THE SAMPLE, NOT THE STAMP

What goes around comes around; an old adage which is understood worldwide and comes home to roost on this site. Since the first post here in 2013 this will be number 1,580 but it`s unlikely 13 years from now to be the most viewed.  That privilege currently belongs to a post  published Friday, 16th August 2013 titled WARRANTS OF ENTRY & UTILITY COMPANIES//SIX OF THE BEST. When I discovered this my first thought was that something somewhere is going wrong. What can a 13 year old and older series of posts offer to a reader in a world where 13 years has seen a totomic change in British society?  It remains, extraordinarily, the most visited "old" post on this site;  proof, if proof were needed, that the British public's appetite for stories of bailiffs, bullying and bench sitters being taken for fools has not diminished with the years.

Comparing that post to the current legal and procedural landscape the process for obtaining a warrant of entry to disconnect electricity or gas supply or fit a prepayment meter has changed in several concrete ways.   Since 6th February 2023 the listing and determination of applications for warrants of entry for the purpose of installing a prepayment meter was suspended with immediate effect, following Ofgem's announcement of a market wide review into the practice.  This followed an investigation (triggered by a Times exposé of British Gas debt agents breaking into homes) that found companies were bypassing Ofgem guidelines by obtaining rushed court warrants with several hundred warrants sometimes signed off in minutes leaving no time for genuine evaluation of individual cases; essentially confirming, at national scale, exactly the "rubber-stamping" the blog had complained about for years. 

Readers might recall my complaint of a decade ago that too many colleagues treated these applications as legal confetti,  signed, sealed and handed back across the table before the ink was dry, with scarcely a glance at the "particulars" behind the request. I described Southern Electric turning up with nothing but an address and a debt figure, expecting us to wave it through like a parking permit. I described a bailiff who could not confirm the name on the account she wished to force her way into. These were not isolated eccentricities. They were, it now transpires, symptomatic of an industry-wide practice that eventually became a matter of national outrage rather than merely magistrates' court gossip.

After the listing of prepayment meter warrant applications was suspended nationwide on 6th February 2023 on 21st February 2023 Ofgem announced that two suppliers had been given permission to restart and the courts recommenced listing such applications only once suppliers had satisfied Ofgem's new standards. So a supplier must now clear a regulatory gate with Ofgem before it can even bring a warrant application to a magistrate; an extra check that didn't exist in 2013. The complete sequencing of the revised requirements was as follows:-

6 February 2023 — listing of prepayment meter warrant applications suspended nationwide.

10 March 2023 — Ofgem announced all suppliers had signed up to the updated Code of Practice.

8 January 2024 — Ofgem announced three suppliers had been given permission to restart involuntary PPM installations.

21 February 2024 — Ofgem confirmed a further two suppliers had been given such permission.

Only once a supplier had satisfied Ofgem's new criteria  company by company, not industry wide,  did the courts recommence listing such applications at all.

Mandatory pre-application steps are now written into supplier licences, not just "good practice".  The Good Practice Guide the blog described was voluntary and unevenly followed. It's since been formalised as a licence condition. From 8th November 2023 energy suppliers must follow new stricter rules before a prepayment meter can be involuntarily installed  including making at least 10 attempts to contact the customer and carrying out a site welfare visit before installation with the highest-risk customers (e.g. those on powered medical equipment) exempted entirely. The rules specifically end forced installations for people over 85 and those with high-risk illnesses.

The hard and welcoming fact is that the system has actually changed and changed for the better.  There is also, at last, a fee protection I would have welcomed a decade ago.  Standard Licence Condition 28B now caps such charges and prohibits suppliers passing on costs associated with obtaining the warrant itself. It will not undo the injustice suffered by those who wrote to me in 2014 and 2016 describing the many repeat applications against them  but it should prevent the same happening to others.  Ofgem has extended the relevant licence conditions to 30th June 2027. 

Does this mean the rubber stamp has been retired for good? I would not go so far. Judicial guidance now explicitly directs magistrates to satisfy themselves that Ofgem's standards, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 have all been properly engaged with  which is welcome but guidance is only as good as the bench applying it, crowded list or no crowded list. As I have said before and evidently must say again: it will take a brave and diligent bench to make sure this is more than paper reform.

However life is not all sunshine and rainbows for those unable to cope with rising utility bills.  There is one further wrinkle the original six posts could never have anticipated and it deserves its own footnote for those of a procedural turn of mind. The old model, whatever its failings, was at least one of individual attention: a bench, a bailiff and a single warrant argued (or not argued) on its own facts. The new regime abandons that model almost entirely. Applications now arrive not as bundles of paper across a table but as a CSV file submitted electronically to an assigned court office with a separate file for each purpose:  prepayment installation, commercial disconnection, safety or theft cases and so on. The written information for each case is confirmed on oath and filed by the court officer sight unseen by the magistrate save in sample form.  

For lists under 100 cases the guidance recommends the bench examine five; for larger lists, ten  with at least five prepayment cases guaranteed a look whatever the total. If those samples satisfy the court the remainder are granted en bloc. Only "unusual applications," particularly residential disconnection, must still be heard individually.

I confess to mixed feelings. It is, in one sense, precisely the sort of structured, evidence based scrutiny I spent years wishing my colleagues would apply case by case. And yet it is also, by design, a system in which the overwhelming majority of warrants are never individually seen by the magistrate signing for them, merely inferred safe by statistical proxy. Whether that is judicial efficiency or rubber-stamping wearing a spreadsheet, readers might judge for themselves.

