HINDSIGHT AND FORESIGHT

Recent public awareness has prompted more articles and social media comments on the appalling delays facing defendants awaiting trial or even in some cases hearings at magistrates courts.  Perhaps I`ve got the cart before the horse and it is the media which has prompted that awareness.  With some cases being adjourned for 12 months or more our lower court system resembles that of a third world nation.  With that in mind I have copied below some tiny proportion of the interesting matters which came my way in the last year or two of my magisterial career......those were the days......................

 

 

 

 

Ministry of Justice

RtHon

Damian Green MP Minister of State for Policing and Criminal  Justice

102 Petty France London. SW1H 9AJ

 

E  general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk www.justice.gov.uk

 

 

 

 

3 0 AUG 2013

 

 

 

 

 

I am pleased to be writing to all 23,500 magistrates in the country about a new piece of work I have launched which I hope will strengthen and widen your role.

 

When we began to think about the role of magistrates, as part of our wider reforms of the criminal justice system, I was adamant that we should involve magistrates themselves as early as possible in shaping our reforms.  I want your thoughts and ideas to be at the heart of our policy.

 

Last week I launched the work at an event in London which will be the first of a series of engagement events where we will be speaking to magistrates directly to get their ideas about what the role of magistrates should be in the 2151 Century.      I asked delegates to consider and discuss three key questions:

 

1.      How do we ensure that magistrates deal with the right cases in court?

2.  How can magistrates play a stronger role in the community?

3.  How can we ensure that Magistrates are in the driving seat of improving performance of the justice system in their communities?

 

I was extremely pleased that the event was so well attended by magistrates and to hear their very constructive engagement and discussion.

 

The rate at which places on these events were taken shows to me that there is a huge appetite among you to engage in this process, and that is why it is

important that we engage in as many different ways as possible, to capture your

views.  I want you to have discussions in your local courts about this work, and talk through some of the questions and ideas with your colleagues.  You can feed your ideas back through HMCTS.

Also, as part of this process, I have also launched, for the first time, an exciting online tool that will allow you to put forward ideas on how magistrates can become more involved in your communities to make them safer.  Crucially the tool will allow you to collaborate and develop these ideas so we can come up with a shared solution.  You can access the tool at the following link: http://775.dialogue-app.com/xkvzd0v27c.

 

The results of the sessions, your discussions, and the ideas we have received online will be fed in to a public consultation later in the year, where you will get a further opportunity to comment.

 

A copy of the speech is available for you to view at: https://www.gov.uk/governmenUspeeches/the-role-of-magistrates

 

I look forward to seeing your contributions.

 

 

 

Rt Hon Damian Green MP

 

 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

			xxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.justice.gov.uk
	Confidential
	To: All Justices assigned to the Justice Area
			12 May 2014

 

Dear Justice,

 

Low-value shoplifting cases- changes made by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

 

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 has made changes to the way that courts deal with low-value shoplifting cases, which come into force on the 13 May 2014 and will apply to offences committed on, or after that day.

 

In short the change introduces a new category of theft (low value-shoplifting) which is triable only summarily, except where a defendant chooses to be tried by a jury

 

The attached guidance seeks to provide an outline of the changes.

 

Members of the legal team have been briefed on the changes.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxx

 .................................................................................................................................................................... 

			xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.justice.gov.uk
	Confidential
	To: All Justices assigned to the Justice Area
			7 May 2014

 

  

Dear Justice,

 

There are a number of matters that I would like to draw to your attention.

 

Applications Court at the xxxxxxxxx courthouse from the 6 May 2014

 

The Judicial Leadership Group has agreed to the establishment of an Applications Court each day of the week at xxxxxxx from the 6 May from 9.30am until 10am in court number 1.

 

The court will deal with statutory declarations, s.142’s, utilities warrants and search warrants. Its aim is to provide a better service to court users and reduce the time taken to deal with such applications at 10am in the trial courts.

 

The procedure will be that a legal adviser will attend the second floor retiring room and ask a magistrate to deal with the applications; where there are utilities warrant applications the legal adviser will ask more than one magistrate to consider the applications.   

 

Revised case management form

 

A revised case management form has been approved by the Lord Chief Justice and is now in use. It is called a preparation for effective trial form (copy attached), copies have been placed in the courtrooms. I have also outlined a summary of the changes which I have attached. One of the changes allows sufficient space to timetable and record the time directed by the court for evidence in chief and re-examination (complying with the case of Drinkwater).

