Everybody likes to win whatever the competition. The anodyne statement that "It`s the taking part that counts" is often just an excuse for losers. Organisations of all sizes and complexities will always seek to demonstrate that their performance in one way or another is the best or is improving at such a rate that confidence in its ability to do whatever it`s supposed to do is or has improved. Business, academia, trades, professions etc etc all provide statistics and/or analyses to indicate their success or to provide reasons (excuses) for a poor or unfulfilled performance. Nowhere IMHO is this approach more seriously undertaken than at the MOJ. It might be my imagination or incompetence but I have the clear impression that there are now fewer statistics published on dealings at magistrates` courts than in years gone by. For sure there are tables on courts` efficiencies and timeliness but I have today found it impossible to source numbers of defendants and convictions on charges of common assault; a summary offence with a maximum sentence of six months custody. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is an either way offence with a maximum sentence at crown court of five years custody. Sentencing Guidelines are available here. As all who work in the courts` system will probably know already there is a marked tendency of the CPS to undercharge. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the aforesaid matter of "assault". Two reasons are responsible; charging common assault in the lower court is very much cheaper than taking it to crown court and secondly the chances of a conviction are greater simply because a "serious" matter charged as a lesser offence will more likely elicit a guilty plea or the facts are more likely to be proved. The result is that hundreds if not thousands of victims are cheated of seeing their assailant getting his just rewards and as a corollary offenders are much more likely to be less limited in their venom and aggression in the full knowledge that if they are caught and convicted the punishments will be relatively minor and certainly not appropriate for the degree of violence employed.
Paul Gascoyne; Gaza, a former highly rated international footballer with a sorry record of domestic violence and inebriation as an alcoholic leading to severe mental disorders was, last year, the subject of a viscous assault which caused severe injuries. The offender pleaded guilty to common assault. The report is here. My question is whether or not such an assault was far in excess of common assault. Should it have been charged as the more serious and consequential ABH with the possibility of an initial not guilty plea leading to an expensive crown court trial? I leave it to readers to make their own conclusions but in my opinion this is a truly awful example of my opening sentences of this post. The CPS sacrifices quality justice for quantity injustices.
Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.
Thursday, 27 July 2017
Wednesday, 26 July 2017
COURTS` EXTENDED HOURS
With increasing concern at the plans of HMCTS to impose extended hours for court sittings Twitter has been a useful pointer. On Inside HMCTS Blog there is published a series of questions and observations to the organisation including by a couple of crown court judges. Surprisingly there is not a single word referring to or written by magistrates except an unanswered series of questions I noticed yesterday. I copy that part below and will do similar when a reply is published.
Have you secured sufficient numbers of magistrates to the proposed rota for extended hours? Similarly have you DJs in place. If to my first question the answer is "no" will you attempt to use DJs more often? Have you sufficient of them for your proposed needs? Do you have a division of sittings in mind for JPs and DJs?
Have you secured sufficient numbers of magistrates to the proposed rota for extended hours? Similarly have you DJs in place. If to my first question the answer is "no" will you attempt to use DJs more often? Have you sufficient of them for your proposed needs? Do you have a division of sittings in mind for JPs and DJs?
PUTTING THE WORLD TO RIGHTS
Put the world to rights; that phrase is often used to describe conversations in the pub where Joe Everyman gives his opinion on what he would do to change the world between downing his pint and opening another packet of crisps. It is a derogatory way that the elite of this country describe the opinions of the plebs. There are, however, some situations where the elite have failed us, are failing us and will continue to fail us. Nowhere is this disdain for acting for the common good more apparent than in the panoply of our justice system. I have posted, perhaps too often, on the failure of government to divert addicts from the criminal justice system to the health services. The active removal of legal safeguards for defendants in our courts by the withdrawal of legal aid for those most in need is nothing short of a disgrace. The removal similarly of that benefit to parents in the family courts as demonstrated by the tragic matter of baby Charlie whose parents were able to seek justice whatever the outcome only by pro bono work of unselfish lawyers is as clear a demonstration as could be manufactured of the total disregard of the realities of life for most people. It is not unlikely that this case will lead to a review of legal aid provision in the family court where hundreds if not thousands of parents have had to be litigants in person; a situation not to their advantage nor to the courts where time is costed by a team of accountants at HMCTS.