With continual criticism rightly falling on the Single Justice Procedure and the judicial acceptance of a statistical analysis to determine whether or not a utility disconnection or prepayment meter at an additional cost to the consumer is installed, judgement appears to be ever more distant  from the individual whose door may yet be broken down and drifting instead toward a bureaucratic exercise in probability where the fate of the many rests not on the facts of their own case but on whether a handful of others' paperwork happened to pass muster on a given morning.  

CHOICES AND POLITICS

It`s unlikely that more than perhaps  a few fanatics would argue that Christianity in England is anything other than a religion.  Of course that observation would be ridiculed if it were applied to Ireland north and the republic of, Germany where the Christian Democratic Union of Germany has become the largest party after the weekend`s general election.  I suppose  The European Christian Political Movement is a European political party exclusively working on promoting Christian values and of course evangelical Christians are a major source of support for both Democrats and Republicans in America. The 2021 United Kingdom census recorded an irreligious population of 25.3 million or 37.8% in England. But rarely a month goes by without a report of some woke tribunal, organisation or employer becoming newsworthy by virtue of its decisions on whether certain actions inspired by religious belief are lawful or not. 

The case of Kristie Higgs, a Christian school worker who was sacked for sharing posts criticising LGBT+ teaching, reached its finale earlier this month.  Anti abortion campaigners are  treading a thin line.  One such stalwart having been twice arrested for praying silently near an abortion clinic  has successfully sued police for wrongful arrest.  Although apparently inspired by their religious beliefs those cases were not political in the common sense understanding of that word:  connected with the state, government or public affairs although there is an argument that every action of a government  connects the individual to the state. 

However since October 7th 2023 many bets are off or [to use betting companies` terms] have been politically  laid off when the political affiliations of workers combined with religious fervour directly intimidate customers, fellow workers or the public in general.  The wearing of badges supporting those in Gaza and blatantly the ruling terrorist organisation which is in power and/or wearing similar such indications whether in the workplace or on the streets during supposed political demonstrations has crystallised  the legal nomansland  where religious freedom and real manifestations of hate crime collide; not the hotch potch of police defined "non hate crime".  The Guardian which is probably the most woke mass media publication in the country has a long report on such a case here. 

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offense to cause harassment, alarm, or distress by using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior. It can also include displaying threatening, abusive, or insulting writing or signs. 

Penalties 

The maximum penalty for summary conviction is six months in prison, an unlimited fine, or both

Racially or religiously aggravated Section 5 is a non-imprisonable offense with a maximum penalty of a level 4 fine

Defenses 

A defense may be available if the accused can show that they had no reason to believe that someone would be harassed, alarmed, or distressed 

Reform 

In 2013, the government agreed to reform Section 5 to protect free speech. The Christian Institute led a campaign to remove the word "insulting" from the act

Public Order Offences incorporating the Charging Standard

8 Aug 2022 — The maximum penalty on summary conviction is six months' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both. 

Last month in a little reported case at the High Court  an appeal by a Christian preacher against his conviction  under that very  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for causing “harassment, alarm and distress" was refused.

I can remember when most law abiding folk would find few matters supported by Liberty {founded in 1934} to be against their own consciences or a natural view of what is right and what is wrong.  All that has changed. The first protests against Israel soon after October 7th [New York] and London October 8th have shown what thin line the authorities are on when religion opposes politics and vice versa. The Met Police have revealed that the first request for a national demonstration against Israel came on October 7 2023 at 12:50pm – just hours after the Hamas attack began and before any retaliation by IDF.  There is a strong body of opinion that there has developed in this country "two tier" policing brought about by a perceived difference between dealing with Muslim suspected criminality and the rest the former being treated with kid gloves for fear of religious sensitivity and historical revelations of child abuse tolerated or ignored when Muslims are involved. As a result Muslim organisations, many based on the ethos of the Muslim Brotherhood [banned in Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim countries], are lobbying for a blasphemy law to prevent not just criticism of Islamic practices but of Muslims per se.  This has met with some sympathy in Whitehall.  

Government and its servants could be described as trying  to ride two horses at once. Dr Doolittle perhaps had it more accurately in the description of the pushmepullme.  Indeed currently the Ministry of Justice has recently endorsed the increase of magistrates` courts powers from six months immediate custody to twelve whilst simultaneously a government commissioned independent review concluded that short custodial sentences be abolished.  

Government is about choices and politics is about how best to make those choices.  In so many ways our current masters are swimming in a sea of treacle trying to make headway eyes closed guided by the loudest voices trying to assist them.   

    

IS THE END NIGH FOR BRITISH JUSTICE?

Many will be no longer fascinated by the recent attempts by China, Japan, India, USA to land unmanned space vehicles on the moon. Perhaps those who were agog at watching live on TV the first time that human beings walked on the moon in July 1969 are now just passive observers to the many sociological and political changes that afflict the planet  and have changed the face of this country as much as any war might have done in decades past.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SELECTING GUN CARRYING POLICE OFFICERS

