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". 

A MESS OF JUDICIAL POTAGE

It seems that the entry warrants scandal still has some steam in it.  The Times today features an article on pp2 revealing a letter from Right Honourable Lord Justice Edis Senior Presiding Judge of England and Wales that instructs the granting of such warrants to cease.  See below.

Of course for any thinking reader as I assume my readers are the question that comes to mind is how did this scandal arise in the first place.  The answer to that must be considered in the light of the enormous numbers of cases documented here over the last few weeks posts.  These matters of entry warrants were concentrated over a specific number of magistrates courts as noted here on 17th January.  Only His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service would have this authority to instruct under the term of what I understood when active was THE Justices` Clerk who had delegated control of a number of courts where the on site boss was designated Deputy Justices` Clerk. As a new magistrate myself in 1998 after sitting as a winger a number of times on entry warrants I was horrified that very large bundles of warrants were passed for me to sign without examination. Subsequently I refused to participate in such a pastiche of justice.  My efforts, successful in the end, to change that atrocious practice ensured that all colleagues could participate in a systematic examination of all applicants` payment and social histories of those whose home they wished to enter to install PAYG meters.  Using the search box will open many posts over the last 10 years on this topic.

What dismays me most is the participation of magistrates whose compliance is an indictment of every single one of them.  They swore the judicial oath and when it mattered that it should take precedence over an in house instruction they behaved like sheep letting any conscience they might have had to be overruled by the fear of upsetting authority.  Perhaps now the reality of lay magistrates` subservience to HMCTS and their failure to confront that authority  will hasten the end of a system in which I was proud and honoured to be a participant.  Unknown to most observers in 2018 six magistrates were appointed by the powers that be to be leadership magistrates.  Their names were published here on 17th March 2020.   This is the official line: "There is 1 national leadership magistrate – Duncan Webster – and 6 regional leadership magistrates and 1 for Wales. All had to have been a Bench Chair in the previous 3 years, go through a selection process and have been appointed by the Lord Chief Justice for a period of time."  The names of the 7 magistrates subordinate to Webster are being withheld by the Ministry of Justice.  A Freedom of Information Request has been refused.  Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that with an impotent Magistrates Association held in contempt by many, these 7 appointees are acting as a fifth column on their benches and wider,  to influence policies and report on their colleagues,  taking such information high up the civil service and political ladders.  This insidious action is a danger to us all.  We think that justice (not policy) can be separated from the actions  of government.  That it can stand alone whatever the turmoil in Downing Street and Whitehall.  This seemingly insignificant policy ordered by government until its exposure, is a warning.  When those with judicial authority fail to be counted as defenders of that which they have sworn to uphold even at the lowest judicial level it will be only a matter of time before their senior colleagues are placed in the same or similar position. The problem for society is that unlike lay magistrates who have absolutely no excuses for their scurrilous actions except their own hubris judges have their salaries and future pensions to consider.  Be in no doubt there will always be those who would sell their (judicial) souls for a mess of potage. 

THE INIQUITY OF GRANTING WARRANTS OF ENTRY

Well!  The cat is now out of the bag.  The years old scandal of magistrates granting warrants of entry to the representatives of utility companies to install pay as you go energy meters willy nilly has now become front page news.  Any regular reader on this site will be aware that this carbuncle on the face of justice has been knowingly  ignored by HMCTS, the Magistrates Association and individual magistrates who have complied with a directive either through ignorance, in which case they are unfit for the post, or fear of being counted as rebellious.  Either way they disgrace the ancient title of Justice of the Peace. 

MORE ON THE SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE//A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

Try as I might it is impossible for me to ignore the ramifications of the Single Justice Procedure.  Indeed after seven years of operation the iniquity of this secret justice process has finally landed on the desks of respected members of the press.  I wonder if they are also considering whether what happens today in the lower court  will happen tomorrow in the crown court.  In addition to this fly in the face of open justice the sheer itimidatory tactics  of utility companies in applying for warrants of entry is beginning to be noticed by an extended audience.  The written answer from the Minister  copied below is revealing.

It is unlikely that the SJP has been extended to these cases but I would not bet against their being added to the portfolio currently under that umbrella. It is interesting to note that if in its wisdom HMCTS and the local justices clerk decide that a magistrate is required to sit as a SJP that individual has no ability to refuse even if s/he considers the process anything from unfair to reprehensible.  A Freedom of Information request elicited the following statement from the MOJ. "All justices authorised by the Lord Chief Justice to act in the criminal jurisdiction are authorised to act irrespective of the procedure used.  None is entitled to opt out of cases on the basis of procedure."  The question to be asked is just how authoritarian can the MOJ be in relation to the activities in magistrates courts and the corollary is just how many magistrates will allow themselves to be placed in a position to comply or resign.  And of course the so called "representative" of magistrates; the Magistrates Association remains silent that there is compulsion for its unknown number of active members to participate in the SJP.  