 

Sexual Offence Guideline

 

The Sentencing Council has issued a definitive guideline on Sexual Offences, which came into effect on the 6 April 2014 and applies to offenders aged 18 and above. Hard copies of the guideline have been left in the second floor retiring room at xxxxxxx and copies are in the courtrooms. Alternately copies may be downloaded from the Judicial College website:-www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk.

 

Environmental offences sentencing guidelines

 

The definitive guideline on sentencing environmental offences has also been published and comes into force on the 1 July 2014.It is applicable to all offenders aged 18 and older and organisations. I will ask the BST to advise the bench when hard copies are sent to us by the Judicial College(there is also a Definitive Guideline-Environmental Offences on the Judicial College website).I have also attached an outline of the guidance.

 

Domestic Violence Protection Notices and Domestic Violence Protection Orders

 

In November the Home Secretary announced her intention to roll out nationally Domestic Violence Protection Orders across England and Wales from 8 March 2014.

 

Domestic Violence Protection Orders(DVPOs’) are a new power introduced by the Crime and Security Act 2010, and enable the police to put in place protection for a

victim in the immediate aftermath of a domestic violence incident. Under DVPOs, the person concerned can be prevented from returning to a residence and from having contact with the victim for up to 28 days, allowing the victim a level of breathing space to consider their options, with the help of a support agency. This provides the victim with immediate protection. Where appropriate, the process can be run in tandem with criminal proceedings.

 

DVPOs’ are civil matters, the CPS will not be involved and the matter will be dealt with either by a police officer/member of police staff, or a lawyer instructed by them. Hearsay evidence will be admissible. In order to make an order the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. Where there is a breach of an order the criminal standard will be applicable and if proved the respondent may be fined up to £50 for every day he/she is in breach, or a sum exceeding £5,000,or committed to custody for not more than 2 months.

 

We have been advised that police forces will have processes in place no later than June 2014.Part of the bench meeting on the 10 June will be devoted to a domestic violence update, which will cover DVPOs’.

Sentencing for theft offences – consultation launched on sentencing guidelines

As mentioned in the bench newsletter the Sentencing Council has launched a 12-week consultation on its proposed guidelines for judges and magistrates to use when sentencing people for theft offences. To find out more about the consultation exercise please go to the Sentencing Council website. The consultation on the draft guideline is open from 3 April 2014 to 26 June 2014.

BTDC Local Training Programme 2014/2015

 

The BTDC has agreed, in conjunction with the Bench Chairman and panel chairmen, to produce an annual xxxxxx Local Training Programme (attached) it seeks to incorporate training needs that have been identified by it/brought to its attention.

 

The BTDC chairman would welcome feedback on the programme.  

 

 

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxx

 

 .....................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

DJC guidance note-1/2014:-Use of I.T in magistrates courts

Guidance to magistrates on accessing information relevant to court proceedings and the use of personal technology in magistrates’ courts

 

In June 2011 and May 2012 the Senior Presiding Judge issued guidance to magistrates on accessing information relevant to court proceedings and using internet social networks.

The guidance provides that:-

·         The accessibility of information can put at risk the fairness of the judicial process in the crown and magistrates courts;

 

·         It is appropriate to use personal technology(laptops,netbooks,mobile phones,e-readers and tablet computers) to access public and non-sensitive material in court ,for example Sentencing Council publications,protocols,guidance documents and the Judicial College Bench Books;

 

·         It is not appropriate for magistrates to conduct internet, or other research into cases they are to hear, on issues arising within cases, or into people involved in cases, so for example accessing Google to find out supplementary information not presented by the parties would be inappropriate. This applies whether a magistrate is at court, or elsewhere, as to undertake private research could compromise judicial impartiality;

 

·         Magistrates may not make notes of cases on personal technology. Even if everything is typed and is deleted ,the information is still accessible for some time and presents a security risk;

 

·         Magistrates may make use of laptops,Blackberries,I-phones,or other IT devices to communicate with others when out of the courtroom when no court related business is being conducted, or is due to be conducted. Magistrates may use personal IT devices during the lunch period, during significant breaks in proceedings, or at the end of the court session;

 

·          It is not appropriate to use portable devices to communicate with others when sitting in court (texting/accessing emails/taking and making calls in court is forbidden), or when conducting any court business, which includes a pre-court briefing and post-sitting review. Professional perceptions of the bench in court are so important and magistrates should be seen to be focusing on the issues before the court;

 

·         Magistrates should also take care if using social networking sites and should consider whether to allow open access to personal information, or their Facebook “wall”.

 

xxxxxxxxxx

 3 April 2014

....................................................................................................................................................