Once again there are headlines about the police.  I suppose in an era when a personality or a member of a subset of a group sneezes the rest of society reaches for a handkerchief.  When recent events follow on almost simultaneously with the publication of the The Baroness Casey Review it`s hardly surprising that many with or without knowledge are offering an opinion on the short lived mutiny amongst the licensed firearm officers of the Metropolitan Police. Some facts are usually the basis of any discussion.  The Police Federation last polled its members in 2018 on the subject of  armed officers.  That is available here.  For previous posts from me on this topic write "armed police" in the search box.  The latest official statistics on firearms use by police is now available.  This subject has always been what could be described as a hot potato.  Interested bodies are only too pleased to throw the topic to others. Too hot to handle might be another apt description.  With police now often seen patrolling not just with a holstered side arm but with sub machine guns many commentators seem to have forgotten that it was only in 2009 that such weapons were authorised for general use e.g. when patrolling at airports, public buildings and the like.  My own recollection of such armed police patrols was on a visit driving through Belfast in 1968. All cross roads in the city centre had a machine pistol armed officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on guard close by.  I was shocked then, shortly before the official start to the "Troubles".  Reporting to a sergeant at a Santa Barbara police station some decades ago that my rented car had been stolen I was somewhat shocked when he said to me, "If you see the car don`t go near it.  You might get shot".  He was advising me that police would have information on the vehicle and would be suspicious of anyone attempting to use it.  Such conversations stay with you for a long time. 

A simple fact of which I recently became aware was that armed police do not receive any extra pay over and above their colleagues.  I asked myself then and I ask you, a member of the public like me, why do those individual officers volunteer for a job which involves the possibility both of facing deadly violence and protecting themselves, their fellow officers and us, the public for no financial gain. I would venture one possible answer insofar as they actively want to be involved in precisely such situations where there is the possibility of using deadly force.  All those with a license to carry guns are trained, we must assume, to the highest standards.  The very few times a police weapon is discharged is evidence of that but is it a coincidence that in the last couple of years three high profile cases of serious criminality have been proved against officers licensed to carry firearms on duty. Currently 260 police officers in the Met are due to face misconduct charges and one firearms licensed officer is currently facing a charge of murder.  There are no figures for how many of those 260 are licensed gun carrying officers.   

It is a common comment by amateur psychologists that those who most seek power are those best not to have their desires satisfied.  Official guidance for chief constables on granting of an ordinary firearms license for a member of the public can be found here. I can find no publicly available information on the criteria required and the selection process for granting a license for a police officer to carry a gun on duty. Can it be the case that those who volunteer for no extra pay or promotion and seek to carry guns are those whose applications should be scrutinised in the very finest detail?  And should that whole application  process be publicly available?  After all, if magistrates whose powers include depriving a person of up to six months liberty, are subject to a very onerous open selection process why not gun carrying police officers whose powers include shooting to kill? 

THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT AND THE SHAMEFUL POLICING AT THE CORONATION

It won`t have escaped the notice of most people who don`t live a hermit`s life on a remote uninhabited island off the west coast of Scotland that there were, according to some estimates, 17,000 police on duty in London last Saturday.  For the legally minded the statement on the eve of the main event that "Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low. We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration." was a clear warning from the Metropolitan Police that they were intending to exploit to the full their new powers enshrined in the The Public Order Act 2023 (Commencement No.1) Regulations 2023   which had received the Royal Assent a couple of days previously.  It stretches the bounds of credulity to assume the connection between the low key announcement of the new legislation and its intended implementation on the streets of London at the coronation was a coincidence.  

Personally I have taken a passive part in two demonstrations in Trafalgar Square where flags and placards were exhibited.  Police were there to ensure public safety but despite opposing voices the rallies were the epitome of peaceful protest.  I have also been delayed for over an hour on the M25 to my bladder`s consternation by protesters having glued themselves to the tarmac.  If a summary case involving the latter had come before me with appropriate evidence those involved in obstruction on the highway would likely have found the matter proved.  The law is there to be applied.  The coronation arrests were of an entirely different dimension.  To be charitable to the police it seems not unlikely that they just were not adequately trained in the nuances of the new legislation.  It also seems not unlikely IMHO that directions were given from on high that the world wide viewing spectacle must  not be hampered in any way by interference however peaceful which would upset the image of "Glorious Britannia". 

With regard to the event itself and the iniquity the high handed police actions have brought to those charged with projecting Brexit Britain as more than a symbol of power but a leader in combining the best traditions of yore with open arms for the future, there is now a world wide impediment to that former benign image.  Reuters and other highly considered foreign news organisations eg The Washington Post and France 24 have internationalised the crass actions of the police. And so to the reality of further police incompetence or impending governmental authoritarianism depending on an observer`s political take on the subject.  So far we know that 64 people were "detained" for offences including affray and breach of the peace. Four are appearing today at Westminster magistrates court.  Three female safety officers employed by Westminster council to assist any women in distress on the streets of  Soho were arrested "in possession of rape alarms" which, said the police, could frighten the horses: horses which have been trained to ignore ceremonial cannon fire, brass bands and bagpipes and heavy traffic.  Republic, to which I have been a donor, had six members arrested prior to the big event on spurious grounds that they possessed items which could be used as lock on devices.  After fourteen hours in detention they were de arrested and released without charge.  Doubtless we will have more information in the weeks to come about the consequences for the police of their high handedness.  

Public protest and harm to the public caused by said protest is the interface between permitted actions and behaviour on which a free society is constructed and authoritarian rule by the politically powerful.  It would appear that the salami slicing of our individual choices and freedoms under the umbrella of "victims` rights", facial recognition, political nepotism, uncontrolled immigration, failing health care for many, climate change hysteria, a justice system unable to cope with demand and "equality of arms" unavailable to the majority is enveloping us just as surely as woke attitudes in education poison young minds as ignorance seems to be an achievement and history is forgotten.  