In practical terms speeding charges are a major proportion of the cases under SJP.  The table below gives the latest numbers available. 

LAST CHANCE SALOON FOR MAGISTRATES

Regular readers might have noticed that there are two topics which appear to have more than their fair share of space of late in my weekly outpourings: the Single Justice Procedure and warrants of entry for utility companies.  The latter particularly is of personal interest because the criticisms beginning to arise to a wider audience inside and outside parliament have been apparent since I first sat as a winger in 1998.  The arrogance of various chairmen now known as presiding justices in passing a heavy bundle of documents towards me with instructions to sign and the encouragement of clerks now known as legal advisors to "press on" was against my very nature of inquiry and fair play.  However after some years research and persuasion with the assistance of a legal advisor whose ideas of justice were akin to my own my bench adopted the Best Practice Guidance as posted here 27th May 2015.   It appears that this example was not followed elsewhere.  Indeed like so many cover ups by supervisory authorities in this country, whether of errant police officers, bullying health authorities or childcare organisations to name but a few, the MOJ tolerated and in fact encouraged this practice of nodding through warrants of entry to cut power or installing of PAYG meters to those who could least afford the extortionate charges to feed those meters. The iniquity of this policy can be seen in the table below. The anomaly of the numbers refused in 2019 cf 2020  and beyond certainly points to a directive from on high to change whatever policy was previously operating.  In all probability from my own experiences this was likely to have been pressure from the gas and electricity supply industries and their bailiffs. 

YEAR        GRANTED        REFUSED        TOTAL

2019        277,142                1,824                278,966

2020        221,494                43                     221,537

2021        332,277                36                     332,313

2022        367,084                56                     367,140

In the period between July 2021 and December 2022 a total of 536,214 warrants was applied for by energy suppliers.  Of these the vast majority (536,139) were granted while 75 were refused. Assuming that such applications in my experience were held about once a month  simple arithmetic shows that each magistrates court in England and Wales on average processed almost 200 cases each month in that period. If my experience is a guide such courts were held either just prior to the main business of the court for that session or as first business at 10.00am.  In any event to facilitate the inspection of 200 warrants and to question the operatives sent to court in their applications to ensure their compliance with the aforesaid Guide would take a complete session of a court and that would add to the costs.  So once again His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service sacrificed justice for cutting costs. This disgraceful state of affairs might not consume the debating time of our politicians as much as rape prosecutions or barristers` fees but  it has arguably a much greater effect on the poorest members of our society.  The government response is that in order to grant an application to enforce a right of entry a JP must be satisfied that there is a right of entry, admission is reasonably required and the requirements of the Gas Act or Electricity Act have been complied with.  The legislation [according to the government`s interpretation] does not require the energy supplier to demonstrate they are acting as a last resort in seeking a warrant to install a prepayment meter to avoid disconnecting supply. 

Assuming my comments on time involved dealing with the volumes as above it is fair to say that individual magistrates must be held responsible for failing in their duty as per their oath of office:  “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”  They truly have lost what little independence they have been left with since the turn of the millennium.  They have no body around which they can unite and offer their views on matters affecting them.  Instead they are considered as unpaid employees and when HMCTS says "jump" they not only jump but they offer to jump higher.  Their so called "leadership magistrates" are so enveloped in their abilities in using their tongues to lick unpleasant places that the MOJ keeps their identities secret from their colleagues so that they can act like stooges on any council in Hong Kong, Beijing or Shanghai.  Truly those who connive in this aberration of so called justice are nothing less than  MOJ toadies and the sooner this facade of diversity of local citizens for diversity in local justice is replaced by others with a true sense of duty the better.  This means that advisory committees must be instructed by a new cadre of civil servants who realise that unless changes are made the clamour of the legal profession for lay magistrates` replacement by District Judges (MC) will be unstoppable.  Indeed the magistracy as it has been known since WW2 is now in the last chance saloon. 

ADDENDUM  19th January 2023

On 17th January Mike Freer at the MOJ wrote to Sir Bob Neil re warrants of entry sought by utility companies.  This included the chart below.  The numbers of warrants granted and refused by magistrates courts is very revealing. Those requested at Portsmouth MC numbered 193,394 of which only 10 were refused. The next highest was at Basildon MC where of 61,117 applied for not a single one was refused.  However it must be borne in mind that HMCTS concentrates such activities at specific courts.  That does not explain the enormous differences in the numbers. 

