COURT MISMANAGEMENT MAKES BREWERY PISSUPS A MODEL OF EFFICIENCY

As I  approach the end of my tenure as a magistrate my cynicism is increasing as fast as the Ministry`s trumpet blows its shriek notes about improving efficiency by the digitalisation of all court files and the implementation of a policy of video justice at distance.  Whilst the mismanagement, at my court at least,  continues to make the proverbial brewery piss up seem like Harvard Business School best practice audit,  the magistrates` courts system will never offer criminal justice simple speedy and summary  in a quantity required to offer confidence to all participants.

Yesterday morning`s trial involved a defendant from Finland and a complainant from Poland.  Three hours had been set aside. It had been listed three times previously.  All witnesses were available.  We were sitting in a courtroom equipped with screens as agreed thus allowing the complainant to give her best evidence in what was a domestic violence matter.  The Polish interpreter as indicated in the case management form was outside awaiting request to enter when defence council rose to his feet to inform us that  no Finnish interpreter had answered the usher`s  tannoy request to come to the courtroom.  Our legal advisor confirmed that a Finnish interpreter had indeed been specified on the form.  We retired whist inquiries were made.  It transpired that in order to improve communication between courtroom and administrative staff  when an interpreter is required for a defendant (the court`s responsibility of course) a yellow page is attached to the front of the case management form to that effect.  In the case in question it appeared that the page had been removed during a pre filing process so the instruction was lost.  We were also told that a previous plea and case management hearing  had had to be vacated for lack of a Finnish interpreter. We are supposed to have a case progression officer whose job as the name suggests is to ensure that all court pre trial requirements have been met or to inform where necessary of perceived difficulties.   To me and my colleagues it appeared that he or she was as much to blame as anybody.

We enquired whether or not a manager on the administration staff could appear.  We were told that the line of management forbids such action.  Outside the courtroom our L/A explained  the  process:  she would inform the managing clerk who might or might not escalate the complaint to the Deputy Justices` Clerk who would contact the manager in the administration side who would make the decision as to how the complaint should proceed.  That is how three magistrates, an agent of the CPS, defence counsel, the officer in the case, a defendant, a complainant, a police officer witness, one interpreter and a legal advisor spent their morning.  `nuff said!  

IGNORE AND IT WILL GO AWAY..........NOT

I have blogged previously at some length on the results of ignoring police or court requests to submit information eg requests to plead guilty or not guilty to eg (relatively) minor motoring offences or information regarding income or a driver`s identity.  Such failures cost individuals time and money and escalate the cost to the state of completion of  outstanding cases.  When such dilatory inaction is with regard to environmental offences and heaven knows how these have increased in their scope and punishments over the last decade the resulting retribution to the offender can and usually should be such that a hard lesson is learnt. Such was a matter recently.  The owner of an establishment which offered food and drink to customers whilst they enjoyed the dubious pleasures of smoking shisha pipes had   ignored all the overtures from the council environmental officers who had almost pleaded with him to comply with the legal requirements for such businesses on the basis that post compliance he would have had only a fixed penalty notice to pay and no further legal action would be taken against him.  For  reasons only the offender can explain not only did he fail to take the council officers` advice he did not turn up at court to argue his not guilty  plea.  He will shortly receive notice that he has 28 days to pay fines and costs well into five figures.  

RUNNING FOR OFFICE

I never fail to be amused by some of the sheer unadulterated rubbish that emanates from the mouths of politicians in the weeks approaching a general election and in this early period of seeking headlines it`s business as usual.

From the bowels of Petty France we learn that there are to be new rules for prisoners committing violent acts in prison.  Forget the fact that it is generally recognised that the circulation of drugs in prisons is to a certain degree tolerated by the authorities as an assistance in keeping their charges under control.  Forget the fact that warders` numbers have dropped by up to a third by government policy only to be gradually increased by using agency workers. Forget the fact that the 80% of inmates who smoke are to be deprived of their tobacco and nicotine ration.  Forget the fact of H.M. Inspector of Prison`s devastating criticisms. 

