JUDGE`S REMARKS SHOULD BE UNSPOKEN

One of the attributes of our court system of which the senior bigwigs are most  jealously protective is its reputation.  Indeed an accusation of bringing the law into disrepute is often a striking off offence and in the past has been  levelled against a certain category of blogger.  It is not unusual of course for a higher court to criticise a lower court for its findings; that is its raison d`etre.  The criticism is almost invariably described in terms when a patient father might temper his feelings when demonstrating his displeasure at  the behaviour of a wayward offspring. 

An assertive bench of magistrates has considerable power.  After all we still term the courts over  which they preside as “magistrates`”  courts although the day might not be all that far off when they are renamed as District Criminal Court or some such term.  Be that as it may a lay bench would fail in its duty if it did not listen carefully to any advice from its legal advisor.  That advice might indicate that a bench`s proposed action would be unlawful in which case such a bench would desist from that proposed action.  But a more likely scenario would be that a L/A would “advise” or suggest that a particular course of action would have certain consequences and perhaps should be re considered.  A bench worth its salt would take everything on board but might persist on its original course.  In such a case the L/A would note  on the court file advice given and subsequently rejected.  It appears from a brief report in the Hull Daily Mail that a crown court judge has, arguably,  spoken rather injudicially.  It is not absolutely clear what the charge was nor what were the agreed facts to which the offender pleaded guilty.  What is fact is that for its own reasons the bench (it was unlikely to have been a District Judge)   thought its maximum  powers of six months custody were insufficient.  What is another fact  is that the Sentencing  Guidelines regarding all drug related offending  are so convoluted that they appear to be  the result of a bureaucratic tick box legislative   exercise gone mad.   I would venture that much advice from legal advisors where there might be some  doubt in sentencing powers being sufficient is conservative to the point of being an arse covering exercise for themselves as much as  any other consideration.  However I am not convinced that HH Judge Jeremy Richardson QC chose his remarks with the precision  that should be expected by a person in his position.  Perhaps to use some current jargon beloved by politicians of late; they should be unspoken. 

LOCAL JUSTICE BELONGS IN THE DUSTBIN

I have often considered that those in Scotland responsible for matters of law `n order in all its manifestations have  a great deal more common sense in their approach than their counterparts in England & Wales with the possible exception of the recent decision to remove the need for corroboration which has been unique to Scots law.  Their decision to reduce the amount of alcohol above which the offence of driving with excess alcohol becomes effective is a case in point especially just before Christmas and Hogmanay. The imposition of a Scottish national police force is a prime example of the national good overriding the petty czars  who resisted the change.  Those in opposition cited the “local policing” for local people argument.  The same argument has been used regarding magistrates` courts insofar as the presiding lay benches should reflect the local population.  This, so the argument goes, allows local knowledge to be applied and for respect given to the benches` ethnic composition.  This is all so much flim flam.  Local justice areas are gradually being enlarged.  It is only a matter of time until  they will be effectively eliminated. National Sentencing Guidelines were inaugurated  above all to eliminate what could be described as post code sentencing or in simple terms to reduce variations in sentencing in different areas of the country for what was considered similar offending.  I am unaware that District Judges are appointed only to courts where they have a local connection.   Perhaps at some not too distant time the Ministry of Justice will recognise that we have had national justice imposed and consign to the dustbin of unwanted political garbage the term “local justice”.

OFF TOPIC (2)

EBOLA

Recently attended a wedding where one of the happy couple had been born in Sierra Leone.  In conversation a few weeks previously he told me that anybody on his list of invitees who would have  been in that country within four weeks of the wedding would not be invited.  To reassure me, and I presume many others,  he added that any of the prospective guests who had been in personal contact with any visitor from that country would with regret not be invited. 

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?