OATH OR AFFIRMATION OR JUST THE PLACIBO EFFECT?

A friend of a friend was referred to me to explain what she could expect when being a witness at court.  On discussing the oath she stated that she was agnostic.......neither believer or non believer.  This set me thinking and I discovered this court case from February.

Believers and non believers rarely change their opinions or reject their beliefs. It is upon the fear of a divine retribution that oaths have existed since the dawn of civilisation. It seems to me that the application of oaths to witness testimony in our courts is as archaic as a belief in the gods living in Mount Olympus.

The number of those in England describing themselves as Christian can cautiously be estimated as 50% + or – 10% depending on definitions. About 10% adhere to other religious denominations and about one third are atheist. If regular church attendance indicates the strength of Christian belief only about 10-15% of so called Christians attend church at least once monthly. In my experience when witnesses with surnames of apparent Pakistani or Arab origin are asked to take the oath they rarely affirm; they swear on the Holy Koran. When Orthodox Jews are “sworn” generally they decline the Hebrew Bible and affirm. They are not questioned as to their choice which could be construed as having a lesser value irrespective of the religious reasons for so doing. Affirmations are therefore generally from the white majority ethnic group. My point is to question the value of the religious oath without the court knowing the depth of religious attachment to the particular faith. Therefore from my point of view the religious Jew and the witness who affirms are being up front about their evidence……..they are telling us quite simply that they will tell the truth. We believe their evidence or we don`t. Those who swear on a holy book as if by rote and with no belief can feel free to lie. They are not constrained by fear of divine retribution. The February case could be used as an example of the placibo effect.  Was not the belief  itself that the correct holy book was used for taking the oath not sufficient? With a charge of perjury virtually non existent in magistrates` courts proceedings is it not time to re-think the oath?

THERE IS A WAY BUT NO WILL

I was appointed to the Licensing Committee a short time before the powers of magistrates` courts to control the opening of licensed premises were removed to the local authority.  Further “simplification” of the process and changes “to reduce costs” were initiated by the outgoing government.  This is the published "consultation" that all local authorities based their responses upon.  Excuse all the quotation marks.  1984 has certainly caught up with us where words now have at least two meanings when used in government documents: the traditional and historic interpretation and that bestowed by Whitehall Weasels. Now five years later lo and behold that arch supporter of civil liberties Sir B. Hogan-Howe Met Commissioner is calling for licensing reform.  This whole sorry story is a perfect example of the myopia of government.  Appealing to the booze industry as the so called reform was meant to do has made the job of police so much worse than it need have been.  Depending on whose statistics are believed at least 50% of all crime is alcohol driven.  In Scotland the figure is as high as 70%.  There simply must be more done to reduce drinking by those under 21.  Unfortunately owing to political expediency whilst there is a way there is apparently no will.

MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION SILENCES CRITICS

I`ve long been critical of the Magistrates` Association.  I resigned my membership years ago.  Unlike eg the B.M.A. it provides no professional indemnity or professional assistance for members who get themselves in a bit of trouble.  Its only useful innovation was to succeed an individually produced forum on its members` site by a professionally designed one where members could exchange opinions moderated by a few hardworking colleagues who gave freely of their time.  That platform has now been removed.  Only about 80% of magistrates belong to the M.A..  Old hands disillusioned by its infectivity in promoting matters in the interests of J.P.s have resigned or failed to renew memberships.  Money is tight cf a decade ago but I`m sure those at the helm are patient enough to queue up for their gongs..........after all isn`t that why they stood for office in the first place?

IRISH LOGIC?

Perhaps things are done differently in Northern Ireland at least according to this short report.  Some years ago I invited my winger to do a spot of quick interpreting for an unrepresented defendant and was roundly criticised afterwards by the L/A.  Perhaps somebody can explain the logic for an absolute discharge to be accompanied by the penalty points.  It`s certainly news to me.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL AND THINGS TO COME

Having left the Bench a short time before I was to be compulsorily removed as being too old, feeble and senile to do the job.........at least according to the Ministry of Justice..........and reading the latest atrocious method the not-so-merry men at the M.O.J. had conjured up for their version of Robin (Grey Thing) Hood who robs from the poor to give to the bankers I wondered whether I could be at peace with myself if I were still to sit in court and required to make the appropriate  pronouncement on the published terms.    My first thoughts of resignation were when the so called victim surcharge was made a requirement.  Obviously I decided against such drastic action but in my pronouncement I substituted the phrase “government imposed surcharge over which we have no control”.  There was the occasional raised eyebrow from the wings and the odd comment from a legal advisor at a post court review but nothing more.   And then came the changes from Michael Gove about the non attendance of children at school becoming almost a crime of strict liability.  Having to find guilty a parent or guardian who had done everything but nail the child`s feet to the floor of the classroom was difficult.  Even a three month conditional discharge and no costs constituted a declarable conviction.  Soon colleagues will be faced with the conditions  of the forthcoming Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.  When c£2billion in unpaid fines and costs is probably never going to be recovered, to impose further financial penalties on a class of people with the least ability to pay is the politics of revenge to put it very mildly.  I do think I would have been pushed over the resignation edge.  But paradoxically if such an action were to be taken by former colleagues and I am almost certain some nearing the end of their tenure will do so it will bring a smirk to the faces of those aforementioned all singing and dancing little men at the M.O.J.   It will be further ammunition in their long term goal to oust Justices of the Peace from our courts and restrict custodial sentencing at least to District Judges(M.C.)  They won`t resign in principle over legislation they find iniquitous; they have their salaries and pensions to consider.  I have endeavoured without success to find out how many if any crown court judges and higher have resigned their position over a matter of principle insofar as disagreeing with the legislation they have to uphold.  The conclusion must be that we are sleepwalking into dangerous constitutional territory.  The non report in today`s media of the trial of “not proven to be a terrorist”  Erol Incedal is but a foretaste of  things surely  to come.