So the victim culture so beloved by this government is to be extended to the retail sector.  Trying hard to retain his seat Labour candidate and current M.P. David Lammy seeks to make the sentencing  on theft from a shop dependent upon the size of the shop.  Such thinking is dangerous.  The rich man robbed of his Bentley should see his car thief punished less than the car jacker of the  poor man`s old banger.  But politicians are rarely climbing the greasy pole to exercise their muscles.

From time immemorial the concept of supply and demand has been a feature of the human condition but unlike King Canute whose attempt to stop the tide was to demonstrate to his obsequious nobles his limitations as a simple human being Justice Minister Shailesh Vara demonstrates that ignorance is no bar to high office in arguing that increased court fees will not pose a serious risk to court services.

Whilst the lunatics are not yet running the asylum (where there is one still in operation) they seem to have found  the odd key to open the odd gate.  

MORE PROPAGANDA FROM PETTY FRANCE

 The public relations and press office of the Ministry of Justice should feature in all schools of journalism as an example of how to provide maximum publicity for “initiatives” which appear to be from the school of Orwell`s 1984 where the world view of the inner party is rotated through a prism of 180* for the proles. 

Today`s press release announces the lifting of the level 5 maximum fine of £5,000.  In keeping with previous similarly heralded announcements the practice will be radically different from the impression given.  Whatever the offence the fine applicable must be related to ability to pay i.e. income or in rare cases; assets.  That barrier in itself will considerably reduce the number of offenders eligible for this “new” unlimited fine level. My experience informs me that as far as CPS prosecutions are concerned this change will make virtually no difference to the fines handed out in future years.  Like many other innovative measures conjured up by overpaid young things at Petty France we will hear little more of this nonsense.  Perhaps if they devoted similar efforts to retrieving the one billion or more pounds currently outstanding in fines, costs, compensations and surcharges   this cynical blogger would be more sympathetic to the most awful Lord Chancellor in his lifetime.  As a final thought today the wording of the release reinforces his impression that it is only a matter of perhaps another two parliaments when lay benches at magistrates` courts will be precluded from imposing custodial sentences. In such a scenario if J.P.s are still sitting in a court environment which I very much doubt custody will be the preserve of District Judges(M.C.) 

QUE? I KNOW NOTHING. I`M FROM BARCELONA

It had been at least two years since I had last sat on a means court.  There were over forty on the list and about a dozen attendees.  One common feature was that the “histories” as recorded on the means files of each of them were so truncated as to be almost meaningless.  That being the case where possible our L/A had to send for the original court files to be certain of the facts and chronologies.  But our usher was functioning over two other courts also so it takes no imagination to picture the pressure she was under.  We actually managed in the three hour session  to deal with eight of the attendees the remainder filling the downtime of other courts.  For the others listed (the non attendees) we sat at 2.00p.m. to decide on warrants and then another blatant inefficiency in administration appeared like Hamlet`s ghost.  In order, as we had expected, to issue warrants with or without bail we had to be sure that such a warning was written on the summonses which had been served on those failing to appear.  But lo!  No such warning had been written.  What had   been written as a last sentence was a warning to those who failed to show that “the court would consider other measures” without explicitly mentioning the threat of a warrant being issued.  My colleague and I with the consent of our L/A decided that in those circumstances it would be unjust to issue warrants and instead they would be written to again to appear at the next means court with a clearly worded threat of warrant with or without bail for those who failed to attend at that later date.  But and it`s a big “but” the original letters were signed off pp not by a legal advisor, a legal manager nor a Deputy Justices Clerk but by the Justices` Clerk; he who must be obeyed who has ultimate responsibility for an entire justice area.  If he had actually approved the wording it would appear he was not as competent as perhaps he should be.  If he had given the job to an underling and allowed the latter to have his signature attached his management skills were perhaps open to question.  The upshot of this seemingly minor carelessness was yet another hidden increase in costs associated with time wasted and future time to be allocated.  Add the myriad such situations in our court systems owing to staff reductions, staff incompetence, low staff morale, poor quality management and a box ticking mentality and it is quite clear why with an induced reduced workload magistrates` courts are almost as inefficient in practice as they were a decade ago notwithstanding all the statistics, video gizmos and grandstanding by the Ministry of efficiently having adapted to a 23% budget reduction and more to come. But what do I know?