Unfortunately resolution could not be increased

WARRANTS OF DISCONNECTION//A VERY LATE P.S.

Having removed my finger from the magistracy`s pulse seven years ago I am now just an observer sometimes rather late in my observations.  Real time now is but a memory.  However a debate yesterday in the House of Commons on some magistrates` benches approach to dealing with energy companies` warrant applications set my mind back to my blog of 16th August 2013. 

Magistrates have it within their powers and indeed within their souls to investigate each and every application for disconnection.   The delays will infuriate legal advisors as those instigated by my actions certainly did but I persuaded like minded colleagues and eventually a protocol was agreed with the Deputy Justices Clerk.  I even still have the documents on file.  But and it`s a big "but", it is my concern that magistrates are now less willing or even unable to counter "orders from above". Their independence is now but a shadow of what it was when I was appointed.  I might remind JP readers of their oath: “ I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of Justice of the Peace, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” However with many doctors prepared to ignore their Hippocratic Oath or similar undertaking I cannot be sure that magistrates will not free themselves from the words spoken on their appointment. 

MAGISTRATES` COMPLAINTS//A SIMPLE BINARY PROCESS

 

Date: 25 January 2022

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

Lindsay Dalby JP

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

"Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, has issued Lindsay Dalby JP of the Coventry and Warwickshire Bench with formal advice after she was issued a fixed penalty notice for breaching coronavirus restrictions. In making their decision, they took into consideration that the breach while dining in a restaurant was accidental, that she had reported the matter to her bench chair promptly and that she had apologised for her actions."

ENDS

Fact

Following on from my post of February 15th the above named magistrate was just one of those this year who has fallen foul of the scandalous inquisition of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. 

Fact

The Ministry of Justice has recently announced that it is inviting recently retired magistrates aged 70-75 who may wish re-apply to the active list of serving magistrates.

Fact 

Retired magistrates are usually by default placed on the Supplemental List of Magistrates upon retirement.

Fact 

Magistrates on the above list are subject to the same disciplinary processes as are applied to those in office. 

Fact

Official guidance on supplemental list is copied below:-

Most magistrates will join the supplemental list when they retire or leave the service before the

age of 70. There is sometimes confusion around what this entails and the powers it allows.

This guide explains the key features.

February 2012

The Magistrates’ Association Guide to The Supplemental List 

Returning to the active list

Being on the supplemental list (and under the age of 70) gives no automatic right to return to the active list. However, depending on the time away from the magistracy and any exceptional

circumstances, an individual could return to sitting without going through the full application and recruitment process. He/she will be interviewed informally by the advisory committee

to assess any training needs and other circumstances. Providing there are no exceptional factors the magistrate could return to sittings.The individual will not need to provide external referees but the magistrate’s previous bench advisory committee will need to provide a reference from the bench chairman.In the end, the decision whether to allow the magistrate back to the active list remains with the advisory committee to which he/she is applying. Obviously this may depend on vacancies on the particular bench.

Retiring magistrates

On reaching the age of 70 a magistrate will normally have their name entered in the supplemental list automatically or be written to and invited to apply. They will usually be

informed in writing and sent details of the rights and duties of being a supplemental list magistrate.

Applying to join the supplemental

list before the age of 70

A magistrate may also apply to move from the active to the supplemental list at any time.This may be for a number of reasons, for instance when personal commitments mean they must take a sabbatical from sittings likely to last longer than leave of absence rules allow (about 18 months depending on circumstances). There is no minimum length of service to be entered in the supplemental list. As a general rule however, the magistrate will have been appraised as competent in the adult court; they should have met the minimum sittings requirement of 13 sitting-days within the past 12 months (except where good reasons apply); and they should not have been subject to disciplinary action for misconduct within the past five years.

All advisory committees have to consider such applications.In the unlikely event that a committee recommends to the Lord Chancellor not to enter a magistrate onto the supplemental list, they must write to the individual giving reasons for their

decision.

The purpose of the supplemental list is 

■

to commend magistrates for good service upon resignation from the active list or retirement; and 

■

to ease the process of return to the active list in situations where magistrates have had to leave the magistracy but wish to return at a later date

What you can do whilst on the supplemental list

If you are on the supplemental list you can still use the suffix JP under the same guidance for sitting magistrates. Essentially this is that the initials may be used on private and business letterheads etc in a similar way to academic or professional qualifications.You should always be alert, however, to how references to your status might reasonably be perceived by other people. Any attempt to misuse the status to gain personal benefit could be regarded 

as misconduct. Magistrates can still witness documents or sign passports, but only

in the same capacity as other members of the public.