The sad outcome of the last few days is that the legislation will not be repealed.  We are all now living under a law which has crossed that threshold from democratic freedoms to be protected to the state which must be the beneficiary of that protection.  All this from a supine parliament, supine because in 2016 the people of this nation were lied to by those they trusted and whose clown of a prime minister, alias the court jester, easily outscored the antisemitic  leader of Her Majesty`s Loyal Opposition to secure a once in a lifetime change in the political order. Truly that 2016 Butterfly Effect has reached unimaginable places with more to come.  

AND NOT ENOUGH SERGEANTS

 "Lions led by donkeys" is a phrase popularly used to describe the British infantry of the First World War and to blame the generals who led them.  That short description  by Alan Clark in his 1961 book The Donkeys served to elevate the common soldier while denigrating the officer class.  Of course a century ago there was no department of human resources in the British army of 1914-1918.  Now people are paid enormous salaries to determine inter alia the "who, why and what"  a company or organisation demands of its workforce.  In many ways the ranked order of a workforce is no longer achieved by the rule of thumb instinct of an entrepreneur but by supposedly expert functionaries themselves subsumed into grades. It was perhaps in the Roman army where defined units were perfected.  Indeed modern military formations are largely based on the efficiency of such units.  These were refined as:-

    Contubernium. A squad of eight men, led by a decanus.
    Centuria. A group of 10 contubernium, led by a centurion.
    Cohorts. A group of six centuria, totalling out to 480 men.
    Legio. A legion of 10 cohorts, roughly 5,000 men.
    Eques Legionis. The cavalry unit of a legio consisting of 120     men.

It is common knowledge that since 2010 20,000 police officers have been made redundant or retired and it is also common knowledge that notwithstanding Boris Johnson`s pledge to recruit 20,00 replacements all has not gone well with many of these new recruits resigning before becoming truly effective. 

On 2nd June 2010 I blogged some statistics on police numbers and ranks.  This is copied below. 

There is 1 sergeant for every 4.8 constables
There is 1 inspector for every 3.04 sergeants
There is 1 chief inspector for every 3.85 inspectors
There is 1 superintendent for every 1.89 chief inspectors
There is 1 chief superintendent for every 2.1 superintendents

Latest figures available today are as follows:-

There is 1 sergeant for every 5.41 constables
There is 1 inspector for every 3.26 sergeants
There is 1 chief inspector for every 3.11 inspectors
There is one chief or superintendent for every 1.49 chief inspectors
There is 1 chief officer* for every 5.56 chief or superintendents

*Includes Assistant Chief Constables, Deputy Chief Constables and Chief Constables, and their equivalents in the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police. These police officers were previously referred to as Association of Chief Police Officer (ACPO) ranks; however, on 1 April 2015 ACPO was replaced by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).

Those who are much more knowledgeable than I  know that the backbone of an efficient fighting force is determined by the quality and number of its non commissioned officers.  This opinion has been reinforced by the war in Ukraine where the Russians have been found deficient in that very area cf the highly trained Ukrainians.  The ratios of constables/sergeants and sergeants/inspectors have significantly changed since 2010.  Sergeants are perhaps the most important  cohort within the police service.  No amount of fast entry university graduates can be a substitute for training on the job: a form of education which after two generations of being excluded from so many routes to professional qualifications is just beginning to be recognised as the educational baby which was thrown out with the supposedly academic bathwater.  

This post began with an adage and I think an even older one best sums up the situation as above...........too many chiefs and not enough indians.   

BLAME IS ON OUR OWN DOORSTEPS

There are some very rare occasions when any thinking person, and I include of course all those who give a few minutes of their valuable time to read my jottings, must refuse to sit on the philosophical fence and  declare an opinion on a subject of the utmost gravity.  We are living through such times. I am  not referring solely to the tragedy in Ukraine but to legal circumstances surrounding its ancillary personalities and principles who and which are arguably at the top of the legal tree and the application of justice in what still remains of a society where everyone is equal before the law.  Two examples of the muddled thinking of the senior judiciary and at the top of the Bar have presented themselves in the last six months that prove to me at least that the letter of the law has been positioned as the arbiter of justice as opposed to its spirit. These are the situations recently at the Hong Court of Final Appeal and the Royal Courts of Justice over the last few years where routinely Russian oligarchs and their bottomless treasure chests have been stifling criticism by throwing some of their ill gotten gains at those who represent them.. 

It became apparent to any observer with an ounce of common sense and/or an insight into Chinese  political obfuscation that the agreement on the transfer of Hong Kong to China would last only as long as it suited the Chinese. The changes in China since the 1997 transfer have been apparent to all. The regime under the current dictator has shown that nothing will stand in his way of his securing what he believes to be China`s future as the world`s unassailable military power and that includes the futures of Hong Kong and Taiwan.  The United Kingdom has provided him with the legal fig leaf of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal where the most senior British judiciary have presided.  Serving judiciary who function on the Court have their fees paid to the UK Treasury.  Retired senior judiciary presumably negotiate their own fee for services rendered because it seems such information is unknown to Mr Google.  The mealy mouthed kowtowing of the UK to the supine head of government in Hong Kong was published on 27th August last year by the Supreme Court.  This head in sand position so beloved by senior legal minds has been endorsed by a retired member of the Supreme Court on the basis to quote Lyndon Johnson, late US President, "better to have your enemies in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in".  The underlying thinking processes behind such actions, in my humble opinion, seem to be that that they are above government intervention in their opinion of the application of the law.  But if the existing law is untenable, undemocratic, or perhaps badly drafted do those who sit in judgement not consider that they are enablers of anything from injustice to dictatorship?  It would appear not. Supreme rulers of all shades throughout history have always found that the law can be tailored to their requirements and compliant judges can be persuaded to do their bidding brushing aside all valid objections but the converse equally applies: by counting the numbers of angels on a pinhead lawyers can invoke law to suit their sometimes nefarious purposes even when justice is the victim. 

