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.

RETIRED MAGISTRATES CAN BE SEEN BUT NOT HEARD

For some magistrates being able to metaphorically strut around squawking their JP status like a peacock wooing a peahen is their primary interest in serving our justice system.  On my bench which numbered about 300 I would estimate by conversations over many years perhaps 10% were not unhappy to demonstrate their "status" as being what they considered a perk of the job. For my own part even my neighbours didn`t know I was a magistrate until it became known after my retirement which brings me to the position of magistrates when they leave the bench at 75 or younger as might be the case.  They are automatically moved on to the supplemental list.  This transition allows them continual use of the suffix JP but removes virtually all the previous powers and privileges.  

Magistrates on the supplemental list may not:

• sit in a magistrates’ court to adjudicate on cases
• sign summonses or warrants, including search warrants
• be a member of any committee or any other body as a magistrate
• take part in the election of chairman or deputy chairman of any bench
• attend any formal or business meeting of their former bench
• countersign an application for a shotgun or firearms licence
• sign off statutory declarations.

However, and it`s a big however, such retired magistrates are still subject to all the do`s and don`ts issued by the Lord Chancellor.  There must be very many who are unaware of those prohibitions or choose to ignore them as being irreplaceable enhancements to their own egos. Such was the case of Reverend Terence Young JP.  

There are amongst all occupations and/or professions those whose ego outperforms their abilities.  They do not have to be retired to be caught in the spotlight.  They are all around us their self aggrandisement to be pricked before harming those around them. 

DIVERTING THE BLAME

It seems there is a concerted attempt for the government to put as much distance as possible between the MOJ and the furore created by the entry warrants scandal.  To keep this post short and sharp I have copied below some parliamentary answers to questions raised yesterday.  Please note in particular the link to Ofgem`s Gas and Electricity Codes of Practice for Domestic Suppliers in the first reply. 

Compare that very length document with the Best Practice Guide for magistrates which became standard practice at my court a decade ago. This relied on the magistrate(s) asking the right questions at the right time after the applicant had taken an oath. That Guide was to the point and covered virtually all the grounds to sniff out occasions and individuals where disconnection and PAYG meters were not advisable.  It is accessed in this post of  27/5/2015.   Note a common theme:-  B L A M E is diverted from where it originated.......deep in the bowels of Petty France. 

JUDGES: BACK UP OR BACK OFF ? (GOVERNMENT)

There have been observers from time to time who have opined that the law is or should be above political bickering; that it stands supreme.  A well known adage is worth a thought that there is sometimes  an occasion when  a choice has to be made by judges between the letter of the law or the spirit of the law the latter being an attempt to enact what the law makers intended but failed to make 100% explicit in their legislation as it was passed by an act of parliament.  The balance between lawmakers who create the legislation over which the judges must adjudicate and judges who must interpret and apply the legislation has always been a matter of controversy.  The American constitution whose writers are held by some as demi gods did their best to separate legislative and judicial functions.  Events of late in that country have demonstrated the difficulties involved.  Currently Israel, the only democratic country in the middle east, is having its own moment in the spotlight where a right of centre government is trying to extend its power by eating into what had been assumed since 1948 were powers reserved for the judiciary.  This country is far from immune from the executive`s attempt at similar actions when a private citizen went to the supreme court to overturn the actions by the then prime minister Boris Johnson to prorogue parliament in furtherance of his political objectives subsequent to the 2016 referendum majority decision to leave the European Union.  

In actual courts where most of the public obtain their legal information through the media, whether that is the mass or on line social variety, Sentencing Guidelines are held as an example of a government attempting to overcome judicial decision making by laying out national ground rules which are little short of a box ticking exercise that phrase now itself held in contempt as being an excuse for failure. However that has not been enough.   For over 30 years the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme has helped victims of crime get what some perceive as righteous justice.