 

The letter and comments from one of literally dozens of Secretaries and Ministers at the Ministry of Justice 2010-2024 could probably have been sent any year of that Tory/Coalition rule. The wordsmiths at Petty France have first class expertise in cut and paste. The document from 7th May is of a more serious nature. I have copied below a relevant extract from above.

Applications Court at the xxxxxxxxx courthouse from the 6 May 2014

 

The Judicial Leadership Group has agreed to the establishment of an Applications Court each day of the week at xxxxxxx from the 6 May from 9.30am until 10am in court number 1.

 

The court will deal with statutory declarations, s.142’s, utilities warrants and search warrants. Its aim is to provide a better service to court users and reduce the time taken to deal with such applications at 10am in the trial courts.

Note the time to be allocated to the Applications Court; 30 minutes and the various applications to be considered in that time frame. Some readers might recollect the scandal of utility companies` harsh and perhaps illegal treatment of customers who had become in debt to their energy supplier.  The scandal was a direct result of applicants` requirement for sincere judicial involvement being sacrificed for time limited allocations.  To those who want to fully appreciate the iniquities of this policy please type "utilities" in the search box.

It`s an interesting speculation that having established the principle of a single magistrate presiding at the applications court that a single magistrate could preside at low level cases many being those where strict liability applies.  And so the idea of the Single Justice Procedure was likely to have been born; an idea now in its tenth year of operation and which has proved to be as contrary to the concept of justice as the utilities fiasco.  

Domestic Violence Protection Notices I would argue look better in print than in the future practice we have seen over the last decade or so.  

 

The DJC guidance note-1/2014:-Use of I.T. in magistrates courts [above] has much to commend it and is the basis for the updates since 2014. However there is a simple or apparently simple aspect or anomaly which could also be applied to juries:- namely if a magistrate or juror expert in his/her own field eg medical, anthropological, geographical etc etc is 100% certain of lies or misinformation spoken or presented by a witness or defendant is s/he not obliged to inform his/her colleagues?  Indeed I followed my own advice on one occasion and told my two colleagues that a defendant's statement was totally untrue based on the fact that my colleagues knew the area and depth of my expertise.  If that information had been gained by investigating a  3rd party source it would have been clearly in breach of the guidance but personal exchanges.........??

There are visions for the future or foresight and there is hindsight. A wise person or organisation uses the latter better to inform the former. 

 
 ADDENDUM  24TH JUNE 2025

 

Blogging by Judicial Office Holders

 

 

Introduction

This guidance is issued on behalf of the Senior Presiding Judge and the Senior President of Tribunals. It applies to all courts and tribunal judicial office holders in England and Wales, and is effective immediately.

 

Definitions

A “blog” (derived from the term “web log”) is a personal journal published on the internet.  “Blogging” describes the maintaining of, or adding content to, a blog.  Blogs tend to be interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments. They may also contain links to other blogs and websites. For the purpose of this guidance blogging includes publishing material on micro-blogging sites such as Twitter.

 

Guidance

Judicial office holders should be acutely aware of the need to conduct themselves, both in and out of court, in such a way as to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. 

Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, officer holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary.  They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general.  

The above guidance also applies to blogs which purport to be anonymous. This is because it is impossible for somebody who blogs anonymously to guarantee that his or her identity cannot be discovered.

Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith. Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action. It is also recommended that all judicial office holders familiarise themselves with the new IT and Information Security Guidance which will be available shortly. 

 

Any queries about this guidance should be directed to Simon Parsons at Judicial Office - Tel: 0207 073 4811 Email: simon.parsons@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk   

 

ADDENDUM 25TH JUNE 2025

In the light of proposals for a new tier of courts between magistrates and crown courts this document from 2013  might of interest.

Senior Presiding Judge’s Magistrates’ Liaison Group, January 2013

Judges sitting with Magistrates

1. There are, occasionally, advantages to a DJ (MC) sitting with Magistrates in a bench of three.

2. Without being unduly proscriptive, such occasions include the following:

(i) The improvement of Magistrates’ case management skills;

(ii) Fostering a culture of collegiality;

(iii) Dealing with the situation which has arisen where a DJ (MC’s) list has collapsed, so avoiding all three Magistrates (perhaps already at Court) being deprived of sittings.

3. With regard to 2(iii) above, sitting as a Bench of three can do much to obviate the frustration the disappointed Magistrates might otherwise feel and should serve to improve relations between the DJ (MC) and the local Magistracy.

4. It is not to be anticipated that there will be many sittings of a Bench of three. Such sittings require local agreement of those concerned (the DJ, magistrates and Justices’ Clerk).