The current situation in Ukraine has opened a nest of previously hidden vipers around Russian oligarchs and their fortunes beckoned here by the curled forefinger of unscrupulous simple minded governments from Tony Blair via David Cameron  to Boris Johnson.  It appears that the last named is striving to avoid for as long as possible the imposition of legislation that would open to public scrutiny the truly obnoxious lengths he has gone to utilise benefit from the laxity with which Russian money was able to ingratiate itself and thus its owners within the innards of the Conservative Party.  And now enter the lawyers.  Following perhaps the example of Lord Pannick QC legal arguments have been loudly voiced at any suggestion that the current legal rights of defence by Russian enablers of Putin be, in their opinion, curtailed insofar as their previous attempts, some successful, in curbing free speech have demonstrated, are anathema to the rule of law.  So conversely to the situation in Hong Kong it is the legal profession (in part) which is opposing government. However to this outsider the enormous financial milch cow of representing these thieves of Russian state assets during and after the time of Boris Yeltsin seems to be the driving force of their supposed shoring up of the legal system against arbitrary government decree.    

It seems that for many lawyers, to quote Dickens, "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness."  I would sum up by saying that in some of the upper reaches of the legal fraternity  the rule of the law entrenched becomes secondary to the tool of the claw outstretched.   The law can give and the law can take away. The law is in the end what we make it and the lawmakers sit in London SW1.  If our legal system is becoming but a shadow of its former regal self the blame is on our own doorsteps. 

JUSTICE EVAPORATES WITH 8 JUSTICE SECRETARIES SINCE 2010

To put it mildly, the justice system is in a mess. As will increasingly become apparent much of this mess as with so many other policies is being put down by government to Covid 19. Perhaps there other reasons one of which is that we are now on Secretary of State/ Lord Chancellor number eight since 2010. With only one of this number still clinging on to the greasy political pole and the current incumbent there as a demotion is it any wonder that justice, a pillar of any successful democracy, is crumbling before our very eyes. 

With Kenneth Clarke on his first appearance before the Justice Select Committee 25/7/2010 we saw what was below that "I`m a fair chap" image; " He was not fussed about competitive tendering (“we have enough lawyers” and there is “no lack of people wanting to come in”). “I haven’t made that many policy decisions yet”, he concluded." Further comment is available here. He was proud to tell the media that in that first austerity budget of the Coalition he had made cuts of 23.8% in the MOJ budget and that he was the first secretary of state to have submitted that intention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His period at Petty France was just the beginning of the cracks which are now threatening to collapse the pillar of justice. 

From the sublime Kenneth Clarke to the ridiculous Chris Grayling who was his anointed successor. It was his bright idea to decide that having courts and personnel to offer a system of justice to all as the right of every citizen as had been the ethos (more or less) for centuries was untenable and wasteful of precious funds. He decided to impose a tax on every offender for the privilege of appearing in a court of law. This tax was to be over and above any fines, compensation or social or custodial sentence imposed. It was not means tested. Perhaps his landmark achievement was to forbid visitors bringing books for prisoners to read in jail; such a stupid decision it was reversed by his successor. However he will forever be  remembered for his actions in his next job as Transport Secretary in signing a shipping contract with a company which had no ships.But no problem; he was a staunch supporter of our prime  minister and a fanatic Brexiteer. 

Next came Michael Gove to who, to many supporters, is the brains of the party. Speaking outside his portfolio before the Referendum he was not immune to endorsing the lies of the Leavers; Just prior on being questioned on Sky it is quoted, " Like Mr Cameron, Mr Gove faced intense scrutiny of his campaign tactics, in particular the claim that the UK sends £350m to the EU every week. Sky’s political editor Faisal Islam said Mr Gove knew that figure was wrong, and accused him of importing the “post-truth” politics of Donald Trump to the UK. The UK Statistics Authority has said the figure “is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics”, because it is a gross sum and does not account for Britain’s rebate and funding received from the EU. In response to Mr Islam, Mr Gove agreed to have the figure independently audited."  The full text is available here. To quote from Politico, "As justice secretary and lord chancellor, Gove got “a lot of the judges and legal Twitter on-side” with warm words on rehabilitation and the justice system, according to one former civil servant who was working in government at the time.But the ex-official believes Gove “did little in the way of actual reform, simply applying his strong rhetorical skills to tell a story about justice.” That was mainly due to his short tenure. He was in post for just over a year before the EU referendum brought the Cameron government to an abrupt halt". It is arguable that had he been in post longer our justice system would have benefited greatly from his intellectual prowess, a facility sadly lacking in some of his contemporaries.  Under his short stewardship at Petty France the MOJ produced its annual report 2016/2017 as bland and meaningless as ever. 

We have four strategic objectives to deliver our vision. 