What you may not do whilst on the supplemental list

■

sit in a magistrates’ court to adjudicate;

■

sit in a Crown Court on appeals cases;

■

be a member of any committee or any other body as a

magistrate;

■

take part in the election of chair or deputy chair of a bench;

■

attend any formal or business meeting of their former bench;

■

sign any documents in the capacity of JP – ie using the JP suffix.

This will include:

– summonses 

– warrants, including search warrants 

– shotgun licence applications (as a JP) 

– being referee for a rifle licence application (as a JP).

Duties on the supplemental list

Magistrates on the supplemental list must inform the advisory committee secretary for their existing area if they change address. Similarly, advisory committees are encouraged to keep in touch with magistrates on the list.

Complaints 

Supplemental list magistrates are still subject to complaints procedures. (my  bold underline) If a complaint is received about their conduct or behaviour, if appropriate, the advisory committee will investigate it in line with standard complaints rules.

When magistrates are considered to have erred they are subject to a complaints process outlined in perfect detail in a document twenty pages long with apparently every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed. If the matter is concluded that this process has indicated that the magistrate has indeed crossed the threshold of guilt s/he can apply to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman  who will investigate only the actual procedures undertaken.  Thus all the labyrinthine detail of a trade union rule book is applied; with nobody in earshot all the trees in the legal forest which are felled fall in silence. Finally the verdict is subject to the decision of the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office whether or not a sanction is applied such sanction ranging from "advice" to removal from the bench.  There are no published statistics or information on most of this whole process.  Indeed names of members of these organisations are secret.  To add grist to this metaphysical mill there are strict regulations on making public any comments from a local advisory committee.  Suppose a complaint is made to said committee re the behaviour or action of a magistrate: Nobody can make unauthorised disclosure of said complaint under pain of being pursued in the courts under s.139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. 

The MOJ is currently undertaking a country wide advertising programme to persuade 4,000 citizens to become magistrates.  This previously unheard of action is a direct result of the self same MOJ under Tory Party governance since 2010 in failing to recruit annually from that year the appropriate number of magistrates required as the predicted retirement of an ageing cohort was well known to all in authority.  The judgement dealt out to the magistrate at the beginning of this post might or might not have been deserved. The lady in question might feel relieved at being able to continue in post or furious that her actions brought such ignominy.  She might or might not have freely admitted her remorse.  She might or might not have employed legal counsel to assist her.  We will never know. This is just a microcosm of what I term "secret Britain"; a country which loudly proclaims to the world and all who listen that it is a beacon of freedom.  Perhaps in some departments it is but in so many it certainly is not.  The line by line, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph,  clause by clause to investigate the perceived wrong doing of a magistrate makes a trade union`s rule book for a member`s expulsion seem like a simple binary process. 

RETIRED JP STILL BEHOLDEN TO JCIO

 I sat on an inner city bench for seventeen years until enforced retirement allowed me to retain use of the J.P. suffix and automatically relegated me to the "supplemental list" where a very few magisterial functions were still within my authority. The most significant of those  is the authority to countersign  passport applications as  countersignatories must either work in (*or be retired from) a recognised profession and Justice of the Peace is a recognised profession. Those on the supplemental list or retired magistrates cannot:-

 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

There is, however, a price to be paid for those who wish to retain the kudos of having those two letters after their name; namely the holder will still be subject to the rules and guidelines to which serving magistrates are subject. Mr Karl McCartney JP MP was first elected at the 2010 general election and represented the constituency until he was defeated by Labour's Karen Lee at the 2017 general election. He was re-elected as a Tory in the 2019 general election and is on the supplemental list. He also exhibits attitudes of an arrogant right wing Tory. In January 2021 the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office issued a formal warning to McCartney for referring to his role as a Magistrate in election material despite having been reprimanded for this previously. This reprimand was "for allowing his judicial status to be referred to on a political leaflet in a way that gave the appearance of seeking to gain advantage which is contrary to guidance that is intended to protect judicial independence and impartiality." In reaching their decision, the JCIO noted that McCartney had previously received a disciplinary sanction for similar behaviour and was unwilling to acknowledge the inappropriateness of his actions. [my bold]

On 29th October 2020 a spokesperson from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:“The  Lord  Chancellor  and  Mrs  Justice  Cheema-Grubb  DBE,  on  behalf  of  the  Lord Chief  Justice,  have  issued  Dr  Nigel  Molden  JP,  a  magistrate  on  the  Supplemental List,[my bold]  with a formal warning following a careless driving conviction and the accrual of six  penalty  points  on  his  driving  licence.  In  considering  this  matter,  the  Lord Chancellor  and  Lord  Chief  Justice noted  his  continuing  denial of  any  wrong  doing and also took into account Dr Molden’s timely disclosure to his Bench Chair, and his otherwise clean driving and disciplinary records."