The scheme was launched in 1989 following public outcry over a series of controversial sentencing decisions, including the 1986 ‘Ealing vicarage rape’ case where 21-year-old Jill Saward was raped by burglars at her father’s vicarage. The first ULS hearing took place in July 1989. In this case, a man who committed incest on his daughter had his sentence doubled from 3 to 6 years in prison. The scheme has since helped thousands of victims and their families get justice, and in an important hearing last year two of the UK’s most prolific rapists - Joseph McCann and Reynhard Sinaga - had their sentences increased by 10 years, meaning that both offenders should now serve at least 40 years in prison before they can be released. In 2019 alone, 63 offenders had their sentences increased under the scheme – 16 of those were given custodial sentences after avoiding prison time at their original sentencing. Since it launched, the scheme has been expanded 6 times and now includes a range of terror-related offences, all serious sexual offences, threats to kill, child cruelty, people trafficking and modern slavery, and many racially and religiously aggravated offences. Most recently, sexual offences involving an abuse of trust, indecent images offences and domestic abuse offences were added to the scheme.  Commenting on the anniversary, Attorney General, the Rt. Hon. Suella Braverman QC MP said:   For over 30 years, the ULS scheme has helped victims of crime and their loved ones get justice. The scheme includes many more offences now than it did when it was first launched, allowing us to look at more sentences which don’t appear to fit the crime.   In the vast majority of cases, judges get it right, but the scheme is important to ensure that certain cases can be reviewed where there may have been a gross error in the sentencing decision. The ULS scheme allows prosecutors, victims of crime and members of the public to ask for certain Crown Court sentences to be reviewed by the Law Officers if they think the sentence is far too low. Some cases referred to the Court of Appeal can also offer guidance for future sentencing decisions. Anyone can ask for a sentence to be reviewed if they think it is too low, and only one person needs to ask for it to be considered. Further requests do not lend any extra weight as the decision to refer a sentence as too low can only be based on the legal threshold. The Law Officers have 28 days from the date of sentencing to refer a case to the Court of Appeal, so it’s important for them to receive a referral as early as possible in order to properly consider a case.

What happens to the judges who get it wrong?  We do not know.  As with many aspects of the secrecy in the workings of the unwritten British constitution any sanctions are applied behind closed doors. Examples of late are District Judge Stephen Leake who told Medway magistrates court last month that he wanted to jail Fabian Greco for 18 weeks for a violent offence but couldn`t because the prisons were full.  He suspended the sentence for two years because, he said, the courts had been issued with guidance from the government to "relieve the pressure on the prison estates as much as possible" due to a lack of spare capacity. Government sources said his remarks were nonsense.  Whether DJ Leake has been chastised by his superiors we do not know; the cloak of secrecy surrounding such matters is tightly drawn.  However if lowly magistrates dare stray from an imposed straight and narrow path they are held up to public disgrace by the forum AKA the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. For recent examples  refer to statements  2522  2422   2222  2122   1922  2622

The omarta code of silence from the senior judiciary and His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service over the scandal of mass authorisation of entry warrants forced if necessary with the purpose of installing PAYG energy meters is but the latest proof that there is an almost conspiratorial protection surrounding the biggest of the bigwigs who must have had input into the original decision to approve such policy but the supposed face of local justice, itself now an anachronism, the lay magistrate, can be treated like a peasant subject to the whims of his/her medieval master.   There are, however, the odd occasions when the senior judicial mask slips or appears to slip.  The difficulty is knowing when government prodding and poking has enforced the slip.  Recently the Lord Chief Justice has complained that defendants pleading not guilty are holding up the reduction of the massive backlog in the crown courts itself blamed on Covid 19 but mush self inflicted by government imposed restrictions on the number of courts available to hear cases owing to  that self same government being unable to settle pay disputes with its own judges or self employed barristers, or pay for the courts to be legally complying places of employment.  Paradoxically magistrates have known about defendants offering an equivocal plea of  guilty just to expedite proceedings and reduce their possible financial losses since the introduction of the Criminal Courts Charge in 2015.  In November of that year the House of Commons’ Justice Committee stated, "In many cases it is grossly disproportionate, it fetters judicial discretion, and creates perverse incentives – not only for defendants to plead guilty but for sentencers to reduce awards of compensation and prosecution costs. It appears unlikely to raise the revenue which the Government predicts. It creates a range of serious problems and benefits no one."

Two questions:

Does (should) the judiciary back up government?

Does (should)  the judiciary back off from backing up government?

So the point is does the secrecy surrounding judges, their decisions, their errors, their disciplinary procedures, their relationship with government, their relationship with the public and their colleagues benefit us the man in the street, the person on the Clapham omnibus, Joe Public or Jo Bloggs?  I would venture to opine when marking the judicial report card, "Attempting by obfuscation  to avoid  answering the question as set by the examiners. Must try harder failing which examiners must question the candidates` future in their chosen career".