1. A prison and probation service that reforms offenders. We will:
 Maintain the highest level of public protection;
 Keep prisons safe and secure;
 Reform offenders; and
 Reduce reoffending.
2. A modern courts and justice system. We will:
 Upgrade the best justice system in the world using
technology and modern ways of working;
 Put the citizen at the centre of the justice system;
 Protect vulnerable victims, witnesses and children; and
 Support the independent judiciary and their ability to attract the best and widest range of talent.
3. A Global Britain that promotes the rule of law. We will:
 Make the most of opportunities presented by exiting the
EU to expand the reach of our world leading legal services;
 Promote our world class legal sector and judiciary; and
 Protect our common law traditions and strengthen ourhuman rights framework.
4. A transformed department. We will:
 Deliver excellent services to the public through a diverse,
engaged and capable workforce;
 Be a unified and responsive department, collaborating withpartners across the justice system and government;
 Put data, information, technology and innovation at the
heart of our work to improve our services; and
 Deliver value and drive efficiency in all we do.

Liz Truss, another non lawyer, the next incumbent, lasted less than one year bossing the MOJ.  Her short reign was rather less than successful.  She initially failed to defend the judiciary in November 2016 after they were branded “ Enemies of the people” by the Daily Mail because they ruled parliament had to be given a vote on triggering Brexit. Ms Truss later issued a statement supporting the judges but this was seen as too little, too late. Her actions drew unprecedented criticism from Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, who told a committee of MPs in March that he felt Ms Truss had been “completely and absolutely wrong”. It was the duty of Ms Truss to defend judges, Lord Thomas told the committee, adding he was “very disappointed” that she initially failed to defend them describing it as “constitutionally absolutely wrong”. The Lord Chief Justice also attacked Ms Truss for a “complete misunderstanding” of reforms to cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses in rape trials.

And so we have another Lord Chancellor who is not a lawyer; David Lidington. He had  consistently voted in favour of restricting the scope of legal aid and for allowing national security-sensitive evidence to be put before courts in secret sessions. He had a history of squeezing as much from the parliamentary purse as possible. In May 2009, it was revealed he had claimed £1,300 on expenses for dry cleaning. He also claimed for toothpaste, shower gel, body spray and vitamin supplements on his second home allowance. He repaid the claims for the toiletries, saying: ’I accept that many people would see them as over-generous.’  He could claim the honour of being the shortest in tenure at Petty France having lasted a whole six months. 

In January 2018  David Gauke transferred from Work and Pensions. At least he was a lawyer.  Indeed he was the first solicitor to be appointed Lord Chancellor. A month into his job he outlined his hopes in a speech available here; as bland as ersatz coffee and egg powder available to war time Britons between 1939 and 1945. His leaving office was as notable as his arrival. 

Robert Buckland, a solicitor, was anointed in 2019.  His keynote speech on judicial review is available here. I copy below an extract.  (my black)
The second part of my principles is the Rule of Law. What I mean is that as a society we are governed by clear rules set in advance and not by the arbitrary choices of those in power. That is a fundamental principle of our Constitution and I would not want any reform to endanger it.
The third is the Sovereignty of Parliament. In order for life in common to be possible, the laws that govern us must be orientated towards the common good. But what the common good means is, of course, open to interpretation. As Winston Churchill said, the least bad way of settling those disagreements is through democracy. It is our Constitution that gives the final say to the elected Parliament, not to the unelected branches of the state. I think that is a very sensible settlement which has served us all very well.

It is arguable to say the least that above we have the irresistible force meeting the immovable object and of course as a buddy of Boris Johnson when push came to shove he was a government lackey in the Brexit controversies over parliamentary rights. 

And so we come to Dominic Raab, demoted this year to Petty France but given the office? (title) of Deputy Prime Minister. That alone indicates the status of Justice Secretary in the eyes of this Tory government  where its newest holder needs his ego polished. 

Is it any wonder that Justice in this country is now an accoutrement  to our society`s well being in addition to saving the face of on overblown egotistical political irrelevance. The concept of Justice as a right for all citizens has long gone and with it the basis of our democratic traditions and freedoms because without Justice they evaporate just as surely as the morning mist in autumn.  

ARE MAGISTRATES BEING SELECTED BY ETHNIC QUOTA?

Magistrates courts have been around for well over 600 years. Until 2010 one might have used the term ubiquitous when describing their locations. There were around 330 in England and Wales serving the needs of a population both town and country.  And then came Kenneth Clarke as Lord Chancellor of a newly elected Tory government obsessed with the ramifications of the financial crisis.  In that first year Clarke was proud to be the first cabinet member to announce his department`s contribution to the looming deficit; 23.8% was cut from the following year`s budget of the Ministry of Justice. With like minded thinking at the Home Office the whole paraphernalia of all that contributed to the law making and its enforcement in a civilised country was hacked to pieces over the following decade.  The numbers of police and support workers were pared back  to the extent that none ever appeared except when driving past blue lighted.  Prison officers were decimated with many prisons thrown to outsourcers eg Serco and others who cut so many corners with them and their sub contractors trying to force profits from an ever shrinking capital base.  Probation services and others were catastrophically re-organised in 2015 by undoubtedly the worst most reckless and ignorant Secretary of Justice in memory only to be reconstituted by the same Tory government years later. And so to our courts system.   In the year ending March 2019, 5.3 million crimes were recorded by police in England and Wales compared with 3.9 million in 2011/12. The figures are not directly comparable over time as recording practices change although there has evidently been a rise in recorded crime. Over the same period, the number of prosecutions brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) fell by 46%.In 2019/20 the total MoJ budget was around 25% lower than in 2010/11.In 2018/19 there were 5,684 full-time equivalent CPS staff in post compared with 8,094 in 2010/11.Between 2010/11 and 2018/19 criminal legal aid expenditure fell by over a third (35%).   As of April 2010 there were 29,270 magistrates, 143 district judges and 151 deputy district judges operating in the roughly 330 magistrates’ courts throughout England & Wales.There are currently 150 magistrates courts served by 12,333 magistrates and 124 District Judges (MC). The loss of magistrates is due to retirement.  Their age profiles were always well known at the MoJ. The effect of their loss was predictable but government assumed an "all would be right on the night" philosophy with the result that over the last year or so coincident with the Covid pandemic which was a fine alibi for mismanagement the MoJ has been frantic in trying to recruit new bodies to warm the benches of our remaining magistrates courts. Almost every county `s local print media has been bombarding  its readers with pleas to apply for appointment to their local bench. Social media companies have also received their fair share of similar advertising revenue. Common aspect of such advertising is that anyone can apply and particular attention will be given to those of an ethnic minority. The committees overseeing applicants operate in secret.  The basic criteria are available here.  The application form is available at the end of this post. Latest judicial diversity statistics are available below. Unfortunately to publish this whole section magnification could not be larger.  Readers might want to use tool available on their own Windows or Mac system. 

