JURY TRIALS//WHEAT AND CHAFF

The first ever post of this blog  had as its subject the practice of police applying excessive cautions to those admitting similar offences. The next post was entitled "Is it time to say goodbye to either way offences”. I`m pleased to note that there has been some movement on the former disposal and J.P.s now have an input in the situation. In addition some common sense has prevailed in the matter of either way offences and a defendant`s right to choose jury trial.

I have no great respect for those M.P.s of whatever shade who have been in control of our justice system since Jack Straw left the office of Secretary of State. He had the intellect and consistency which demanded respect even if there were thought a lack of consensus around some of his policies. So when Damien Green, former Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice addressed the subject of either way offences I read with interest. Conservative MP  Nick de Bois, a member of the Commons justice select committee, has warned against removing the right to a jury trial. "However attractive such a move might seem to magistrates it does challenge one of our most basic rights – to be judged by our peers.”

Around 80% of all trials are dealt with by magistrates and only one in five goes before a jury at a crown court. Two or three years ago the former director of campaign organisation Justice was quoted as saying  "We would stand by the right to choose and that's because it's still the best mechanism we have for ensuring a fair trial.”

These statements indicate the lack of clear logical thinking on the part of those with a vested interest in retaining the status quo. Nick de Bois M.P. seems to imply that trial by a single professional District Judge (MC) is being judged "by our peers”. Perhaps District Judges have not just split personalities; they have multiple personalities....well at least three to equate with a bench of three lay magistrates. Sad to say I have rarely heard a criminal lawyer able to argue logically in defence of jury trial and simultaneously justify trial by a single judge except for the most unusual circumstances eg difficult legal argument or points of law or a trial of some days` length.  Restrictions on research into the workings of juries and their manner of reaching a verdict do not assist serious inquiry.  Revelations such as recently made by a jury foreman persuade me and should persuade others that researchers should be admitted to jury rooms to provide a basis for future discussion. 

In order to qualify for jury service today, a person must be: 

• Between the ages of 18 and 70 years old
• Registered to vote on the government electoral register
• A registered citizen in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for at least 5years since their thirteenth birthday  

And a person must not be: 

• A mentally disordered person, or,
• Disqualified from jury service for a particular reason

When members of juries do not even have to demonstrate competence in the English language  considering recent rates of immigration something is far wrong.

There were 407,913 criminal cases completed in magistrates' courts and 34,098 completed in the Crown Court in the third quarter of 2012.  Even allowing for the time difference these figures  show very clearly that we Justices of the Peace are more than competent at distinguishing the innocent wheat from the guilty chaff. 

 

CROWN COURT APPEALS

Sitting on appeals at crown court makes an interesting change to the routine of a J.P. The caveat is the lack of certainty that the appeal court will actually be active on the appointed day or that one will be required for the time estimated. For those reasons many colleagues and I include myself in their number are loath to make themselves available. The result is a stream of e-mails requesting sitters as appeals days approach. That said the unfailing hospitality and courtesy shown by the judges when I have attended is heartening.

Towards the end of last year with an expected day of complete and absolute leisure in my diary my in box contained a familiar request for crown court sitters. And so with a colleague I was sitting with His Honour Recorder L. We had three cases; using a mobile phone whilst driving, harassment and failing to supply driver`s name and address. The first two were appealing against verdict after having been tried in absence and the third against verdict. The first matter concluded very quickly; CPS could not produce its sole witness, the officer who stopped the defendant when he allegedly witnessed the offence. Appeal dismissed and costs awarded out of central funds to defendant who was represented by counsel. The second matter ended with the appeal being withdrawn after the complainant had given her evidence behind screens. The third defendant had been snapped speeding in his Maserati and had asserted that the two notices requiring the driver to be named had not been received [although all other related documents had been] despite admitting that he had never complained to Royal Mail about postal delivery problems nor considered using his business address where he was a managing director and where he had had other private mail directed. He blamed the concierge who sorted the post after delivery at his block of luxury flats. We had had proof of good service and my colleague and I were in no doubt whatsoever that he was not a credible witness although a very middle class one and well represented by counsel. Perhaps that is why the Hon Recorder L was not in agreement with us and offered the example of the Archbishop of Canterbury making similar assertions. He was however not strong in his opinion and when it was pointed out to him that magistrates listen to such stories every day except the defendants, often on benefits, don`t drive Maseratis and generally live in tower blocks without concierges to sort their mail he was persuaded so that it was in the end a unanimous decision to dismiss the appeal.

The courtesy was demonstrated in court by L when in that final case he offered me the opportunity to personally put my questions to the defendant on his supposed postal problems: I declined and he as the judge in the case did it for me. The hospitality in the judicial dining room with the liason judge pouring my coffee and the free and easy banter was as I recollect from my previous sittings some long time distant a relaxing interval.