In the last twenty years begging and vagrancy have become more apparent in larger towns and cities and with the accession of the East European states to the EU and thus to our shores the problem has increased. The Victorians had a simple way of dealing with the down and outs of society 150 years ago; the workhouse where basic provision was made to shelter and feed such unfortunates until such time they could find their feet in a winner takes nearly all society. The unenlightened attitudes of local councils since the turn of the millennium have been brought into the spotlight by the tragic events at Grenfell Tower. The revelations still to be made will demonstrate the inadequacy of local government. The unadulterated rottenness of elected and employed individuals exposed in Rochdale and other northern towns when confronted by Muslim scum whose heinous activities were allowed to prosper by the ineptitude at the best and politically correct tolerance at worst will long be remembered as a carbuncle on the face of these councils. In Oxford the Labour controlled council has decreed that homeless people "who keep possessions in doorways could face fines of up to £2,500 for being ‘detrimental’ to the area". As magistrates a guiding light on sentencing has always been that offenders should not be set up to fail by the imposition of impossible to fulfil requirements. The burghers of Oxford are deserving of public disgrace. They should be pilloried and showered with rotten tomatoes. To threaten vagrants with what appears to be a form of locally approved ASBOs the breaching of which will not be able to be funded is a recipe for failure. This country was made great during the Victorian era in spirit as well as in prosperity. There is no doubt that a modern form of the workhouse with compulsory attendance under some form of supervision combined with medical assistance to cure a drug habit would be beneficial to all with lives saved, criminality reduced and in the long run financial expenditure reduced. But we are plebs; who cares what we think. It`s just more pub talk putting the world to rights.
In the last twenty years begging and vagrancy have become more apparent in larger towns and cities and with the accession of the East European states to the EU and thus to our shores the problem has increased. The Victorians had a simple way of dealing with the down and outs of society 150 years ago; the workhouse where basic provision was made to shelter and feed such unfortunates until such time they could find their feet in a winner takes nearly all society. The unenlightened attitudes of local councils since the turn of the millennium have been brought into the spotlight by the tragic events at Grenfell Tower. The revelations still to be made will demonstrate the inadequacy of local government. The unadulterated rottenness of elected and employed individuals exposed in Rochdale and other northern towns when confronted by Muslim scum whose heinous activities were allowed to prosper by the ineptitude at the best and politically correct tolerance at worst will long be remembered as a carbuncle on the face of these councils. In Oxford the Labour controlled council has decreed that homeless people "who keep possessions in doorways could face fines of up to £2,500 for being ‘detrimental’ to the area". As magistrates a guiding light on sentencing has always been that offenders should not be set up to fail by the imposition of impossible to fulfil requirements. The burghers of Oxford are deserving of public disgrace. They should be pilloried and showered with rotten tomatoes. To threaten vagrants with what appears to be a form of locally approved ASBOs the breaching of which will not be able to be funded is a recipe for failure. This country was made great during the Victorian era in spirit as well as in prosperity. There is no doubt that a modern form of the workhouse with compulsory attendance under some form of supervision combined with medical assistance to cure a drug habit would be beneficial to all with lives saved, criminality reduced and in the long run financial expenditure reduced. But we are plebs; who cares what we think. It`s just more pub talk putting the world to rights.
Tuesday, 25 July 2017
PUBLIC DISUNITY//WHY THERESA MAY MUST GO NOW
It seems to this distant observer that a form of mob rule is gradually taking over certain areas or our lives. On a political level Big Chief Corbyn and his indian braves have asserted that one way to achieve power is by having a 1,000,000 protesters on the streets. This should not be a surprise. That he is an avowed Marxist who has made no secret of his intentions is clear from this speech in 2012. As is their historical profile those of similar philosophy have been involved (allegedly) when local groups have had and are having real concerns about decisions affecting their lives made by socially and politically distant often state connected organisations. The issues surrounding the Grenfell fire, genuine and perhaps criminal, are being used to undermine the fabric of the state and it is not unlikely that a few years down the line results of inquiries and prosecutions whatever the results will be used as stick to beat all authorities however involved.
Actions of police are under the microscope of public opinion at a wholly different level. They used to be literally a law unto themselves. Not a week goes by when that attitude is revealed still to be motivating a not inconsiderable number of police officers. Last year 108 police officers were dismissed for misconduct. The bar for sacking is set very high. Much of the Policing and Crime Bill`s sections on police discipline became law a few months ago in the corresponding Act. The amount of criminality within the police is quite shocking for the layman to comprehend the Met Police being the cheerleader.