 

With a national BAME figure of 13% of the population the figures above do not seem incompatible.  However there is pressure from assorted sources that composition of the bench must reflect local areas` ethnicity head count.  There are some who would argue that that requirement is, to coin a phrase, ill judged. I do not intend to discuss that in this post.  What I will posit is my opposition to appointment by quota.  We have seen recently the furore over the "taking of the knee" and in particular the accusations that those who oppose this act are by their very opinion; racist. In their eyes I too therefore am branded by this abuse owing to my opposition to such a political act by professional sportsmen (and women). Many will be unaware that at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin in front of hitler the English football team made the nazi "heil" salute.  There was much opposition at home. 

Despite denials by the Ministry of Justice there is no certainty that magisterial appointments are made without an eye on the diversity statistics. As citizens we should be entitled to know if those who sit upon us in judgement are indeed chosen strictly on merit or not.  This would be beneficial most of all to any member of an ethnic minority applying for position.  To be appointed with the purpose of maintaining or fulfilling a quota and  not necessarily on individual worth would be as insulting to those BAME magistrates as it would be for any of us in such a position.  The MoJ must declare its policy.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                   

This document is produced and maintained by:

Magistrates HR

Judicial Office

10^th Floor, Thomas More Building

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

PRE-APPLICATION CHECKLIST Please read ‘Becoming a Magistrate in England and Wales – Candidate Information in full before starting your application.

You must complete the following checklist before submitting your application.  If you do not complete the checklist, your application is liable to be rejected. 

I have read the Candidate Guidance in full.
I have checked to ensure that recruitment is taking place in my area.
I am not in the process of seeking asylum or applying for indefinite leave
I understand that applicants are expected to be living or working in, or reasonably close to, the area in which they wish to serve.
I understand that, if called for interview, I will be required to demonstrate that I have a good knowledge and understanding of social issues in the area I wish to serve.
I understand that magistrates are required to sit for at least 13 full days per year (or 26 half days).  I also understand that I will be required to attend training and occasional meetings after court.  I confirm that I am able to meet this commitment.
I am in employment and have obtained my employer’s agreement to take the necessary time off work if I am appointed.  (Leave blank if not in employment and see below)
I am not in employment.
I have undertaken at least two visits to a magistrates’ court in the twelve months prior to making my application.
The people I intend to nominate as referees have agreed to provide a reference and I understand that if references are not provided by the required date my application will be rejected.

 

 

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION

 

Applicants are expected to be living or working in, or reasonably close to, the area in which they wish to serve. 

 

Please state the name of the advisory committee whose recruitment exercise you are applying for:

Advisory Committee

 

If you have a preference to sit at a particular court (or courts) within the area you are applying to, indicate them below.  Please note that we cannot guarantee to meet your preference(s):

Preferred court(s)

 

How did you initially become aware of the role you are applying for?

 

 

What additional material have you seen that has increased your knowledge of the role? This might be advertisements, pages on the internet etc.

 

Only answer the next question if you are applying for vacancies in Wales.

 

Refer to page 14 of the Guidance for Prospective Applicants.

 

If the area to which you are applying has vacancies for bilingual magistrates, please indicate below if you would like to be considered for those vacancies:

Yes

No

 

All applicants must have visited a magistrates’ court to observe the proceedings, at least twice  before submitting an application.

 

 

Name of magistrates’ court		Date	D       M      Year
Name of magistrates’ court		Date	D       M      Year
Name of magistrates’ court		Date	D       M      Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We need to know if you have previously applied to become a magistrate, including any separate applications to sit in the family courts.

 

Have you previously applied to become a magistrate?

Yes

No

 

Have you made an application to sit in the family court?

Yes

No

 

 

 

If you answered yes, please give details of when you made your application, to which advisory committee, and the outcome (if known) of your application.

 

The Magistrates’ Association represents approximately 80% of magistrates in England and Wales. Information about the Magistrates’ Association is available at:  www.magistrates-association.org.uk/

 

If you are appointed, may we pass your details (name, address, date of birth and local justice area) to the Magistrates’ Association, so that they can contact you about the Association?

Yes

No

 

Your details will not be disclosed without your permission and will not be passed to any other organisation.