If only the organisation of appeals and sittings was as satisfactory my colleagues and I would be lining up to sit at crown court.

PREDICTABLE UNPREDICTABILITY

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a very adaptable species.  In practice that means we can adjust our physical actions and our mental processes to the environment in which we find ourselves.  The very moving testimonies of Haulocast survivors broadcast over recent days are an example.     And so it is in the almost benign atmosphere of the retiring room at 9.30a.m. where similar processes are at work.  We are inured to the inefficiencies around us.  It wasn`t always the case.  Of course matters were often sorted at the last minute but the “unfit for purpose” description of  the magistrates` courts system is perhaps only a few years away if the further mooted reductions in the justice budget are to be believed. 

The morning list consisted of two drug related trials; Possession of Class B and  two charges Possession of Class A in addition to Assault by Beating and the fourth trial of two similar allegations in a domestic context.  At 9.55a.m. we were told that the Class B matter had been vacated the day previously and that the second drugs trial had been allocated to another court.  So far; so good!  Court opened on the dot of 10.00 a.m.  We were informed that the single assault case involved three witnesses each for prosecution and defence and that two of the former were visiting foreigners with no English who were in the country for another four days only.  To add to that the interpreter had not arrived.  After a hopefully inaudible intake of breath the chairman inquired of what was the situation of the DV case.  There was no defendant or lawyer in court.  Our L/A told us that the defendant had gone to our “sister” court in error although he had been present and legally advised by the duty at that sister court where and when he had made his not guilty plea that the trial would not be held there.   CPS told us that his witnesses were present including a ten year old child due to appear by video link.  With no interpreter for the first matter and no defendant for the second what does a bench do?  It retires to the kitchen and hopes the antediluvian coffee/tea machine will work.  Around 11.30 a.m. we are informed  by those awful coincidences  that outside waiting to enter are the interpreter for the first case and the lawyer and defendant for the second.  We invite the lawyer to appear and request an explanation.  His story was that he was appointed only a couple of weeks previously and had taken his client`s advice as to venue.  By the time he had reached the other court his client had already left and had texted him the correct venue;  a venue with which according to his story he was not very familiar.  He then proceeded to ask for an adjournment on the basis that in his opinion his client required an interpreter despite no problem of that nature having been noted from the first hearing in the case management form.  Critical observations from the chairman were a waste of time according to the L/A although on similar previous occasions they had had an effect.  Our L/A told us we had no power to refuse an adjournment on that basis.  Interests of justice reign supreme irrespective of any doubts of the court including consideration of the child witness. We reserved the rights of CPS to a wasted costs hearing when the case was concluded although the rather bad tempered lawyer insisted on his right that such a hearing should be argued immediately.  He was given short shrift.  The interpreter for the first matter gave a reasonable explanation for her delay and that case proceeded to sentencing at about 4.00p.m. whereupon we made our goodbyes and headed home inured to the predictable  unpredictability of the court system to function in a fashion remotely associated with efficiency however advanced the technology proclaimed by the Justice Ministry and HMCTS might be..........digital files for CPS, video links for witnesses, mobile phones for communication etc. etc. etc.

BABEL BABEL BABEL

Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division is not known for mincing his words.  A report in the Law Society Gazette demonstrated his difficulty in preventing his spleen being vented.  As I read the details I recollected an encounter a couple of years ago when,  at a social event,  I found myself in conversation with a court interpreter of   the Czech and Slovakian languages  qualified to standards higher than the highest requirement for the courts. Indeed she had officiated at the United Nations.  Naturally enough I discussed the Applied Language  Solutions/Capita plc situation with her.  She had previously been a freelance interpreter on court lists.  Neither she nor any single one of her few equally qualified colleagues had joined ALS/Capita and had no intention of doing so in the future. But what really showed her attitude to this publicly derided incompetent decision by government re the justice system was that she and the colleagues personally known to her had refused and will continue to refuse emergency requests issued since courts were given the opportunity to revert to previous practice. At her level she has no shortage of work.  Considering Slovakian is one of the most rarely required languages required for interpretation in the courts I am personally aware of Capita`s shortcomings despite the surface gloss of supposed improving performance.

SUPPRESS THAT SMIRK

The word “beast” is the type of noun with its associated term “bestiality” and adjectival derivative which is often used to describe mankind`s lowest form of behaviour or action.  When used in its legal form bestiality becomes the basis for the either way charge of having intercourse with an animal.   This reported case which is continuing is as interesting as any I have read on the topic although I have to admit to the emergence of a very slight smirk as I read on.