NOT TOO HOT TO HANDLE

Regular readers will have noted my opinion on our current drugs laws.  The sorry example reported here is an example, not necessarily typical, but with a history not uncommon among the shoplifters who appear daily in our courts.  One day in the dim distant future when and if we return to two party politics a government will be so secure in its majority that it will have the cajones to present a straightforward argument to end the current situation of criminalising drug users.  I would suggest that the prohibition, for that is effectively what it was, on the discussion of immigration and the attitudes of radical Moslems which has now happily been seen for what it was; political cowardice will sometime be ended on this topic.  The examples of abuse inflicted upon vulnerable children by cohorts of Asian men well in excess of their proportion in the population and gentile members of another cohort; well respected so called middle class members of white society serve us well to remember that no subject however distasteful should be too hot to handle.

EACH ACCORDING TO HIS MEANS OR NOT

Motoring  courts can vary from the sublime to the ridiculous; from the rational to the ludicrous.  Two matters of speeding in the absence of the defendants who had submitted guilty pleas and mitigation were withdrawn by a most reasonable prosecutor owing to admitted inefficiencies in processing the cases.  Two non appearance guilty pleas to speeding at 37MPH in a 30MPH zone were illustrations of all four previously written adjectives.  A lawyer represented the absent Mr A and explained that his client had not filled in the form where income is requested because he was a very wealthy man whose  income varied from absolutely enormous to beyond belief.  He was some top flight fund manager.  He had been driving a 2014 Ferrari at the time.  Being a level 3 offence and having pleaded guilty he was fined £666 plus costs and surcharge and 3 penalty points.  The way the spirits direct such matters the very next non attendee, Mr B, with his guilty by post letter had written that although he was offered a Fixed Penalty Notice he was unable to accept it because being on benefits he had no spare money.  We assumed his income at £110 and fined him £35.00 with costs and surcharge bringing that sum up to £140.00 plus the iniquitous 3 points. He might have been better off borrowing the £100 for the speeding ticket from Wonga.

There are some who consider that such disposals do not reflect each according to his means.  I leave you, the reader, to judge.

A DRACONIAN OUTCOME

All on the bench cannot fail to occasionally have had deep sympathy for finding a parent or guardian guilty of failing to ensure a child`s school attendance or having to sentence for such an offence.  Recent publicity on a few such cases has brought the problem to a wider audience.  The sentencing decision of colleagues at Plymouth  in just such a matter resulted in a pregnant woman being given 60 days immediate custody.  This outcome is highly unusual and no doubt will be picked up by various lobby groups as an example of our draconian laws leading to unnecessarily high rates of incarceration. 

I doubt my colleagues will face a similar situation for a very long time.

HOPE AND HOPELESS

 Before being appointed to this job I was convinced in my own mind unfettered  by superior legal knowledge that the scourge of drug addiction could be successfully challenged only if its victims were deviated from the criminal justice system to a branch of the NHS.  Nothing has changed except that now I am not only convinced of the folly of not decriminalising illicit drug use   I await a government which is prepared to face the financial and social realities of not doing so.  This  latest report provides grounds for hope.

“ Proven reoffending statistics: January 2012 to December 2012” published today by the Ministry of Justice is likely to provide the opponents to the payment by results policy  for the new probation organisations  with considerable ammunition from the pilot schemes at Peterborough and Doncaster.

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.