THINK TANK

It never fails to amuse this blogger when those with but faint knowledge of what they`re discussing proceed to tell the we plebs just how we should tackle some problem or other.  When that subject is connected however closely or remotely to the justice system and those opining in all their smugness from secretary of state to intellectual so called policy advisors or think tank operatives I must admit that despair soon overtakes an urge to laugh out loud.

 Kevin Lockyer in the cloak of PolicyExchange is a fair example in his essay on a proposal for conditional behaviour orders. He writes inter alia:-

·     

          "Punishment for breaching probation is not handed out until 5 weeks after the breach has taken place and the average time elapsed from committing the breach to completion can take up to 53 working days.

·         Currently first time breaches of Orders usually result in a warning from a probation officer, and further breaches are left to their discretion. Only after multiple breaches and significant time delays is an offender likely to be brought before the court and receive a punishment. "

My own experience does not bear out his comments above.  My impression is that offenders appear within a week or two at the most after an alleged breach and punishment is immediate whether it is an increase in the severity of a community requirement or an additional disposal.  In my area there is no tolerance subsequent to a second breach.  He continues, “Under the new swift and certain system, between 6,000 and 8,500 could receive short prison sentences over the course of a year.  Under current guidelines courts in England and Wales are discouraged from handing out custodial sentences.”

Guidelines do not discourage custodial sentences.  They direct sentencers to follow a fairly detailed structure to arrive at their disposal but there is well recognised provision for judges and magistrates to deviate from said structural result provided they make their reasons plain in open court.  From day one of this government Kenneth Clarke made it abundantly clear that prison was to be used as punishment only for those most deserving.  The prison population is and has been for some time at near maximum capacity.  It seems perverse to think that this or any other government is going to sanction any increase in the prison population in the near future.

		Population and Capacity Briefing for Friday 02/01/2015
			Total		Prisons	NOMS Operated IRCs
		Population	84,628		83,287	1,341
		Male population	80,822		79,481	1,341
		Female population	3,806		3,806	0
		Useable Operational Capacity	88,116		86,556	1,560
		Home Detention Curfew caseload	2,159
		Definitions:
		1 - The Operational Capacity of a Prison / Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) is the total number of prisoners that an establishment can hold taking into account control, security and the proper operation of the planned regime. It is determined by Deputy Directors of Custody on the basis of operational judgement and experience.
		2 - Useable Operational Capacity of the estate is the sum of all establishments’ operational capacity less 2,000 places. This is known as the operating margin and reflects the constraints imposed by the need to provide separate accommodation for different classes of prisoner i.e. by sex, age, security category, conviction status, single cell risk assessment and also due to geographical distribution.
		Population and Capacity on previous Fridays
			Last week		12 months ago
		Population	Data not available		83,962
		Male population	Data not available		80,176
		Female population	Data not available		3,786
		Useable Operational Capacity	Data not available		85,953
		Home Detention Curfew caseload	Data not available		2,438

 

AND SO ENDS 2014

My last sitting of the year provided a bag well and truly mixed.  With the administration unable to provide more than about two thirds of the courts with benches of three it was inevitable that work was distributed as and where there was capacity to take it even although it required all involved to be available past our closing time of 5.00p.m.

Raymond T was our first customer.  He wished to make five statutory declarations spanning a period from 2000 to 2008.  Owing to the complexity of his history, some apparent mental confusion on his part  and his previous court meetings with the administration deep in the building`s bowels we had quite a number of documents placed before us by the L/A.  His applications were some weeks beyond the 21 days knowledge rule.  For four out of the five he was given the benefit of the doubt based upon much confusion in the chronology  from the court office and various other factors.  He was allowed to proceed out of time. The fifth was shown to be based upon a false statement.  He could not have been unaware of proceedings because documentation showed unequivocally that he had been present in court on that particular day.  He was advised by the L/A of the consequences if he insisted upon applying for that fifth stat. dec.  Wisely he declined.  We ordered him to wait outside the courtroom for the police liaison officer  to “have a chat” with him.      We later were told that the admonishment handed out had had a salutary effect. 

Suspicion of lies being told in the witness box is an everyday occurrence but evidence of such is unusual.  Joanne B was before us to be tried on a s.172....failing to give information.  She was found guilty.  The mandatory six points made her a totter.  Owing to her not being represented and the L/A being a little harassed she was offered an opportunity to plead exceptional hardship before the official disposal had been made.  When being questioned on her application she stated that the loss of her license would mean the loss of her job.  She was informed that that did not constitute exceptional hardship and although she was allowed to ramble to a certain extent she was unable to show anything else  to meet the criteria required.  She then completed her means form which when passed to the bench had nil income declared in the appropriate column. When questioned she told us that she had lost her job in August and was living on her boyfriend`s generosity being yet for some reason to apply for JSA. The bench retired with the L/A to consider this prima facia case of perjury.  The bench was divided and the Christmas spirit prevailed. 

On this unusual day we also undertook some video remand and bail cases from the local nick.  Prisoner DS was down to be sentenced subsequent to having had a PSR undertaken whilst he was Her Majesty`s guest.  His lawyer then told us that he had just found out that that task had not been done.  He was the only person in the courtroom who was aware of that.  We called a probation officer who calmly informed us that the prison authorities had not been able to provide the opportunity on the previously agreed date.  He was surprised at our surprise.  “This is happening all the time”, he said,  “I thought you would have been aware of the situation.”   We inquired why there was not a “Non Report” in front of us or why the court had not been informed.  He shrugged, apologised and asked to leave to attend another matter.

Thank you, readers, for spending some of your precious minutes on this site.  Unless there are very interesting goings on before the year`s end upon which I might be tempted to comment I hope to be back here in 2015.

A Very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from J.P.

GOOD RIDDANCE

Over the years magistrates have been removed from the bench for a variety of reasons; some that were arguably perhaps rather petty and others for criminal activity from assault to murder.  But for sheer stupidity the honours must go to this idiot who paraded around on Twitter holding an AK 47.  Maybe he thought he could   intimidate some defendants who might appear before him. 

EQUALITY.......BAH HUMBUG!

I blogged on 25^th September on the latest statistics from the MOJ concerning ineffective trials.  Today`s numbers indicate that court maladministration is still responsible for 29% of such failings; a figure which suggests the problem is flatlining.   The costs of such inefficiency can only be guestimated by those professionally involved and/or interested.  It is unlikely that such admissions will ever be available from Petty France, London SW1.  It seems that no senior figures amongst our representatives are willing to articulate that this erosion of competence is a direct result of the cost cutting to a.......some might say......the major pillar supporting our democratic society where all are supposed to be equal before the law.

WHERE IS THE LAW TAKING US?

I can think of no better reason to refer the reader to my post of  11/03/2014  than the events and comments  in the Family Division of the High Court in London as recently reported in the Independent.