As a result of public policy by the Home Office led by a certain Mrs T. May police were instructed to reduce "stop & search" and the pursuit of those using vehicles to evade arrest or questioning. The unintended consequences have been an unholy increase in knife crime and an explosion in criminals evading arrest by using mopeds as getaway vehicles. There is considerable controversy over the numbers within these topics. That controversy is both political and statistical in quantity and quality.
What is not in doubt is the increase in mob behaviour generally when disputed matters go public epitomised by the situation of the baby Charlie and that surrounding areas where permission has been granted for fracking. Decisions by legally authorised public bodies are being challenged by no less than mob rule. There are many definitions of "mob" but they all have a similar underlying theme of the possibility of violence resulting; "a large or disorderly crowd; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action".
One essential requirement for a democratic society to exist or even flourish is the freedom to demonstrate on the streets of our towns and cities and where such peaceful protest is sanctioned by police. Such freedom to protest is itself never far from dispute eg the flying of the flags of a terrorist organisation recently in London where the police did not intervene on the basis that they considered that the non military part of the organisation was indicated on the flags.
With Brexit negotiations in effect, a left wing take over of Labour in the offing, a Tory Party in disarray, little indication of large numbers of Muslims willing to adapt to a British society and to accept their minority status, pork barrel politics to bribe the DUP and Scots Nats still howling independance, reduced public confidence in our institutions bodes ill for a harmonious future. All those however loosely described as The Establishment must react to the twitching antennae of public mores and do their utmost to unite where there is currently disunity. Such decisiveness must come from the top. Theresa May must go NOW.
Actions of police are under the microscope of public opinion at a wholly different level. They used to be literally a law unto themselves. Not a week goes by when that attitude is revealed still to be motivating a not inconsiderable number of police officers. Last year 108 police officers were dismissed for misconduct. The bar for sacking is set very high. Much of the Policing and Crime Bill`s sections on police discipline became law a few months ago in the corresponding Act. The amount of criminality within the police is quite shocking for the layman to comprehend the Met Police being the cheerleader.
As a result of public policy by the Home Office led by a certain Mrs T. May police were instructed to reduce "stop & search" and the pursuit of those using vehicles to evade arrest or questioning. The unintended consequences have been an unholy increase in knife crime and an explosion in criminals evading arrest by using mopeds as getaway vehicles. There is considerable controversy over the numbers within these topics. That controversy is both political and statistical in quantity and quality.
What is not in doubt is the increase in mob behaviour generally when disputed matters go public epitomised by the situation of the baby Charlie and that surrounding areas where permission has been granted for fracking. Decisions by legally authorised public bodies are being challenged by no less than mob rule. There are many definitions of "mob" but they all have a similar underlying theme of the possibility of violence resulting; "a large or disorderly crowd; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action".
One essential requirement for a democratic society to exist or even flourish is the freedom to demonstrate on the streets of our towns and cities and where such peaceful protest is sanctioned by police. Such freedom to protest is itself never far from dispute eg the flying of the flags of a terrorist organisation recently in London where the police did not intervene on the basis that they considered that the non military part of the organisation was indicated on the flags.
With Brexit negotiations in effect, a left wing take over of Labour in the offing, a Tory Party in disarray, little indication of large numbers of Muslims willing to adapt to a British society and to accept their minority status, pork barrel politics to bribe the DUP and Scots Nats still howling independance, reduced public confidence in our institutions bodes ill for a harmonious future. All those however loosely described as The Establishment must react to the twitching antennae of public mores and do their utmost to unite where there is currently disunity. Such decisiveness must come from the top. Theresa May must go NOW.
Monday, 24 July 2017
Friday, 21 July 2017
BENCHES ARE NOT HANGERS AND FLOGGERS
There are single issue lobbyists financed often by wealthy individuals whose purpose in life, in addition to their salaries, is to discredit the benefit of short custodial sentences whilst at the same time to manipulate statistics to indicate that such sentences are failing, expensive and no deterrent to offenders. In addition magistrates are often accused of being too ready to sentence recidivists to immediate custody notwithstanding guidelines being followed. This case earlier this week before Swindon magistrates is an example of what really happens at every similar court every day countrywide. Benches go out of their way, sometimes in defiance of guidelines, to avoid sending offenders to immediate custody. Indeed such decisions often bring unwelcome criticism from members of the public insofar as they are seen to be "too soft". With the latest report on the utterly appalling conditions in our prisons a prison sentence must be a test of strength, mental and physical, for many in order to have a chance of rehabilitation. The absolute incompetence of successive Justice Secretaries since 2010 with the possible exemption of Michael Gove, has been a prime cause. Predictable problems with interpreters, legal aid, probation service, prison officers, police have all contributed to the current position with Theresa May`s six years at the Home Office as much a failure as her colleagues` debacle at Petty France. There`s austerity and there`s foolhardiness.