These are but two recent examples of retired magistrates falling foul of the almighty JCIO.  Considering that many thousand magistrates will retire in the next decade they ought to think carefully at that point when they receive a letter such as the one I received copied below. No request was made by me to join the list.

What that letter and enclosure did not spell out was an option to opt out of joining the supplemental list and the fact that being on it placed upon the retired magistrate exactly the same obligations and guidelines as existed when active on the bench. .  Perhaps my advice to magistrates about to retire is that if you do not want your personal activities to come under the long reach of the JCIO you must ask to be removed.   As for me; I did not give a thought to the supplemental list and its obligations until as a result of a blog post 23/7/2019 I was threatened with a full on investigation.

*

I decided that rather than months of arguing and stress to retain those two letters JP and my right to freedom of expression  I resigned from the supplemental list thus ending the inquiry.  But going back to the second sentence of this post I am still a retired magistrate and I suppose that my signature to sign a passport application on that basis will not lead to a death by a thousand cuts from the London Advisory Conduct Committee or its standard bearer Mrs Featherstonhaugh. 

J.P.s ON SUPPLEMENTAL LIST

From time to time I have reported here on the goings on at the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Generally I`ve considered that in comparison to the decisions meted out to more senior members of the judiciary for their various indiscretions magistrates appear to be less benevolently dealt with. However recently there was the unusual matter of a magistrate on the supplemental list being sanctioned. Upon retirement magistrates are automatically transferred to this list. The do`s and don`ts for those individuals are as follows:-

Magistrates on the supplemental list can use the suffix JP, under the same guidance set out for sitting magistrates.

Magistrates can sign passport applications. They  must either work in (or be retired from) a recognised profession. Justice of the Peace is a recognised profession.

Neither retired magistrates nor those on the supplemental list can sign off statutory declarations.

Magistrate in 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

In addition those on the supplemental list are subject to exactly the same rules of conduct as their colleagues who are active. Nevertheless for such a person to appear before the JCIO is very unusual. One such who has transgressed is  Dr  Nigel  Molden  JP who blotted his copy book by being convicted of careless driving which cost him 6 penalty points. The report is here. Quite frankly I fail to see why any JP on the supplemental list remains so.  The risk of falling foul of the onerous regulations seems to me to be unworthy of having a couple of letters after one`s name.  Then again there are still many who seek appointment to have those very letters after their name. I`ve met a few.  Shame on them. 

ALLOW MEDIA TO SPONSOR LIVE TELEVISING MAGISTRATES COURTS

For some years there have been musings from quarters on high on the televising of events at the criminal courts.  Since its inception the Supreme Court has been available for those interested to view on line. I`m sure that nobody then would have predicted that during the Brexit legal shenanigans prior to October 31st last year at its height over 2.8 million viewers gave up some of their valuable time to watch the live proceedings.  However with regard to the every day process of justice at magistrates and crown courts with the decline of local print media that process has become ever more invisible to the general public in England and Wales. However for those north of the border the criminal justice in my opinion bears much more relevance to this new millennium than its southern counterpart.  

