DO WE WANT A UNIFORM AT EVERY CORNER?

I suppose it started in the NHS........surprise surprise.  At first there were nurses. A patient would have the assurance and comfort knowing that the person in a pristine newly laundered uniform and white head covering (usually female) was a qualified State Registered Nurse who in addition to pursuing her health care duties would also make your bed, bring your meals and generally be available to assist recovery morning noon and night undertaking even the most menial functions.  And then there came  the State Enrolled  Nurse who had gained a lesser qualification than her  S.R.N. colleague and worked under her supervision.  And lo! It came to pass that voices from the one at south west  number ten decreed that all nurses be university educated.  So we all give thanks to these travellers from the East and South who have forsaken their homes and families to minister to the sick and aged of the United Kingdom assisted by minions who undertake the tasks too lowly even for them. 

The teaching profession was not far behind in the employment of low paid “assistants” employed to provide additional one to one help where the classroom teacher was considered too busy to help little Johnny reach the required fluency in reading.  These assistants are now classified as jobs in  themselves and undertake tasks that were unenvisaged when they were first deployed; tasks that were thought to be the teacher`s preserve.   

Police Community Support Officers have been on the streets since 2003.  They were initially classified as “support”  personnel for warranted police officers.  No formal qualifications are required for this job which pays new recruits c£16,000.  Unsurprisingly many police forces on reducing budgets whilst cutting numbers of  quality warranted officers are making up with quantities  of PCSOs.  Now; as if that it is not enough various constabularies eg Lincolnshire are actively seeking volunteer unpaid PCSOs to fill their ranks.  It is one thing to have volunteer warranted police officers i.e. special constables  but “employing” unpaid uniformed street patrollers is a  step far too far.  Adding to the thousands of  current council employees who can issue fixed penalty notices  for parking, minor traffic , dog fouling, spitting, litter and other offences  has uniformed state authority  gone mad all in the name of austerity? 

GOOD INTENTIONS AND THE ROAD TO RUIN

Something is badly out of kilter.  At my last morning  sitting I entered retiring room as usual to check arrangements for the day ahead.  Five trial  courts were operating and each with only two J.P.s.  There were no religious holidays that day for Christian, Hindu, Moslem or Jewish colleagues.  There has not been a `flu epidemic.  There was no transport strike.  Local trains were not reported as having problems with the leaves on the tracks and there were no unusual road hold ups.  The bench liaison office just could not summon enough sitters.  Who is to blame?  Candidates are Bench Training and Development Committee who make recommendations, Appointments Committee,  local court manager i.e. the  Deputy Justices Clerk, the  Justices Clerk with overall authority for many courts in the area,  HMCTS or Ministry of Justice?    I recollect having sat on two trials where my single colleague and I could not agree a decision on guilt and retrials were ordered.  Admittedly this is such tiny proportion of my involvement in trials as to be statistically insignificant.  Nevertheless  courts should consist of three lay justices; not two. 

This is just another example of the malaise within the system.  Those responsible from the top ranks of government down to those in the trenches bear a grave responsibility for constructing the road to ruin for our summary justice system which they have paved with the supposedly good intentions of reducing the deficit.

COMMUNICATIONS ACT (2003) s.127; MAXIMUM SENTENCE TO INCREASE TO 2 YEARS

s.127

Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

This is currently a summary only offence with convictions as follows:-

Between 25/07/2003 and 31/12/2011  5,316 people were  found guilty at magistrates` courts in England and Wales of offences under section 127. These figures  include obscene telephone calls and text messages as well as internet-based communications. The figures available cannot distinguish between communications to an individual (such as a phone call) or the public (such as a Twitter post).^[3]

Section 127 cases, England and Wales
	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Proceeded against	0	214	355	550	680	872	126	1511	(2000+)[4]	?	2000[5]
Found guilty		143	260	377	498	693	873	1186	1286 (1309)	1423	?
Conviction ratio %		67	73	69	73	79	78	78	(<64)	?	?

In simple language Section 127 provides that it is an offence (and thereby means that a person can be arrested, charged, convicted, sentenced, and obtain a criminal record) if a person sends "a message or other matter" which is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" by means of a "public electronic communications network".

Our esteemed Chris Grayling has this weekend secured his desired headlines by announcing changes to the above Act insofar as it shall become an either way offence with a maximum term of imprisonment increased from the current six months to two years.  Like much criminal legislation the maximum sentence for any offence is intended as much as a deterrent to the committing of that offence as a punishment.  IMHO it is not difficult to conclude that this increase in sentencing availability is based not upon logical understanding of the behaviour involved and the requirement to modify that of possible offenders but to pander to what he assumes is public prejudice aroused by a few particularly nasty cases.   In 2012 under the Section only 201 offenders  received custodial sentences.  If the current sentencing guidelines are not employed to the maximum what changes are to be expected?  If that small number jailed for the offence were to be replicated when the new maximum is  available are we to assume that Crown Court judges will step up their punishment?  Will juries be as ready to convict with two year jail terms on the horizon as magistrates do now at a highly efficient  rate of around 70%?  And most significantly will the possibility of conviction at Crown Court deter those possible offenders from making their sometimes odious on line remarks as opposed to the current situation, which is so rarely warranted,  of six months maximum at the magistrates` court.  “I hae ma doots”, as Boswell said to Dr. Johnson.