When a population loses confidence in all that comprises a justice system black clouds on the horizon are just a pre cursor to a storm ahead.
When a population loses confidence in all that comprises a justice system black clouds on the horizon are just a pre cursor to a storm ahead.
Thursday, 20 July 2017
Wednesday, 19 July 2017
ACCUSATIONS OF VERBAL ABUSE CAN BE AN ABUSE OF FREE SPEECH
“Verbal abuse is the use of words to
cause harm to the person being spoken to. It is difficult to define and may
take many forms. Similarly, the harm caused is often difficult to measure. The
most commonly understood form is name-calling. Verbal abuse may consist of
shouting, insulting, intimidating, threatening, shaming, demeaning, or
derogatory language, among other forms of communication.”
It was brought home to me over twenty
years ago in a fairly crowded retail unit in a town with the dubious reputation
at the time of being just about the most racist place in England when two
rather large tattooed white shaven headed gentlemen about forty years old
remonstrated with a group of white teenage boys who were foully verbally
abusing a middle aged South Asian man and his wife, that some sort of social
self censorship was taking place as to just what was acceptable or unacceptable
in a public place. For a few reasons perhaps we have reached a situation where
many are simply too afraid of speaking openly; afraid that in effect recourse
to s.5 Public Order Act will be taken by a self certificating aggrieved party.
Some years ago I was in the large
entrance hall of a general hospital waiting for the return of a relative from a
consultation in a room in nearby corridor. My mobile phone rang and almost
immediately there was a shout, “Get that off; didn`t you see the sign?” In
truth I hadn`t. Almost before I could retrieve it from deep in a pocket that
individual behind a nearby desk screamed, “If you don`t put that off now I`ll
get security!” By then I had reached the exit.
A few years ago I was with an elderly
relative at her G.P. requesting a copy of recent blood tests which should have
been e-mailed to her by the practice. When the practice manager demanded £20 to
produce a copy my relative said firmly that that was outrageous and it should
not be charged for. Her language was polite and precise but perhaps her volume
was a touch raised. The doctor emerged (a locum unknown to my relative) and
confirmed she could not have the test results unless she paid but in the
circumstances offered a reduced fee of £10.00. With great reluctance I handed
over said fee on her behalf and we left with the copy. Two weeks later she was
told in writing that she had been removed from the doctor`s list because her
language and behaviour and general verbal abusing of him and the staff had put
them (there were no patients) in fear of violence. As an aside, efforts by my
relative`s nearest and dearest had the G.P. reprimanded and the £10 refunded.
The expulsion was cancelled but of course she had since made other arrangements
for her medical care. The point remains that by the definition above the
perpetrator of any verbal abuse could arguably have been the doctor and his
manager.
A few months ago at one of the major
supermarkets as I was placing about £180 worth of groceries on the conveyor
belt the cashier told me there were no large bags available and began opening
bags each just about big enough to place a lettuce. I told him that they were
unacceptable and unless he found large bags the goods would remain in the
trolley or on the belt and I would go to the competition. He replied that the
store had run out of normal sized bags and continued that he would tolerate no
abuse from me. He refused to continue. His colleague on the adjoining till
suggested he seek some bags. In the end I spoke to a nearby manager who
conjured up enough bags to serve my requirements and reminded the cashier of
his position.
Four simple anecdotes separated by
twenty years but by an eon in public attitudes. Anywhere and everywhere are
notices where public and employees converge that have the message that “abuse
to staff will not be tolerated” or some such similar wording. “Verbal abuse” is
a term that would have been unfamiliar in the swinging sixties. There is
remarkably little evidence of its origin but I would venture it arose around
the same time as the feminist lobby began to agitate for equal rights in
employment etc and became a term commonly used to describe dysfunctional
intimate relationships between men and women. Be that as it may the
circumscription around many forms of disagreement especially when police are
involved under s.5 using the pretext “verbal abuse” is one that magistrates
must openly confront. The current trends to stifling free speech are singularly
wafer thin but put those slices of self censorship in a bundle and it can be
more easily recognised how far from the free speech of the 1950s we have
travelled. Magistrates must administer the law as it stands; not as they
might wish it to be but they can and should take a broad look at any individual
circumstance.