  
Guide to Jury Service Eligibility and Applying for Excusal in Scotland
Are you qualified for jury service?
Subject to the information included in boxes A and B below, you are qualified for jury service if:
 you will be at least 18 years old on the date that you start your jury service;
 you are registered as a parliamentary or local government elector; AND
 you have lived in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for any period of at least 5 years since you were 13 years old.
You are not qualified for jury service if you do not meet all of these criteria, or if anything in box A applies to you, and you should complete the enclosed application and return it to the court as soon as possible.
You are ineligible if anything in box B applies to you, and you should complete the enclosed application and return it to the court as soon as possible.
You may apply for excusal as of right if the information in box C applies to you. If you wish to apply you should complete the enclosed application and return it to the court as soon as possible.
WARNING: It is an offence to serve on a jury knowing that you are not qualified for jury service or are ineligible or disqualified from jury service.
Part 1 of your application
You must fill in this section carefully or the court will not be able to process your application. Please make sure that you include your name, address, person ID (this is the number which is in brackets after your name on the front of your citation, it is 7 or 8 digits long), date of birth (where requested).
Box A – Persons disqualified from jury service
You are disqualified from jury service if:
 you are on bail in or in connection with criminal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom;
 you have been sentenced, at any time, in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man –
 to a period of imprisonment for life or for a term of 5 years or more; or
 to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure, during the pleasure of the Secretary of State or the Governor of Northern Ireland (i.e. sentenced for murder while under the age of 18);
 or you have in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man –
 in the last 7 years (or 3.5 years where you were under 18 on the date of conviction) served any part of a sentence of imprisonment or detention, which was for between 3 months and 6 months; or
 in the last 10 years (or 5 years where you were under 18 on the date of conviction) served any part of a sentence of imprisonment or detention, which was for between 6 months and 30 months; or
 at any time served any part of a sentence of imprisonment or detention, which was for between 30 months and 5 years; or
 in the last 7 years been detained in a borstal institution;
 in the last 5 years (or 2.5 years where you were under 18 on the date of conviction) you were convicted of an offence and one or more of the following disposals was made:
 a drug treatment and testing order;
 a restriction of liberty order;
 or a community payback order;
under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995; or
 a community order under the Criminal Justice Act 2003;
 a youth community order under section 33 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000;
 a community order under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996; or
 a drug treatment and testing order under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.
Box B – Persons ineligible
You are ineligible for jury service if any of the categories mentioned below apply to you:
 you are a Justice of the Supreme Court or the President or Deputy President of that Court;
 you are a Senator of the College of Justice;
 you are a sheriff;
 you are a summary sheriff
 you are a Justice of the Peace;
 you are the chairman or the president, the vice chairman or vice president, the registrar or assistant registrar of any tribunal;
 you have, at any time within the 10 years immediately preceding the date at which your eligibility for jury service is being considered, come within any description listed above in this box.
 you are an Advocate or a solicitor, whether or not in actual practice as such;
 you are an advocate’s clerk;
 you are an apprentice of, or a legal trainee employed by, solicitors;
 you are an officer or staff of any court if your work is wholly or mainly concerned with the day to day administration of the court;
 you are employed as a shorthand writer in any court;
 you are a Clerk of the Peace or one of their deputies;
 you are a member of or staff of the Scottish Police Authority
 you are an Inspector of Constabulary appointed by Her Majesty;
 you are an assistant inspector of constabulary appointed by the Secretary of State.
 you are a constable of the Police Service of Scotland (including constables on temporary service within the meaning of section 15 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.
 you are a constable of any constabulary maintained under statute;
 you are a person employed in any capacity by virtue of which you have the powers and privileges of police constables;
 you are a special constable;
 you are a police cadet
 you are person appointed under section 26(1) of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.
 you are a member of the National Criminal Intelligence Service;
 you are a member of the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service or a person employed by that Authority under section 13 of the Police Act 1997;
 you are an officer of the National Crime Agency;
 you are an officer of prisons, remand centres, detention centres, borstal institutions and young offenders institutions;
 you are a prison monitoring co-ordinator appointed under section 7A(2) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 and independent prison monitor appointed under section 7B (2)(a) of that Act
 you are a prisoner custody officer within the meaning of section 114(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;
 you are a procurator fiscal within the meaning of section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, or are employed as a clerk or assistant to such procurators fiscal;
 you are a messenger at arms or sheriff officer;
 you are a member of a children’s panels;
 you are a reporter appointed under section 36 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or are a member of a reporter’s staff;
 you are a director of social work appointed under section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or are employed to assist such directors in the performance of such of their functions as relate to probation schemes within the meaning of section 27 of that Act;
 you are a member of the Parole Board for Scotland; or
 you have, at any time within the 5 years immediately preceding the date at which your eligibility for jury service is being considered, come within any description contained in the categories above in box B;
 you have, at any time within the 5 years immediately preceding the date at which your eligibility for jury service is being considered, been a member or employee of the Scottish Police Services Authority.
SCS003Pilot
 you are a member or employee of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission;
 you are a chief officer of a community justice authority established under section 3 of the Management of
Offenders etc. (Scotland) Act 2005;
 you are a person who is receiving medical treatment for a mental disorder and are either –
 for the purposes of that treatment, detained in hospital under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 or the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;
 for the time being subject to guardianship under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000.
Are you eligible to apply for excusal?
Box C – Persons excusable as of right
If you come within one of the categories noted below, you have the option to apply to the court to be excused as of right. Please Note: you will only be excused ‘as of right’ if you apply within 7 days of receiving the Jury Citation. If you apply outwith this period then you will be required to state a good reason for excusal. The clerk of court will consider your request, taking account of all relevant circumstances and you may be required to attend for jury service. This does not apply if you are aged 71 or over - in these circumstances you can apply for
exemption up until the date you attend court.
 you are a peer or peeress entitled to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords;
 you are a member of the House of Commons;
 you are an officer of the House of Lords;
 you are an officer of the House of Commons;
 you are a member of the Scottish Parliament;
 you are a member of the Scottish Executive;
 you are a junior Scottish Minister;
 you are a representative to the Assembly of the European Parliament;
 you are a member of the National Assembly for Wales;
 you are the Auditor General for Scotland;
 you are a medical practitioner; dentist; nurse; midwife; pharmaceutical chemist; or a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner (if actually practising your profession) and are registered (whether full or otherwise), you are enrolled or are certified under the enactments relating to that profession;
 you are a practising member of a religious society or order the tenets or beliefs of which are incompatible with jury service.
 you are a person in a holy order;
 you are a regular minister of any religious denomination; or
 you are a vowed member of any religious order living in a monastery, convent or other religious community.
 you are a serving member of:
 any of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces;
 the Women’s Royal Naval Service;
 Queen Alexandra’s Royal Naval Nursing Service; or
 any Voluntary Aid Detachment serving with the Royal Navy.
However, if your commanding officer certifies that it would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the force of which you are a member, should you be required to attend for jury service, you may apply for excusal as of right up until the date you attend court;
 you have attended court for jury service within the last five years but were not selected by ballot to serve on a jury (this only applies where your previous attendance was on a date prior to 10th January 2011);
 you have attended court for jury service within the last two years but were not selected by ballot to serve on a jury (this only applies where your previous attendance was on a date on or after 10th January 2011);
 you have attended at court for jury service and were selected by ballot to serve on a jury, within the last five years;
 you were excused by direction of any court from jury service for a period which has not yet expired;
 you have reached the age of 71.
SCS003 Pilot V19.02.19
Applying for excusal
Box D – Applications for excusal on the grounds of ill health or physical disability
If you wish to apply for excusal on the basis of ill health or physical disability then you must enclose a medical certificate along with your response. This can normally be obtained free of charge from your GP, in terms of Article 4 of Schedule 4 and regulation 25 of The National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Scotland) Regulations 2018 (2018/66). If your doctor considers your condition is long term or unlikely to change, please ask your doctor to include this information in your medical certificate.
Box E – Applications for excusal due to other special reasons
If you wish to apply for excusal due to another special reason, for example commitments at work, cancellation of which would cause abnormal inconvenience either to yourself or others, or holiday plans which would be difficult or expensive to rearrange, you should complete the relevant sections of part 3 of the form. You must also provide evidence of this, for example booking confirmation or letter from your employer.
Whilst all applications for excusal will be considered sympathetically, you must understand that court staff may not be able to excuse you from jury service. Rules of court state that a jury cannot be balloted where there are less than 30 of those named on the list of jurors present in court, meaning that it may not be possible for court staff to excuse jurors in all cases.

English requirements are available here. Perhaps the biggest differences between the two trial systems is that the Scottish jury of 15 has to meet only a simple majority for a verdict to be reached and that there is the third verdict of not proven available. In Scotland rather than the police who lead an investigation in England it is the procurator fiscal who takes a much greater role than the CPS in the active role of investigation. "Double- sourcing" evidence is unknown in English law. In Scotland it describes the corroboration of evidence which is all important in serious offences.  In practice in addition to a complainants`s evidence there must be additional evidence preferably DNA related or else the case cannot proceed. It could be said that some aspects of the process are akin to the French way of conducting matters insofar as their examining magistrates initiate investigations and issue warrants. Indeed I have long advocated here and elsewhere that Justices of the Peace take a more investigative position especially when trials involve unrepresented defendants. 

However the major difference is that those wise Scottish legal eagles have allowed television into the criminal court.  That decision was further reinforced recently when edited sections of a murder trial were on our televisions recently  Admittedly this was not a live broadcast but it probably dismayed those in the senior English judiciary who would still murmur in private that things have already gone too far in removing the supposed sacred aura surrounding the legal system. 

For the last decade successive governments have allocated ever decreasing funds to a justice system which is more and more seen as having to pay its way in contrast to the historical concept that it had been considered a public service and not a pay to use activity. The demise of local court reporting which has been commented upon more than once on this site has left the door open for enterprising media companies to sponsor live TV broadcasting from magistrates courts. The financial input would be welcomed by HMCTS and the idea of "open" justice would be a reality.  It might not be until the end of this decade but I have no doubt it is just a matter of when and not if. 

Previous posts which might be of interest are available here,  here and here.  

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION AT THE JCIO

Magistrates by their very nature are hybrids being not professional judiciary but still being referred to by all parties as indeed members of  the judiciary albeit junior members. When it comes to the ways in which magistrates` behaviour or words can be interpreted as bringing the magistracy into disrepute it is fair to say that contrary to taking a logical view bearing in mind the above stated difference magistrates are arguably held to a higher and more pernicious standard of conduct than the paid civil servants who are the professional judges, from the lowest Deputy District Judge to members of the Supreme Court.  It seems that their straddling of two positions judicial and private is not a consideration for those who preside over judicial complaints: in the first instance that is the local advisory committee. Current advertising for new applicants emphasises that "ordinary people can become magistrates". But these "ordinary people" are treated in possible cases of misconduct of a minor or serious nature arguably  more severely than their professional colleagues. 

One would have thought that magistrates, if accused of any form of misconduct, would have a professional body to which they could look for expert assistance.  Such bodies as the BMA, AOP,  Pharmacists' Defence Association Union exist as the protective bodies for doctors, optometrists and pharmacists respectively. Many similar organisations exist for most trades and professions.  Magistrates are on their own when confronted by authority. The only body acting as a forum for J.P.s is the Magistrates Association; a charity which has about 80% of the 15,000 magistrates as paid up members.  However it exists under a Royal Charter as an educational organisation with very strict limits on its activities.    

Below is About Us copied from its website.

Our Royal Charter

We are proud to operate under our Royal Charter granted in 1962 and updated in 2013. We are established and incorporated to promote the sound administration of the law, including, but not restricted to, educating and instructing magistrates and others in the law, the administration of justice, the treatment of offenders and the prevention of crime.
Promoting the magistracy

As the voice of magistrates we work hard to promote the work of our members and the institution of the lay justice system. We speak to key decision-makers in Parliament and Government, as well as the media and other organisations in the criminal justice field. Our in-house policy team researches key topics relevant to the magistracy as well as monitoring changes in the law to ensure our members are supported. 
Supporting our members

We are here to support our members. Our members receive our bi-monthly magazine which provides a range of supportive articles and information valuable to any magistrate. They also receive access to our members' area which contains a variety of materials designed to assist magistrates in their duties. The MA provides a variety of training and events at national and local branch levels. 


What the MA does not do is providing protection and representation for its members facing disciplinary procedures. For those magistrates who find themselves the subject of a complaint however minor the process can be soul destroying.  The Judicial Rules (Magistrates) under which the proceedings are undertaken run to 19 pages of small print and 151  clauses many with numerous sub clauses.  Magistrates are examined by a conduct panel consisting of three members of the advisory committee to which the complaint was made originally. Magistrates must speak for themselves when told to give evidence.  It is extremely unlikely that the "prosecution" will allow a legally qualified representative of the "defendant" to give evidence on his/her behalf.  It must be emphasised that this is not a court of law: indeed such a court especially at the higher levels possesses  to a certain degree a level playing field and equality of arms. It is not unlikely that the current process IMHO is in breach of human rights legislation.  When a complaint is made, on receipt of the report from the conduct panel the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office must examine the papers submitted.  If the "evidence" warrants it the case is then referred to an investigating judge. The matter then depending on circumstances can be referred to a disciplinary panel or direct to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. The requirements of the investigation by the judge are listed under 15 clauses.  Where a magistrate has indeed been found guilty of misconduct by JCIO a very brief report including the offence, judgement and sanction is published on its website. This very brief truncated account of a situation which can take over a year to its conclusion is the very tip of the judicial iceberg of investigative process. 

Whether or not a magistrate in such a situation can take legal advice depends upon the depth of his/her pockets. I would opine that to have legal advice throughout the process would necessitate many, perhaps dozens of letters and other documents being thoroughly scrutinised and replies being made as appropriate to the investigation. If a legal presence is required at any stage that too would be a costly business especially in London.  It is not unrealistic to assess such costs in five figures.  The Star Chamber was an English court which sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century (c. 1641), and was composed of Privy Counsellors and common-law judges to supplement the judicial activities of the common-law and equity courts in civil and criminal matters. The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded. I would suggest that the iniquitous procedures employed against magistrates has now become itself a star chamber. Despite the 19 pages and 151 clauses or perhaps because of them, the treatment of magistrates, including those retired and placed on the supplemental list, constitutes oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of power. 

Only last month a magistrate was issued “formal advice” for retweeting a tweet which the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office  considered politically insensitive.  

None but the participants will ever know the content of the tweet which apparently caused the offence nor will we ever know whether or not Mr Taylor JP decided not to risk his magisterial career by fighting the charge and agreed to the final outcome.  When the disgrace of possible removal from the magistracy is the Sword of Damocles hanging over every magistrate faced with the disciplinary process it is not unlikely that some (many?) "repent their sins" in agreement with an outcome which allows them to continue in post. This is rather like an equivocal  early guilty plea of which most readers will be familiar and which became more apparent after the imposition of the Criminal Courts Charge in 2015 the difference being that a bench in these circumstances would be wise to reject such a plea and substitute not guilty in its place. 

Sad to say there is no organisation whose role is to act in the best interests of magistrates. Until such time the only term which can even loosely describe the current investigative process is The Spanish Inquisition.