A company’s
constitution
26(3) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to send
registrar copy of
amended articles

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s183
30(2) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to forward
resolutions or
agreements affecting
company’s
constitution to
registrar

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s380(5)
34(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to give
registrar notice of
changes made to
company constitution
by court order

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s18(3)
45(3) Company with a
common seal, and
every officer in
default, failing to
have company name
engraved on seal

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s350(1)
63(2) Company and every
officer in default,
amending its articles
so that it ceases to
be exempt from
requirement to have
‘limited’ in its title.

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s31(5)
64(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to change
name on Secretary of
State’s direction so
that it has ‘limited’ at
the end

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s 31(6)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
68(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to change
name on Secretary of
State’s direction in
case of similarity to
existing name

Summary only/Level 3
fine
CA 1984, s28(2),
(5)
75(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to change
name on Secretary of
State’s direction
following provision of
misleading
information etc

Summary only/Level 3
fine
CA 1985, s28(3),
(5)
76(6) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to change
name on Secretary of
State’s direction on
grounds that is
misleading as to its
activities.

Summary only/Level 3
fine
CA 1985 s32(4)
99(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to give
registrar notice of
application to court to
cancel resolution to
re-list public
company as private
company, or failing to
give notice court’s
order on such
application

Summary only/Level 3
fine
CA 1985 s54(10)
108(4) Company, and every
officer in default reregistered
as limited
company and failing
to deliver statement
of capital to registrar
of companies
Summary only/Level 3
fine

New Offence
113(7) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to keep
registrar of members
and their particulars
Summary only/Level 3
fine
CA 1985 s352(5)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
114(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to give notice
to registrar of place
where register of
members is kept

Summary only/Level 3
fine
CA s353(4)
115(5) Company having
more than 50
members and every
officer in default,
failing to keep index
of members and
have it available for
inspection
Summary only/Level 3
fine
CA s354
118(1) Company, and every
officer in default,
refusing to allow
person to inspect its
register or index of
members’ names or
making default in
providing copy of
register

Summary only/Level 3
fine
New Offence
120(3) Company failing to
provide person
inspecting register or
index of members’
names with details of
amendments

Summary only/Level 3
fine
New Offence
123(4) Single member
company, and every
officer in default,
failing to comply with
requirement as to
register of members
containing a
statement that
company has only
one member

Summary only/Level 3
fine
CA 1985 s352A(3)
130(2) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to give notice
to registrar of
location of overseas
branch register, etc

Summary only/Level 3
fine
CA 1985, s365 and
Sche.14, Pt II,
para. 1(3)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
132(3) Company, every
officer in default,
failing to keep
overseas branch
register, or a copy,
available for
inspection at place in
United Kingdom
where main register
kept
Summary only/Level 3
fine
CA 1985, s362 and
Sched. 14, Pt UU,
para.4(2)
135(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to give notice
to registrar of
discontinuance
notice of overseas
branch register

Summary only/Level 3
fine
New Offence
156(6) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to comply with
Secretary of State’s
direction to comply
with requirements as
to appointment of
directors

Summary/Level 5 fine New Offence
162(6) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to properly
keep register of
directors containing
requisite information,
failing to keep it
available and open
for inspection, or
failing to give notice
to registrar of place
where kept

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)
165(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to keep
separate register of
directors’ residential
addresses

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
167(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to give notice
of change of
directors or change
of registered
particulars

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)
246(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to comply with
requirements to
putting director’s
residential address
on its register

Summary/Level 5 fine New Offence
272(6) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to comply with
Secretary of State’s
direction to appoint
company secretary

Summary/Level 5 fine New Offence
275(6) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to keep
register of
secretaries and make
it available for
inspection

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)
410(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to annex
information about
related undertakings
to annual return

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s231(6)
425(1) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to send out
copies of reports to
those entitled to
receive them

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s238(5)
429(1) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to comply with
requirements as to
summary financial
statements

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s251(6)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
431(3) Unquoted company,
and every officer in
default, failing to
make copies of
accounts and reports
available to members
or debenture holders

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s239(3)
432(3) Quoted company,
and every officer in
default, failing to
make copies of
accounts and reports
available to members
or debenture holders

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 ss239(3)
433(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to state name
of signatory in
published copies of
reports or accounts

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s 233(6)
and 234A(4)s
434(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to comply with
requirements as to
publication of nonstatutory
accounts

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s240(6)
435(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to comply
requirements as to
publication of nonstatutory
accounts

