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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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.

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. 

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