5. The following principles apply to sittings of a Bench of three:

 The District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) chairs the bench.

 Joint decision making applies; even if the DJ (MC) is in the minority, the majority view prevails.

THE IGNORED LESSON OF ARGENTINA

It seems that only after a general election gives us a new government that the MOJ has come under the spotlight of those who report our news.  It`s not as if those heading our news media didn`t know of the perilous state of our inadequate, undisciplined, undermanned police force, our failing courts system and our Victorian age crumbling prisons; of course they knew but excepting where there was an atrocious event e.g. conviction of yet another police rapist, the live sentencing of yet another multiple murderer or a sex tape of a female prison officer offering her "services" to a convict other stories had priority. 

The Tory Party used to be known as the party to be relied upon for law `n order or the party of the hangers `n floggers: not any more, indeed not for the last 14 years.  Even in the last few years before my retirement under the "leadership" of that worthy David Cameron, magistrates were "advised" to follow  many legal twists and turns to avoid sending offenders to immediate custody despite the fact that at most 4% of those convicted were sentenced in that manner. Now it is almost universally known that given no heavenly intervention England`s  prisons within the next few weeks will not be just bursting at the seams; they will have collapsed as did the walls of Jericho.  In 2021 magistrates courts` sentencing powers were increased to 12 months custody.  Last year it was announced that the custodial limit will be reduced to the previous 6 months.  This is very strange and without explanation.  The Commons Justice Committee has questioned the motivation behind this action which is reminiscent of that grand old Duke of York.  On 17th October 2023 I posted a fuller account of the push me pull me activities of the MOJ regarding the principle of magistrates courts` custodial sentencing powers.  The current save the system antidote is to release convicted prisoners way ahead of any release date they could previously have hoped for. MOJ estimates are that 40,000 inmates would benefit leaving more rat infested cells for newcomers. These measures were requested in May but our previous prime minister vetoed that initiative for what we can all now see as pre planned removal of a likely electoral millstone around his neck.  As almost a last resort it`s believed there are plans in place to cancel the outstanding custodial time remaining in theory of convicts released early on license with the result  that individuals would be unable to be recalled if they breached licensing conditions. 

If sentencing laws remain as they are now it`s estimated that there will be a need to accommodate 100,000 prisoners in 2025.  The likelihood is that once again the argument to remove all custodial sentences at magistrates courts will become irrefutable.  And once again the tail of past incompetence  and expediency will wag the dog of  a dispirited chaotic justice system.

14 years of this nation being governed by short sighted incompetent chickens is coming home to roost.  Whilst so many of us apparently who are happy to spend hard earned ££££ on cars, holidays and the  trappings of a good life refuse to contemplate paying a small fraction of their health care costs: whilst there seems to be a very contagious virus affecting the nation`s mental health individually and collectively: whilst the state continues to fund those who choose a life of  indolence and pressures mount for the new government to make it harder for incompetents in a workforce to be sacked, this once thriving country will sink deeper  into an economic and political abyss.  The lesson of the decline and decline of Argentina should be a lesson for all.  In 1913 Argentina was among the world's ten wealthiest states per capita. Beginning in the 1930s the Argentine economy deteriorated notably. 100 years later that country is still in turmoil. Its history should be a lesson to all of us but it won`t be on the Cabinet`s reading list.  If the new PM does little else he must convince us that the euphemism of tightening our belts is a reality.  I fear that like all those who reach Number 10 he will shilly shally and attempt to waltz around the root problems which are leading us from riches to rags; to penury and worse. 

THE FAILURE OF SUPERVISORY BODIES BODES ILL FOR ALL

Earlier this month Mike Dean a hitherto respected and highly experienced football referee now retired acknowledged that he intentionally overlooked an incident and neglected to use the VAR technology to protect his "mate"during a match between Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur last season. The new technology was introduced to provide fans and the players with as much information as possible in cases where line of sight decisions proved to be difficult for the on field officials. A decision visible to all spectators live and on TV to overrule the VAR was disgraceful and has brought the whole system into disrepute notwithstanding the financial implications for the clubs involved. The referees` supervisory body will be unlikely to take cognisance of his opinions ever again and fans will have further cause for disgruntlement when a debateable decision goes against their team.