Tuesday, 18 July 2017
PROHIBITION UK STYLE
From their very inception I was concerned at the implications of that wonderful, so they said, innovation; the ASBO. Having to impose such I did my judicial duty but without enthusiasm. ASBO was but the first of many so called exclusion notices. For the last ten years constables have had the authority to issue a written exclusion notice to anyone considered to
represent a "risk of disorder", even if they are not drunk or have
committed no offence. The aim is to enable the police to stop violence escalating by immediately removing potential troublemakers from the scene. As a matter of interest David Davis, the shadow home secretary at the time, said the Conservatives would
consider backing the proposals but said Labour "has form for making
headline-grabbing announcements only to fail to follow them up"; another politician`s words coming back to haunt him.......as if they care; it`s happening all the time. Soon to follow was the CRASBO; criminal anti-social behaviour order. I sat on the very first hearing in this country where such was brought. It was a shambles and we threw it out. Notices can be issued to those whose presence "is likely, in all the
circumstances, to cause or contribute to the occurrence or continuance
in that locality of alcohol-related crime or disorder". Magistrates' courts are able to issue civil orders banning
persistent drunks and binge drinkers from all pubs and clubs in
designated areas for up to two years and operate on a
similar basis to Asbos which have been condemned by a European human rights group These were designated Drinking Banning Orders with criminal sanctions if breached. Their effect was to displace the offence to another locality or to set up an order for him/her to fail when such orders referred to the whole county or even the whole country. And these orders sometimes without due process don`t stop. Domestic Violence Protection Notices allow police to exclude a householder from his/her own home on the say so of a senior officer.
Nationwide it seems there has been a steady increase in begging whether through increased poverty and/or straightened circumstances owing to addiction(s). The problem local authorities have is, of course, what to do about it. Leamington Magistrates Court on behalf of the local council has issued one such vagrant with the ubiquitous CRASBO. This will solve nothing except that the offender will be before another court sooner or later on a criminal charge for which he will probably be imprisoned.
This little story is typical of so much that this and previous governments do in order to paper over deep problems in our society. Today`s announcement by the Home Secretary that she seeks to introduce new legislation on banning knives is just another pathetic attempt to remedy what are thought to be intractable problems. They are not. They require only honesty, money and a sincere wish to get to grip with one of society`s problems. If that requires authoritarian means so be it I say.
PS Last month on 21st June I predicted legislation on knives by the new Justice Secretary. I didn`t think it would come so soon. Seems I had the wrong department in mind but the right idea.
Nationwide it seems there has been a steady increase in begging whether through increased poverty and/or straightened circumstances owing to addiction(s). The problem local authorities have is, of course, what to do about it. Leamington Magistrates Court on behalf of the local council has issued one such vagrant with the ubiquitous CRASBO. This will solve nothing except that the offender will be before another court sooner or later on a criminal charge for which he will probably be imprisoned.
This little story is typical of so much that this and previous governments do in order to paper over deep problems in our society. Today`s announcement by the Home Secretary that she seeks to introduce new legislation on banning knives is just another pathetic attempt to remedy what are thought to be intractable problems. They are not. They require only honesty, money and a sincere wish to get to grip with one of society`s problems. If that requires authoritarian means so be it I say.
PS Last month on 21st June I predicted legislation on knives by the new Justice Secretary. I didn`t think it would come so soon. Seems I had the wrong department in mind but the right idea.
Friday, 14 July 2017
A NEW MAGISTRATE`S OPINIONS
It would seem that MOJ has decided that more Justices of the Peace need to be appointed. The article in this local newspaper is one of many similar I have read over the last few months. What does strike me, however, is the quote of a new magistrate when commenting on a decision of custody, "There were long discussions about whether it was the right thing to do,
what purpose it would serve and the impact on both the defendant, and of
course the wider community and the victim".
He does not mention Guidelines or public protection except for "impact". I also consider it questionable if "the right thing to do" is part of a structured sentencing exercise. As far as I am aware the victims` considerations should not inform sentencing. But then having been appointed 20 years ago my attitudes, training and experience might now be considered anti deluvian if I were still active.
He does not mention Guidelines or public protection except for "impact". I also consider it questionable if "the right thing to do" is part of a structured sentencing exercise. As far as I am aware the victims` considerations should not inform sentencing. But then having been appointed 20 years ago my attitudes, training and experience might now be considered anti deluvian if I were still active.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)