PERSONAL INFORMATION - This information will be removed prior to applications being assessed

 

                           

Title	Mr	Miss	Ms	Mrs	Dr
	Other (please state)
Surname
Forename(s)
Previous surname (if any)
Date of birth	D       M      Year
Home address (including post code)
Telephone	Home        Work         Mobile
Contact email
Nationality
Country of birth
How many years have you lived in the local area?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

 

Certain occupations (including past occupations) may affect your eligibility to serve as a magistrate. 

 

Refer to Appendix C of the Candidate Information. 

 

Please provide full information about your employment status and history:

Employment status	Employed		Self-employed		Retired		Not in paid employment
	Other (please state)
Current occupation (if applicable). Please include job title
Name and address of current employer
Brief description of work
Time with employer
Is the role?	Full Time	Part Time    Hours per week				Fixed Term (end date) D       M      Year

 

Please confirm that you have discussed your intention to apply to become a magistrate with your employer and have their agreement to take the necessary time off work if you are appointed.

 

Please give details of any other occupations in which you have been employed in the last ten years, starting with the most recent:

Occupation	Employer	From	To

 

In limited cases, the occupation of a spouse, partner or close relative may affect your eligibility.

Refer to Candidate Information for further information.

Is your spouse/partner in any form of employment?

Yes (Please state their occupation)
No		Not applicable

Has your spouse, partner or a close relative worked as any of the following - Police Officer, Special Constable, Police Community Support Officer, civilian employee of a police force, Traffic Warden, Crown Prosecution Service or Prison Service employee, or in any other occupation whose work involves attending court?

Yes (see below)

No

Not applicable

 

If you answered yes above, please describe the person’s (or persons’) relationship to you, their occupation, where it is (or was) carried out, and their approximate dates of employment:

  

 

 

 

1.   REFERENCES

 

All applicants must provide the names of three people who have agreed to act as referees.  Please complete Appendix B.

Refer to Candidate Information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.   REASONS FOR APPLYING TO BECOME A MAGISTRATE AND PERSONAL QUALITIES

 

Please explain what has motivated you to apply to become a magistrate (maximum 300 words)

 

The six key qualities required of all magistrates are: Good Character; Understanding and Communication; Social Awareness; Maturity and Sound Temperament; Sound Judgement; Commitment and Reliability.

 

Refer to Candidate Information for further information.

 

 

Please provide some examples of how you believe you meet each of the six key qualities.  Please give your most relevant examples.  These could be from past or present employment, from voluntary, community or leisure activities or from other areas of your life 

 

Each key quality example should be a maximum of 300 words.   

 

Good Character (maximum 300 words)

 

Understanding and communication (maximum 300 words)

  

 

Social Awareness (maximum 300 words)

  

     

Maturity and Sound temperament (maximum 300 words)

  

 

Sound Judgement (maximum 300 words)

  

 

Commitment and Reliability (maximum 300 words)

  

 

 

Voluntary work can sometimes provide an eligibility conflict.  Please provide a brief description of any voluntary work you are currently doing or have done in the past:

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONVICTIONS, CAUTIONS AND CIVIL ORDERS

 

Please read the Candidate Information carefully before completing this section.

 

Are you involved in any of the proceedings referred to at Appendix B, Section 1 - ‘Involvement in Current Proceedings’ of the Candidate Information?

 

Yes

No

 

If you answered yes, please provide details below:

  

 

Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence? (Do not include fixed penalty notices for motoring offences.)

Yes

No

 

If you answered yes, please provide details below. You must disclose all previous convictions irrespective of when they were received.

Offence	Date of Conviction	Name of Court	Sentence or Penalty

 

Have you ever received a Police Caution?

Yes

No

 

If you answered yes, please provide details below. You must disclose all cautions irrespective of when they were received.

Offence	Date of Caution	Conditions Attached to the Caution (if applicable)

 

Have you received any Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN), including for a driving offence, within the last 4 years?

Yes

No

 

If you answered yes, please provide details below:

  

Offence	Date of FPN	Amount of Fine

 

Have you regained your driving licence within the last 4 years following disqualification from driving?

 

Yes

No

 

If you answered yes, please provide details below:

Offence	Date of Disqualification	Date on which licence regained

 

Do you currently have penalty points endorsed on your driving licence (this includes points endorsed as a result of receiving a Fixed Penalty Notice)?

Yes

No

 

If you answered yes, please provide details below:

Offence	Date of Endorsement	Number of Penalty Points

 

Have you received a Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) within the last 4 years?

Yes

No

 

If you answered yes, please provide details below:

Offence	Date of PND	Amount of Fine

 

Are you subject to any of the civil orders (or an Individual Voluntary Arrangement) which qualify for disclosure under Appendix B, Section 6- ‘Bankruptcy, Individual Voluntary Arrangements and County Court Judgements’?

Yes

No

If you answered yes, please provide details below:

  

 

To the best of your knowledge, has a spouse, partner, close relative or close friend received convictions or cautions which would qualify for disclosure under Appendix D, Section 7 - ‘Spouses, Partners, Close Relatives and Close Friends’?

Yes

No

If you answered yes, please provide details below:

  

 

Excluding any information already provided above, is there anything else in your private or working life, past or present, which could damage your credibility as a magistrate if it became known to the public?

Yes

No

If you answered yes, please provide details below:

  

 

 

DECLARATION

 

The information that I have given in this application is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that my application is liable to be rejected if I knowingly fail to disclose relevant information. 

(Please sign electronically or by hand).

 

   

Signed:

Date: