THEFT BY DOG - NAPPING

It is hardly surprising that stories orientated around the legal profession and individuals` encounters with the forces of law `n order have been recounted for centuries.  The infinite variety of  the human condition leaves no possibility beyond imagination.  And so  Tariq Al Habtoor encountered Judge Nigel Van Der Bijl, Hon. Recorder of the City of Canterbury.

The apparently spoiled son of a billionaire riled against a 120 hours unpaid work requirement imposed by local magistrates for theft by dog-napping.  Having had a change of heart after having given his dog away he attempted to steal it back after its new owner refused a payment of   £1,500 to return it.  As a result of his appeal at the crown court where HH Judge Van Der Bijl was sitting he was sentenced to six months custodial suspended for two years.  From the report there was no requirement to undertake any community service. With the usual caveat that local newspaper don`t always tell the whole story three observations on the sentence come to mind………………..

1.      did six months seem appropriate in the light of the bench`s original sentence?

2.      was the suspension of the sentence logical?

3.      to this offender did the sentence not appear to be less onerous than the original?

Judge Van Der Brijl has some form on idiosyncratic sentencing. Whatever opinions are on this matter long might that continue.  Too often sentencing is a procedure conducted by  numbers and/or box ticking.

CONSULTATION IS OFFERED ONLY AS A MEANS TO AN END

I had not intended to post today other matters requiring my urgent attention but reading of the updated Sentencing Guidelines to be operative next April set me thinking.  It would appear that going the round of all the normal focus groups operating under the titles of “magistrates”, “victims` groups”, “medical practitioners” etc etc this august body is creating nothing less than a tick box mentality for sentencing.  It is apparent that judges are not to be trusted to exercise their judgement which presumably was considered to be of the high standard required upon their appointment. The Sentencing Council  has concluded that the opinions of those aforementioned groups and countless others must weigh heavily in the outcomes for offenders convicted of various crimes of a sexual nature.  This obsequious performance is IMHO taking us back hundreds of years in our attitude to punishment which for many was in the hands of the victims or their families……the Italians and others followed the tradition of vendetta.  Many cultures had and still follow a tradition of “blood money” to seek recompense for wrong doing.  And of course the biblical limit on such attitudes is exemplified in the concept of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.  I would argue that in these concepts there is an element of equivalence which will be lacking in the updated Guidelines.  The margin of weight being placed upon victims in determining sentence is straining the concept of equality before the law.  In addition if the opinions of  the people of this country were consulted on bringing back capital punishment for certain forms of murder and with increased safeguards against miscarriages of justice it is not certain that abolitionists would still be in the  majority.  But of course consultation stops when a government is fearful of the resulting  conclusions. 

SO MUCH HOT AIR

We are all aware that when in company the person who never stops talking or allowing anyone else to get a word in edgeways is generally not the  most popular of people.  IMHO similar consideration can be given to those who purport to be our governors.  With the greater the number of papers or documents issued for “consultation” or instruction the law of diminishing returns comes into play.  Such might be considered as apposite to some of the terms of the The Crime and Courts Act provisions of which came into force yesterday.

Those deemed most likely to affect magistrates (and D.J.s)  are:-

·        1.Community Orders- duty of courts to impose a punitive element in all community orders unless there are exceptional circumstances which would make doing so unjust (my italics)

·        2.Deferred Sentences-  A power to add a restorative justice requirement to a deferred sentence is being introduced

·        3.Compensation Order-  The £5,000 limit per offence is removed

·        4.Power to order a defendant to provide a statement of his/her assets when fining or enforcing a fine

My comments are as follows:-

1.      To all practical purposes those terms  and considerations are already applied by the courts and explanations given.  In addition punishment and rehabilitation can be applicable to a single sentence requirement eg unpaid work

2.       In general magistrates` courts` use of deferred sentence will be limited with or without additional terms

3.      Offences where compensation reaches four figures are very rare in magistrates` courts; such offenders are likely to be sentenced at the crown court

4.      This practice can already be undertaken in certain cases to ascertain income arising from such assets and is not uncommon

Guidance suggests that courts must have regard to an offender`s means  but they remain at the court`s discretion.  Unless I am badly mistaken it would be an unusual court which did not consider an offender`s ability to pay.   So for guidance to state that a sentence should not be disproportionate to the offending one might add that equally it should not tell granny how to suck eggs.

One realises that the Weasels of Whitehall have to conjure up ever more verbose nonsense to justify their and their master`s existence but more than occasionally such activity is revealed for what it really is……..very very overheated air!

CPS TRY TRY AND TRY AGAIN AND FAIL

Last month I commented on the police`s  pursuit of what appeared to be a completely  unnecessary prosecution of a private ambulance service.  It seems  that with its incompetence widely apparent and  its shortcomings known to many regular court users   the CPS tried the same again last week at  Manchester Magistrates` Court bringing to court another two volunteer drivers of the same charitable organisation  except that they could provide no evidence and the case was dismissed. 

At almost every sitting I, and I`m sure all my colleagues, am witness to the most atrocious failures of the CPS;  those failures resulting in justice sometimes being done as much by good fortune as by concentrated effort and diligence. 

THE TOTEM OF THE UNTOUCHABLE “FREE” NHS COSTS US ALL

It seems that a week cannot pass without at least one serious scandal emerging from the kingdom ruled by Chris Grayling.  We are so tuned to such stories that the  “minor” ones, those which a decade ago would have been headline news on their own, hardly figure in the media. 

Behind its paywall in The Times today can be read the scandal of the re-hiring of 3,000 prison officers who were recently made redundant under MOJ schemes to cut its current expenditure.   It appears that London`s prisons are so understaffed  that officers have to be bussed in from other areas.  This debacle is exactly following the template of the NHS where agency staff  have to be recruited at inflated cost to cover the shortfall of  permanent staff made redundant.  Often those re-hired are those in receipt of their redundancy package. Of course those who decide these policies and their gofors who make the decisions are short termers who, two or three years later, appear in other guises and ruin other systems.   If this is the epitome of democratic civil governance we must have failed somewhere along the road.  Only when the population is confronted with the truth about the awful cost to us all of treating the totem of a “free” NHS almost as a religious necessity will sanity reign on government expenditure.  However like the avoidance of discussion on the decriminalisation or legalisation of hard drugs re criminality similar refusal or inability of any political party to face the financial albatross of the current structure of the NHS will bring us all to financial penury eventually.    

As per my opening paragraph one would have thought that  owing to police incompetence in not having records from their home country  foreign nationals convicted in our courts for the first time and often  sentenced as being of previous good character and wrongly obtaining reduced time in prison as a result would merit at least widespread media coverage and a discussion on NewsNight or Question Time. One would have been mistaken.  13% of prisoners are foreign nationals.  

 Public opinion on immigration is not necessarily based upon economists` estimates of how much they add to our gross national product  or how their being statistically “young” will pay for our pensioners` pensions thirty years from now;  it is how they are perceived as neighbours or workmates, as parents or colleagues.  At least a debate has been initiated on what was once a forbidden topic which thankfully assisted in costing Gordon Brown re-election as prime minister.

SIR PAUL COLERIDGE HIGH COURT JUDGE

Yesterday I commented on senior judicial figures who are reticent about making public their thoughts on some matters judicial until their pensions are finding their ways into their bank accounts  the case for silence being that such figures must not be seen to be anything but non political.  That is a laudable objective but often more practised in the thought than the deed.  Quite simply any prejudice held by the judicial office holder must firstly be recognised by same and then set aside.  It really is not that difficult a concept; 20,000+ J.P.s do it at least 26 times a year.  In my spare time I might be a practising warlock or have sympathy with the thoughts of Chairman Mau but provided when in court I act according to the judicial oath which empowered me as a Justice of the Peace   “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second 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"  my conscience will be clear.  Of course J.P.s and all judicial office holders must recognise that their private lives will, to some extent come under scrutiny, and that is why there are well known boundaries to our extra judicial actions the crossing of which can lead to being sacked from the position.  And that is also why I have some sympathy for High Court Judge Sir Paul Coleridge who has announced his impending resignation from the Bench. 

I am not a person of faith.  I believe neither in a heaven nor a hell.  I became a Darwinian at the age of eight.  However my experience and knowledge of unimpeachable statistics on the subject leads me to consider that a married couple of man and woman provides the most stable environment for the upbringing of children.  HH Sir Paul`s action in setting up the Marriage Foundation has provoked the ire of the JudicialComplaints Investigations Office (JCIO).  Unfortunately he pitted himself against perhaps the most powerful lobby combination in this country; single parents and the gay “community”. 

There are religious pressures on our civil society now that were unthought of a generation ago.  An influx of Polish Catholics and three million Moslems in our population has seen a boost for their respective churches and mosques and the beliefs expounded therein.  Undoubtedly fear of being seen to be influenced  by religious precepts has influenced the position of the higher judiciary which apparently has been unwilling to support its fellow judge: this in an age when bishops have rights to sit in the Upper House; rights denied to other religions. 

This country is still unable to decide if it should be a secular society when a future king ties himself in intellectual knots  in trying to appease the minority religious aspirations of those other than Christians.  Sir Paul`s action is perhaps a signpost for profound changes as yet uncharted.

IDEOLOGY

IDEOLOGY: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. 

Some of the greatest crimes in history have been based on “ideology”. This government and in particular its Ministry of Justice seems to be driven by ideology, an ideology that “private good; public bad” is a mantra for the benefit of all of us as citizens.



For some time now it has been the police officer replaced by umpteen uniformed and non uniformed quasi officials on our streets. Then it was the prisons run by the likes of SERCO. Currently the Probation Service is being brought to ruin. It has now been decided that our civil courts should be run at or for a profit. Policy Exchange, a think tank for which I have had some respect in the past, seeks to justify this policy. Quoting from its website , “it (the state) looks at every other service that the state provides and seeks to maximise its value for the taxpayer”. It would appear that the writer appears to be "The cynic (who) knows the price of everything and the value of nothing," [Oscar Wilde].



I have had recent experience of using the county court as an ordinary person disputing payments to a contractor. In addition to the arbitrariness of a single judge, fees to appeal a judgement are at such a level to dissuade all but the most single minded from further action. I have probably bored some readers by insisting that of all services provided by government only defence of the realm and a justice system cannot be undertaken by “private enterprise” and must be funded by the state. They are both public services upon which everything else depends. This latest turn of events has greatly disturbed me and should lead to a public outcry by senior legal figures now and not be a chapter in their memoirs. The judiciary and the executive are rightly two separate pillars of our society but sometimes, just sometimes, there has to be a clear authoritative knowledgeable voice to condemn totally the actions of those who are our representatives; not those who would use the subject as another political football. I hope at leisure and  I listen in vain.

HOW MUCH LONGER?

Much if not most of the activity at a magistrates` court trial depends upon the Crown Prosecution Service presenting its evidence in order that a conviction is secured against a defendant where the charge has been considered to be in the public interest and that there is a reasonable chance of that conviction.  Therefore when the CPS stumbles the court procedures fall down.  In short that is why so much of the content here is critical of that organisation and current government policy to emasculate its ability to undertake the joint most important function for a democratic civil society the other being the defence of the citizenry against invasion.

A recent sitting was further evidence of why this government under its present policy is not fit to control and operate our justice system.  For starters, as is increasingly common, CPS was represented by an outside barrister whose first sight of her trial bundles was, as she told us, 6.30p.m. the previous evening.  There is little doubt that her fees would have exceeded the cost of CPS having been able to supply its own lawyer except it has sacked 10% of them.  There were two trials scheduled. A single defendant charged with criminal damage and assault is a common combination, a bit like peaches and cream.  Also, as is common per the case management form, a single live prosecution witness  (the complainant) was expected.  At 10.15a.m. he had not appeared.  We allowed the prosecutor ten  minutes to make her inquiries subsequent to which we were informed that a letter from CPS had been sent four weeks previously to said complainant with full details of trial date etc followed about a week later with a personal visit by somebody from the witness care unit and some unknown days later another visit by a police officer.  The complainant was not at his home address on either of these occasions but the information was made clear to a family member.  The witnesses`s phone was switched off when the CPS barrister called him direct.  Unsurprisingly she applied for an adjournment which was refused.  No evidence being offered the case was dismissed.  

This was a low level matter.  The alleged criminal damage was minimal and the alleged assault was at the lowest level of harm and culpability.  There was no independent witness and had the trial proceeded it would have been on the opposing evidence of the parties.  Indeed our L/A later told us that the defendant was of good character.  My point is why with the history as above was it not abandoned at an earlier stage when it was clear that the witness was likely to be unavailable?  I would posit that the reviewing system is failing.

Our second matter was assault in a domestic context. CPS Guidance for such matters is widely known.  Proper procedures had been put in place for the trial which was going to be his word against hers.  Application for special measures (screens) were within the time  limits, there were no problems on disclosure, the bench had granted a witness summons at the first listing for the CPS to use at its discretion (which it indeed had done) to secure the attendance of the complainant who had meantime written a withdrawal statement.  But surprise, surprise:  the complainant did not appear; had not been contacted between her initial statement and day of trial except informing a police officer when submitting her withdrawal statement that she would not testify against her husband.  Once again the CPS did not wish to proceed on hearsay and the charge was dismissed.

The above is not a unique pair of events.  It is typical of the reality of a morning in a trial court. Domestic violence (assault) in addition to being a miserable event for the parties is a political football.  Cases IMHO are being pursued where that consideration is proving a greater driver than those normally used to evaluate the prospects of a prosecution.  For how much longer is this sad scenario to be allowed to continue?

PAPERING OVER THE CRACKS

Chris Grayling and his cohort at Petty France just don`t stop with their press releases.  If the efficient manner in which they are propagated were typical of the efficient thinking of those behind their publication there would be cause for a modicum of cheer.  However even in this season of goodwill I find little about the latest offering that is anything more than a lot of hot air.

His main innovation is to add the “punishment” element he considers missing from a third of community sentences.  These consist of fine, unpaid work, curfew or exclusion from certain areas.  The Ministry of Justice website has the following to say about fines:-

“Fines are the most common sentence passed at court, accounting for around two-thirds of all sentences handed out by the criminal courts (66.5 per cent in the 12 months ending September 2012). The fine rate is consistent with that seen in the same period for the previous year, and has declined from a peak of 70.3 per cent in the 12 months ending September 2004. The decline has been due to a decline in prosecutions and subsequent conviction for summary motoring offences - the offence type for which fines are most commonly given. The latest figure of 816,600 fines represents a decrease of 5. 2 per cent compared to the 12 months ending September 2011, and the lowest number of fines handed out over the last 11 years.”

To quote from this blog on 21/11/2013:-

What an example of the spin doctor`s art of obfuscation by omission. The total amount of unpaid fines is estimated at £2 billion and rising. In addition over £130 million  annually is written off because the state cannot find or squeeze the cash from offenders. Perhaps the Secretary of State instead of pursuing his rehabilitation of offenders by results policy with the decimation of the probation service as a by product or playing hardball with G4S and SERCO he would be more profitably employed in root and branch investigation of the whole process of fines from imposition to collection or otherwise as the case may be.

As far as “unpaid work” which is arguably the most punishing of community requirements; with the probation service in turmoil over privatisation the resulting omnishambles of payment by results will render any increase in throughput a disaster. 

We have all read of the scandal of the outsourcing behemoths SERCO andG4S.  This blogger for one has no confidence that an increased workload can be any more efficient than currently is the case.  Exclusion Orders are a waste of time and an insult to intelligence.  All they are is a displacement order……NIMBYism  writ large and unpleasantly. 

For donkeys years various Justice Ministers have proclaimed they will be “tough on knife crime”.  It makes good headlines but bad law. This effort will be no different.

A government which is disguising the chaos in private prisons, ruining the probation service, decimating the police forces, throwing 10% of CPS lawyer on the scrap heap, admitting that its own crime statistics are almost fraudulent and generally causing despair amongst those with inside knowledge of what`s really  happening   deserves nothing but contempt for this latest attempt to paper over the cracks it has created under the cloak of austerity.

IN ABSENCE

Can anyone explain this paradox.  I ceased updating my blog at blog.co.uk in August and transferred it here.  Since then that blogsite`s  readers and page views have soared. I wonder if I left a few pounds in my bank account and transferred earnings to a new bank my old account would soar equally?

 

Month	Total Pageviews	Total Visitors
November 2013	56642	13539
October 2013	40269	12938
September 2013	38555	11799
August 2013	24786	9945

SKY T.V., PUBS AND ITS PROSECUTION POLICY

British Sky Broadcasting is becoming increasingly litigious concerning the transmission of sporting events at pubs by licensees who are out of their Sky contract or who have no contract at all.  I sat on such a case about six months ago.  It was difficult not to have a smidgeon of sympathy for the landlord who, single handed with his wife,  was failing in his attempts to keep profitable a long established public house in an area that is now bereft of regular trade. He was found guilty and the fine and costs were not unlikely to have forced him to close the business and get what he could for his remaining leasehold interest.  So it was with interest that the following came to my attention.

Last year a Plymouth publican was acquitted by local magistrates of showing domestic Sky T.V. without a commercial contract.  However on appeal at the High Court that judgement was overturned.  He was conditionally discharged with costs of £850.  It appears that this case is not ended. 

By all accounts Sky is currently operating a policy of prosecuting all those pubs suspected of  showing its content without a commercial contract.  Of course every case must be decided on the evidence presented but personally I will attempt to set aside a few brain cells to remember this one.

COLD NUMBERS

I have copied below two extracts from the latest quarterly court statistics released today by the Ministry of Justice. Knowledgeable readers will judge for themselves whether or not the cold numbers give a true reflection of their own individual experiences. What the figures do not and cannot show is the amount of “downtime” experienced by Justices of the Peace sipping coffee in the retiring room……coffee brought in by themselves as HMCTS no longer provides same……….because listed trials have been aborted. This lost time is being paid for in the form of justices` expenses although because perhaps fewer than half claim anything more than petrol money and subsistence allowance for lunch it is miniscule in real terms. It results in the highly paid District and Deputy District Judges (M.C.) being allocated cases in preference to J.P.s when work is thin on the ground.



The second smaller extract is interesting insofar as it gives an indication of the professionalism with which cases are conducted at the magistrates` courts. Considering that the vast majority of trials are still presided over by lay benches as opposed to District Judges(M.C.) my colleagues and I can feel justly proud IMHO of course.

Trials in the magistrates’ courts

"Between 2003 and 2006, there was a step change in the proportion of ineffective trials from 29 per cent to19 per cent. The proportion of effective trials increased from 33 per cent in 2003 to 44 per cent in 2006. Since then rates of effective, cracked and ineffective  trials in the magistrates’ courts have all remained relatively stable. There were 39,115 trial hearings listed in magistrates’ courts during the first quarter of 2013.  Of these trials, 44 per cent were recorded as effective, 38 per cent were recorded as cracked and 18 per cent were ineffective. The main reasons for ineffective trials in the magistrates’ courts in the first quarter of 2013 were due to court administration problems (21 per cent of all ineffective trials), absence of the defendant (20 per cent of all ineffective trials) and the absence of a prosecution witness (16 per cent of all ineffective trials). In the first quarter of 2013 the main reasons for cracked trials were due to a late guilty plea being accepted (49 per cent of all cracked trials), the prosecution ending the case(16 per cent of all cracked trials) and insufficient evidence (14 per cent of all cracked trials). A trial that has been removed from the list before the trial start date is labelled as vacated. Vacated trials are counted in the month the vacation happens rather than the date when they were due to start. As an example, a trial due to be heard in Q1 2013 that was removed from the list in Q4 2012 would be included in the vacated trial numbers for Q4 2012. There has been a continued annual decline the number of vacated trials from 52,188 trials in 2008 to 45,873 trials in 2012".

Appeals

"Since 2000 the number of appeals against magistrates’ courts decisions has remained relatively stable, around 13,000. During the first quarter of 2013, the Crown Court received 2,819 appeals against magistrates’ courts decisions, a 12 per cent decrease when compared with the same quarter in 2012, where by 3,214 cases were received".

THE STATE IN WHICH WE LIVE

Sometimes there are small news reports tucked away in a corner of the www which require a minimum of comment. They are often a microcosm of just what a reasonably sensible citizen or even a J.P. blogger for that matter might consider to be indicative of the failing of a very small area in economic terms but a major plank in how we operate as a civil society.



It was sublime when Essex Constabulary discovered in 2010 that cardboard policemen were rather inefficient in deterring the local villains. Truly it was a waste of money at £20 for each of one hundred purchased. Their co cops in Gwent obviously didn`t watch BBC. The idiots there spent £255 each on fifty two of them. Obviously the plods made in Essex have a nose for a bargain when they want to waste public money.



Of course we don`t need police stations; what a waste of money they are. These poor police officers hanging about in a major commercial site in a busy high street waiting for the locals to report some form of actual or suspected criminal activity. And what`s worse? Spending £30 weekly for a table in a disused town hall nearby waiting for the self same complainers. I say bring back the

Tardis to every high street so those whose smart phones have been nicked can call for assistance.





When is an offence an offence? Being of a simple disposition I believe if money to which a person is not entitled eg M.P.s, Police Crime Commissioners etc is used for personal gain either the civil or the criminal law requires to be invoked. Asking for its return before making such decision to prosecute brings the law into contempt.



ASBOs were a perfect example of the Labour Party`s attitude to law `n order. Make a civil order to prevent a future action and five years in the jug if it is disobeyed. Yet they are still being propagated at our courts with terms that can disgrace those so doing.



For every crown court judge castigating court interpreter service by Capita plc there are dozens of magistrates` courts every day experiencing the same omnishambles initiated by the mickey mouse incompetents of HMCTS. I doff my hat to His Honour at Bradford Crown Court.



One would have thought that HMCTS being one of the most `elf & safety conscious employers on the planet would have been aware that the cells at Newcastle Magistrates` Court were a fire risk. After all they must have been subject to umpteen inspections over the years. One would have been wrong. A failure of words has come upon me.



Is it 50%, 60% or 70% of offenders who suffer from mental and/or addiction problems? A joined up society would long ago have processed a system for such unfortunates to by pass the legal system and be forcibly (if necessary) entered into the health system. No wonder the term “asylum” was used to describe a place of refuge. For how many more decades have my colleagues and I to square a circle in dealing with the likes of Richard Collett Harvey?



And finally not least; as a non believer I have some sympathy with Christians who consider the banning of a radio advertisement upheld at the Appeal Court unjust in the extreme. Replace “Christians” with another religion and consider whether their ad would have been banned also. The offensive ad was, “We are CCP. Surveys have shown that over 60% of active Christians are being increasingly marginalised in the workplace. We are concerned to get the most accurate data to inform the public debate. We will then use this data to help a fairer society. Please visit CCPmagazines.co.uk and report your experiences.” The full report is available here.



This is the state in which we live. Thoughtless people running it with hardly a coherent thought in some of their heads.




ADDENDUM 29th November 2013


Oh to be a fortune teller!  Did I write suggesting a Tardis on the High Street?  Please read on.....

A CAT LOOKS AT A KING

Should a government lead or should it follow?  I suppose that or a similar question was common in ancient Athens.  On a very basic level governments don`t get elected unless there is the support of a majority.  But after that it seems increasingly that to be a follower is the mantra of the government of the day; excepting perhaps within the law when individual whims are aired to test public opinion.  The Lord Chief Justice is a perfect example of putting a wet finger in the air to test the wind`s direction.  A witness or defendant wearing or not wearing the niqab in court is surely a matter which should be decided at the highest level and the directive applied at courts from the lowest to the similarly highest level.  From J.P. to supreme court judge all would know where the line had been drawn.  Those who chose to defy the ruling whether by refusing to discard such garb in court or by allowing such to be worn  in court would know precisely where they stood.  And so it should be.  The LCJ however has put the matter out to “consultation”.  I call that a cop out. 

At perhaps another end of the philosophical spectrum Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, has his own ideas of being able to put his so called personal opinion in the public domain whilst disclaiming official responsibility. He questions the value of short term custodialsentences; the very sentences which my colleagues and I pronounced almost 69,000 times in the year ending March 2013.   His spokesman is quoted as saying, “His reflections of their views on short term sentences are in no way intended as official statements of sentencing policy, which are matters for the Sentencing Council and Parliament”.  Well; a J.P. cat can look at a Supreme Court king.  Of the aforementioned 69,000 individuals sentenced to custody 23,331  such sentences were suspended.  Ten years ago the same analysis showed 63,657 sentences of immediate custody  plus 1,030 suspended sentence orders.  Various academics have been critical of SSOs. From time to time big wigs have been critical of over long sentences resulting from high profile trials and events. 

The good lord is way out of his comfort zone.  One does  not have to have the personality profile of Attila the Hun to know that the very essence of short jail sentences is to indicate that a threshold has been crossed; that magistrates` courts and the J.P.s and D.J.s presiding on behalf of their fellow citizens have reached a structured decision that enough is enough (when it comes to propensity of offending even of a relatively minor degree eg shoplifting) or that people must be protected from those whose behaviour is beyond what a civilised society will tolerate.  That a prison cell does not offer home comforts is mere common sense.  That an offender`s life and/or lifestyle is affected is a primary purpose of this punishment.  And punishment is what sometimes seems lacking in this and other aspects of our advanced western humane civilisation. 

On one hand we have a government whose concept of legal services in the widest interpretation of that phrase means cutting to the bone the essence of civil society and fearful of or disregarding consultation when it suits their prejudices (removal of legal aid, court closures, increasing numbers of D.J.s etc.) and on the other judges who pronounce on matters they should leave well alone and that includes Senior Presiding Judges telling magistrates they must stop blogging.