SEX AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS

I`m more than ever convinced that our justice system; a term which denotes some degree of clarity and precision and is perhaps misplaced in this instance, depends on expediency over function.  Criminal Behaviour Orders are a case in point: a civil order with criminal sanctions.  It has taken a long time for the legal world to catch up with "domestic violence".  Indeed it is still some way behind.

The case of Kylle Godfrey is disturbing.  It wreaks of  the thought processes used by the likes of the Stasi; gleaning information from neighbourhood informers and the like.  In a coherent justice continuum such individuals as the above mentioned would be locked away from society for a time thought applicable to his offending.  But where the basis of the Sentencing  Council on government instruction is to avoid incarceration where humanly possible Godfrey and his ilk will be a danger to the public.  Evil exists in this society.  No amount of wishful thinking will remove it from our daily lives.

A DRAGON OR A RECEPTIONIST?

Most of us at some time or other have attended an A&E department for ourselves or having accompanied another to await treatment.  As with attendance at a G.P.`s surgery it is the receptionist with whom a patient must first make contact and that contact can set the tone for the complete experience.  It is unusual that this scenario reaches the Court of Appeal.  Last month it did.  This report in the Law Society Gazette makes an interesting read.

CLARIFICATION

Earlier this year I commented a few times on the apparent publishing of court results of the West Sussex Bench by HMCTS. I am pleased to make it clear that after exchanges with that latter organisation`s recently appointed CEO that the results were published independently by the newspapers concerned although she did admit that the format did give some cause for ambiguity.

SHOULD THE CATEGORY "HATE CRIME" BE ABOLISHED?

For England Wales and Scotland the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 made hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes. Does it really justify increasing a proposed custodial sentence if the perpetrator made clear that his assault was motivated because the victim was a so called goth, or gay, or Muslim or Jew, or Hindu or whatever minority category the court recognised.  Does the hate within the perverted personality of a vicious thug need to be eg of a non acquisitive nature?  The examples are not infinite but I`m sure many can come readily to mind.  The result of such criminal action up to and including murder is not altered by the offender`s reason assuming there is no defence of diminished responsibility. Some jurisdictions do not recognise hate crimes; Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, San Marino, Slovenia and Turkey. 

The great and the good of this country`s legal establishment consider hate to be an aggravating factor.  The simple reason I can think of is that by so doing they consider a certain but unknown amount of protection for the minorities and/or deterrence to the assailants is offered.  But then why have a differential at all.  If the sentence per crime were increased so that all were at the same level would that not be more logical?  I doubt that those intending violence  consider that shouting fucking Jew, Muslim, Queer or what have you will increase their sentence if convicted.  They are so self centred and/or encompassed by their perverted passions  that the thought of being in court just does not occur to their little minds. For the legal process the term "hate crime" can be in itself a source of some controversy.  It is time to consider its abolition as an aggravating factor?  

 

IS TIME MONEY?

For many decades court sittings have begun at 10.00am.  In actual practice that means that the professional and active participants usually arrive at least one hour earlier to prepare for the anticipated workload.  Generally that start time is in line with British business.  We don`t exist in a Mediterranean or middle eastern climate where much business, government and retail activity begins at 8.00am or earlier. A 9.00am start to a working day allows parents to ensure children are safely at nursery or school. For most if not all workers a common work start time is as significant as a common time per se. Those voluntarily contracted to some night shift work be it eg manual labour or medical emergency arrange their domestic duties accordingly. As has been mooted previously some bright young things at the MOJ think that court sittings could begin at 8.00am and have scheduled Highbury Corner Magistrates Court in London as the place to run a pilot scheme.  Where have we heard all this previously?  The MOJ loves its pilots.  Very few do anything but cause irritation and resentment amongst those involved or are just the leading edge of a pre-determined consultation; another favourite watchword of the weasels of Petty France London SW1.   

At Highbury Corner it seems that lawyers are venting their splenetic energies at this ridiculous notion. The proponents have offered an alternative arrangement of continuing the current practice of a 10.00am start  but running courts until 8.30pm; an alternative road to revolution by many of the legal fraternity. Everyone involved with the magistrates` courts system knows that it is almost a certainty that active sittings rarely begin on time.  Many defendants don`t know or care which day of the week they are due to appear never mind the time of day. To imagine that the miscreants of North London will arrive at a court at 8.00am is to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the court`s car park.  And what of the court staff including those sometimes considered by HMCTS as unpaid employees; the Justices of the Peace without whom the system would collapse?  Paid employees including District Judges might be offered  some sort of inducement financial or time off in lieu to upend their whole work/home balance but J.P.s?  There would be resignations en masse.  But they are so afraid of retribution that not one dares to voice a public objection.  Perhaps in its unsaid quest to professionalise the magistrates` courts system the MOJ would welcome a further erosion of J.P.s` involvement at the court level to one of a neutered group dealing with TV license evasion or similar minor transgressions.  

This proposal is just one more step in wrapping funding cuts around a seemingly plausible route to efficiency.  The civil court has in the guise of "meeting its costs" put itself beyond the reach of many who cannot afford the required fees to obtain justice. Civil, family and criminal courts are not experiencing all the savings expected by the wholesale restriction of legal aid because litigants in person and defendants require much more time to present their cases and we all know as those Whitehall weasels think they know; time is money.

ENOUGH SAID

A few years ago I attended for the first time a committee meeting of the borough planning committee. My presence was not as a councillor but as an objector to a proposal which was likely to have an effect on amenities near my home. The visit proved interesting. Although objectors to the three other planning applications before the committee were allowed to exceed an allotted three minutes my neighbour and I who, in our opinion, had more to complain about than the others, were cut off in full flow at the allocated three minute deadline. When the applicant of the proposal to which we objected took the stand he made three statements in his five minute rebuttal which were simply lies. My neighbour upon getting to his feet to object was ordered by the committee chairman to sit down and be quiet upon pain of exclusion. Is this local democracy in action? My long held disquiet at the machinations of planning officials, committees and their approvals was not dispelled by my experience that evening. To cap it all an earlier application to which we were witness and which was heavily criticised by many on the nine person panel was granted approval after a committee member pleaded that if it were refused it would on appeal almost certainly be approved and therefore the cost of said appeal to the council would be a waste of council tax payers` money. My thoughts at the time were unprintable. With that background a return to the happenings within the magistracy might be seen in context.

I was in court two days after the above meeting. One of my colleagues had been a person I had had the privilege of sitting with on her first two sittings ever some three or four years previously. After the above sitting she mentioned casually during the usual informal chit chat I enjoyed having with colleagues irrespective of whether a formal post court discussion with the L/A was or was not worth the time, that some few months prior the bench chairman had stated during a discussion on whether special reasons had been established not to disqualify an errant driver that if the bench declined it would be overturned on appeal. That argument apparently persuaded her colleague but not her to vote with the chairman to allow for the establishment of special reasons. My other colleague and I were dismayed. We left the building feeling that enough had been said.

PUFFING MY OWN TRUMPET RE KEIR STARMER

Last night I watched the BBC Brexit Question Time and was none too impressed by the performance of former Director of Public Prosecutions now reborn as a Labour front bench spokesman Keir Starmer. Permitting myself a little puff of prediction on my own trumpet  I commented on 17th March 2012 at this blog`s now defunct previous site [see below]  that Starmer was more suited to a political position than his current one.  It seems to me that selling snake oil door to door to the undeserving poor of Islington with J. Corbyn might be more suitable for his smooth talking but unconvincing talents. 

The Crown Prosecution Service has had a fair amount of what I deem justifiable criticism on this site. I am not alone. Earlier this week Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate published its latest report. It does not make comfortable reading and Keir Starmer`s response is more that of a politician than the equivalent of a C.E.O. of a vast organisation. Readers can access the press release here.

STAINING OF A POLICE COPY BOOK

It appears that within a few years all those aspiring to be police officers will require to be university graduates or  equivalent.  On the face of it that might seem to be a sensible level of education considering the knowledge needed to do a job with so many sub speciality requirements in addition to the old fashioned idea of "thief taking".  So far so good but in what could loosely be called a "people" job as opposed to a "desk" job it would seem that the recruiters are losing sight of a simple basic necessity when somebody dons a blue uniform; common sense.  When I was appointed J.P. it was a facility that had to be demonstrated at interview.  That aspect of personality was dropped many years ago on the spurious grounds that in order not to cause offence to ethnic minorities or those of recent immigrant status the term common "shared by, coming from, or done by two or more people, groups, or things"  was no longer considered appropriate.  Perhaps police appointment panels share the same philosophy because how otherwise can it be explained that this police officer behaved in such an imperious and crass fashion.  On a practical level for every worthwhile action of her colleagues she stains their collective copy book. 

THE TRUE NATURE OF POLITICS

In matters of sentencing magistrates can be said to be between a rock and a hard place; they are chastised if they do and criticised if they don`t.  With increased sentencing powers to 12 months custody unactivated for some years and some like the Howard League forever insisting that magistrates be relieved of authority to dispense custodial sentences per se, a Ministry of Justice that devises all sorts of excuses to remind sentencers that there are supposedly viable alternatives to custody and legal advisors afraid of saying boo to a goose in case they put their jobs in danger it`s no wonder that magistrates are somewhat confused.  When it comes to prolific shoplifting there are guidelines designed like a great maze for sentencers to construct appropriate punishments.  When the principle of public protection is overlooked or dismissed media stories like this one are a journalist`s delight when newscopy is thin on the ground.  

The truth is that the MOJ and its cousin HMCTS don`t know where to turn or in what direction they should set their compasses.  Money has been squeezed from their and the Home Office`s budgets until there`s not much juice left for them to squeeze.  When awful events  occur as happened yesterday politicians are vying to make clear their support for our wonderful police and emergency services whilst simultaneously conspiring in their being forced to run on empty.  Such is the true nature of politics. 

ALL WIND AND PISS

For those who might still be unaware of the judiciary`s lack of confidence in the Lord Chancellor the speech made recently  by the Lord Chief Justice is a disturbing event as far as its content is concerned. From her pronouncements since her appointment this blogger would comment that  she is as  Joyce had it in Ulysses - "All wind and piss like a tanyard cat".