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s240(6)
486(3) Private company,
and every officer in
default, failing to give
Secretary of State
notice of notice of
non-appointment of
auditors

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s387(2)
490(3) Public company, and
every officer in
default, failing to give
Secretary of State
notice of nonappointment
of
auditors

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s387(2)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
501(4) Parent company, and
every officer in
default, failing to
obtain from overseas
subsidiary
undertaking
information for the
purposes of audit

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s389B(4)
505(3) Company, and every
officer in default,
laying circulating or
delivering auditor’s
report without stating
name of auditor

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s236(4)
512(2) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to give notice
to registrar of
resolution removing
auditor from office

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s391(2)
517(2) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to send
auditor’s notice of
resignation to
registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s392(3)
523(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to notify and
give reasons to audit
authority of auditor
ceasing to hold office

Either Way/Fine New Offence
554(3) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to register
allotment of shares
Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence
590(1) Company, an every
officer in default,
contravening
prohibitions (in Pt 17,
Chap. 5) as to
payment of shares

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s114
602(2) Company, and every
officer in default
failing to deliver copy
of resolution under
s601 and valuer
report to registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s111(4)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
607(1) Company, and every
officer in default,
contravening s593
(public allotting
shares for non-cash
consideration) or
s598 (public
company entering
into agreement for
transfer of non-cash
asset)

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s114
619(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
exercising power
under s618 (subdivision
or
consolidation of
shares) but failing
properly or all to give
notice to registrar of
shares affected

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s122(2)
621(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
exercising s620
(reconversion of
stock into shares) but
failing properly or at
all to give notice to
registrar of stock
affected

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s122(2)
625(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing properly or at
all to give notice to
registrar specifying
redenominated share
capital

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s122(2)
627(7) Company, and every
officer in default,
passing resolution
under s626
(reduction of capital
in connection with
redomination) but
failing properly or at
all to give notice
registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s122(2)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
635(2) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to forward to
registrar copy of
court order upon an
application under
s633 or 634
(objection to variation
of class rights)

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s127(5)
636(2) Company, and every
officer in default,
assigning name or
other designation (or
new name or
designation) of class
of shares and failing
to give notice to
registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s128(5)
637(2) Company and every
officer in default,
varying rights
attached to shares
and failing to give
notice to registrar
Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s128(5)
638(2) Company, and every
officer in default,
creating new class of
members and failing
to give notice to
registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 129(4)
639(2) Company, and every
officer in default ,
assigning name or
other designation(or
new name or
designation) to class
of members and
failing to give notice
to registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 129(4)
640(2) Company, and every
officer in default,
varying rights
attached to class of
members of
company not having
a share capital and
failing to give notice
to registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s129(4)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
644(8) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing properly or at
all to deliver to
registrar solvency
statement and
statement of capital
and directors’
statement as to the
timing of the
solvency statement
and its provision to
members

Either Way/Fine New Offence
658(2) Company and every
officer in default,
contravening general
rule against
acquisition of its own
shares

Either Way: Indictment:
2 years’ imprisonment,
fine or both; Summary
(12 months’
imprisonment, or a fine
or both)
CA 1985 s143(2)
663(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing properly or at
all to give notice (and
accompanying
statement of capital)
when cancelling
shares in order to
comply with s622
(duty to cancel
shares in public
company held by or
for the company)

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence
667(2) Public company, and
every officer in
default, failing to
comply with duty
under s662 to cancel
shares in company
held by or for the
company, or to apply
for re-registration as
a private company

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s149(2)
680(1) Company, and every
officer in default,
contravening
prohibitions in s678
or s679 as to
financial assistance

Either Way: Indictment:
2 years’ imprisonment,
fine or both; Summary:
12 months’
imprisonment, fine or
both
CA 1985 s151(3)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
689(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing properly or at
all to give notice to
registrar of redeemed
shares

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence
708(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to give notice
to registrar of
cancellation of
purchase of its own
shares in accordance
with s724 or s 729

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 169A
720(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to give notice
to registrar as to
place where
directors’ statement
and auditors’ report
kept, or failing to
allow inspection by
member of company
or creditor

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s175(7)
722(4) Company and every
officer in default,
failing to give notice
to registrar of making
of application under
s721 (application to
court to cancel
resolution), or failing
to forward copy of
order of court to the
registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s176(4)
732(1) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to comply with
general requirements
under Pt 18, Chap.6
as to treasury shares
Either Way/Fine
741(2) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to register
allotment of
debentures