Football is a game and big business but murder is murder and one of the most distressing facts to emerge from the Letby case is the failure of several supervisory bodies and individuals to take action when eminent qualified personnel presented prima facia evidence of malpractice by Letby. But this failure was not an isolated misfortune within the NHS. Between 2005 and 2008 at Stafford Hospital the regulator condemned "appalling" standards of care and reported there had been at least 400 more deaths than expected between 2005 and 2008. It listed a catalogue of failings, including receptionists assessing patients arriving at A&E, a shortage of nurses and senior doctors, and pressure on staff to meet targets. The Alder Hey organs scandal involved the unauthorised removal, retention, and disposal of human tissue, including children’s organs, during the period 1986 to 1996. During this period organs were retained in more than 2,000 pots containing body parts from around 850 infants. These were later uncovered at Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, during a public inquiry into the organ retention scandal. In the 1990s at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, babies died at high rates after cardiac surgery. An inquiry found "staff shortages, a lack of leadership, a unit 'simply not up to the task ... an old boy's culture' among doctors, a lax approach to safety, secrecy about doctors' performance and a lack of monitoring by management". The scandal resulted in cardiac surgeons leading efforts to publish more data on the performance of doctors and hospitals. One could say that the cover up of scandal is endemic within the NHS.

Between 1970 and the early 1990s, an estimated 26,800 people in the UK were given contaminated blood transfusions and blood products infected with hepatitis C or HIV. People with haemophilia, a condition that affects the blood's ability to clot, were particularly affected. The then government and those following knew of contaminated plasma long before it admitted it. A minister privately expressed concerns that Aids was being transmitted by contaminated blood products while the government publicly insisted there was no “conclusive evidence”, newly uncovered documents from 1983 show. Once again the cover up is equal to or more sinister than the original disaster.

Perhaps the scandal involving the Post Office is the most revealing of all. Over many years the Post Office, aided by its lawyers, engaged in what looks like a cover-up due to repeatedly failing to disclose what they knew about problems with Horizon across a number of court cases. Hundreds of innocent people lost their livelihoods, their homes and some were imprisoned as a result. Some committed suicide. In April 2021 39 former subpostmasters had their convictions quashed at the Court of Appeal. The court concluded that the Post Office should not have prosecuted them in the first place and found the Post Office’s conduct “an affront to the conscience of the court”. Such comments by the Court of Appeal are damning and rare. The Court of Appeal’s judgment in 2021 built on findings in a High Court case in 2019 where the failings of Horizon were exposed. The judge in that case also found the defence by the Post Office to be aggressive, excessive, misleading, and otherwise unsatisfactory. It included an application to unseat the presiding judge whom the Post Office considered was biased. Even in those High Court proceedings, the Post Office failed to disclose critical information about the problems with Horizon.

In all those matters those charged with the supervision of systems and personnel not only failed in their task but were active in the suppression of evidence which was contradictory to their interpretation of the investigation. And so to the magistracy with its internal supervisory system no different in its structure from those in medicine or football. Secrecy surrounds most complaints both from without the system and within. Individual complaints by magistrates are met with obstruction and obfuscation whatever the rights or rarely the wrongs of the matter. Advisory committees, if matters progress that far, are generally obstructive. Delay in investigation is the norm. Threats are commonplace. Investigations which reach the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office are just the tip of the iceberg. But what is common in all the above instances is the failure of supervision in one form or another. My point today is that the real failure is of those who appoint the supervisors. It has been estimated by those more knowledgeable than I that there are about 10,000 individuals who are this country`s decision makers. They are colloquially known as "the great and the good". A definition might be "worthy, distinguished or important people especially when gathered together." These are the members of interviewing panels for the likes of the General Medical Council and/or its disciplinary committee. These are the people who appoint government commission members. These are the people who appoint members of investigatory committees. These are the people who are responsible for the repeated instances of supervisory failings in so many areas of our lives.

There is no civic duty more important that being a member of a crown court jury. Life and death, innocence or guilt is in the hands of ordinary people with few caveats. 18 is the minimum age; being a British citizen is not a requirement, lack of fluency in the English language is not a bar and even a person with a serious criminal record can be a jury member. It is my opinion that a cadre of ordinary citizens be assembled from which cohorts should be entrusted with the choosing of professional supervisors in various trade and professional areas. Ordinary citizens with ordinary lives, interests and hopes for the future able to sift the often uniform education, backgrounds and aspirations of wannabe supervisors. Certainly the iniquitous results from current practice are now way beyond mere chance. They are a direct result of current system failure. When the cry in so many areas is more "diversity, diversity, divercity" where is it when actually needed? It`s not for more brown, black, tall short, trans this or trans that people. It is to salvage the confidence of British people in their form of government and its tentacles which reach right down to the nitty gritty of all our lives.  The pitifully repeated excuses of who? what? where? when? should no longer be even remotely acceptable. Failure to do so will be a catastrophe: it bodes ill for all of us.