Summary/Fine Level 3 CA 1985 s399(3)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
743(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to give notice
to registrar of place
where register of
debenture holders
kept

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence
746(1) Company, and every
officer in default,
refusing to allow
inspection of register
of debentures or
failing to provide a
copy

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s191(4)
761(1) Company doing
business or
exercising borrowing
power in
contravention of s761
(public company:
requirement as to
minimum share
capital)

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s117(7)
771(3) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to register
transfer of shares or
debentures or give
transferee notice of
refusal to do s and
reasons why

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s183(5)
798(3) Company, and every
officer in default,
issuing shares in
contravention of
restrictions imposed
under s794

Either Way/Fine
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
806(1) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to comply with
s805(5) (notice to
registrar of place at
which report to
members on
outcome of
investigation into
interests in shares
under s803 available
for inspection)

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence
807(3) Company, and every
officer in default,
refusing to allow
inspection of report
prepared under
section 805

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 219(3)
808(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing properly or at
all to keep register of
information received
in pursuance of
requirement under
s793

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)
809(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to keep
register of interests
disclosed available
for inspection

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)
810(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to keep
associated index of
names entered in
register of interests
disclosed

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)
813(1) Company, and every
officer in default,
refusing to allow
inspection of register
of interests disclosed
and associated index
or making default in
providing a copy

Summary/Level 3 Fine New offence
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
815(3) Company, and every
officer in default,
improperly removing
entry in register of
interests disclosed or
failing to restore
improperly removed
entry

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s218(3)
819(2) Company ceasing to
be public company
but failing to keep
register of interests
disclosed and
associated index for
six further years

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)
858(1) Company, its
directors and
secretaries, any
other officer in
default, failing to
deliver annual return
within 28 days of
return date

Summary/Level 5 Fine CA 1985 s363(3)
860(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
creating charge but
failing properly or at
all to deliver
particulars and
instrument to
registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s399(3)
862(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
acquiring property
subject to registrable
charge and failing to
deliver particulars
and certified copy of
instrument to
registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s400(4)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
877(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to give notice
to registrar of place
at which documents
creating charges and
register of charges
are kept available for
inspection or refusing
to allow inspection

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s408(3)
897(5) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to make
explanatory
statement to
creditors when giving
notice summoning
meeting of creditors
for proposed
compromise or
arrangement

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s426(6)
900(7) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing properly or at
all to deliver copy of
order under s899
(court sanction for
compromise or
agreement to
registrar)

Summary/Fine Level 3 CA 1985 s247(5)
901(5) Where a court order
under s899 (order
sanctioning
compromise or
arrangement) or 900
(order facilitating
reconstruction or
amalgamation) alters
company’s
constitution,
company, and every
copy of articles
accompanied by
court order

Summary/Fine Level 3 CA 1985 s425(4)
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
970(3) Company passing
opting-in or an
opting-out resolution
and failing to notify
Takeovers Panel of
that fact

Summary/Fine Level 3 SI 2006 No 1183
(CLW061818),
Sched. 2
993(1) Fraudulent trading Either Way:
Indictment: 10 years’
imprisonment, fine or
both;

Summary: 12 months’
imprisonment, fine or
both
CA 1985: s458
998(3) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to deliver copy
of amended articles
to registrar following
order of court on
complaint by member
that affairs of
company being
conducted in unfairly
prejudicial manner

Summary/ Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s461(5)
999(4) Company, and every
office in default,
failing to annex to
articles order of court
on complaint by
member that affairs
of company being
conducted in unfairly
prejudicial manner

Summary/Fine Level 3 New Offence
1033(6) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to comply with
requirements as to its
name upon
restoration to the
register

Summary/ Level 5 Fine New Offence
Section Offence Mode of Trial/
Penalties
Derivation
1093(3) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to deliver
documents to
registrar in
connection with
request for
replacement
document where
information
inconsistent with
register

Summary/ Level 5 Fine New Offence
1135(3) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to comply with
requirements as to
form in which
company records
must be kept

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s722(3)
1145(4) Company, and every
officer in default,
failing to send
document or
information in hard
copy form to member
or debenture holder
on request

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence
1248(5) Company failing to
retain person to carry
out second audit or
review accounts
when directed to do
so by Secretary of
State

Summary/Level 5 Fine CA 1989 s29
1248(7) Company failing to
send report prepared
by appropriate
person as to whether
second audit
required to registrar,
or failing
to take steps referred
to in report as to
carrying out of
second audit.

Summary/Level 5 Fine CA 1989 s29