IT IS STILL A MAGISTRATES` COURT

When I was appointed to the bench the use of screens to prevent a witness being seen by a defendant was not at all common the reason being that since ancient times a defendant has had the right to face his/her accuser. The recent history of such special measures can be found here.  Subsequently their use became more frequent.  Indeed when the case is listed as being in a domestic context the application is part of the protocol on behalf of the complainant and sometimes other witnesses.   It takes a strong bench to refuse such an application and reasons must be given.  It has been my personal experience that perhaps in the last two or three years screens are being applied for even in non domestic cases when the defendant and complainant are not known to each other.  With my colleagues` agreement I have often rejected such applications.  Such was the case at Dolgellau Magistrates Court.  In line with opinions previously expressed here I am much in favour of lay justices taking more control of courtroom procedures even when risking criticism from the legal advisor providing of course that a proposed course of action or inaction can be argued as justified by the circumstances even contrary to the opinion of said advisor. After all it is still a magistrates` court..........at least for now.

SHOCKING BUT UNSURPRISING

Along with most of us I was shocked at the conclusion of the case of the Philippines so called nurse who was convicted of murder earlier this week.  What was almost as troubling was the complacency of the head of the Nursing and Midwifery Council which is charged with regulating those entitled to registration with said body when questioned about procedures of verification. The whole process has admittedly been tightened since the individual in this case arrived in England.  Nevertheless this sad story is just another case of a regulatory body failing in its duty of public protection.  It seems blindingly obvious that there are failures in the whole process from the drafting of basic objectives and regulations for such bodies, selection of appointees to senior posts and the overseeing by supervisory authorities.  In no sphere is this more apparent than with the police. I came across this information which some say gives cause for concern. An example which, along with Scotland Yard`s denial of a keystone cops approach to the Hatton Garden heist, should bring tears instead of smiles to readers, was revealed recently when the almost laughable failures at Cumbria police caused a trial to be abandoned. In view of the history of senior officers of that force the problems of supervision seem endemic in the way we run public organisations.  Verdicts as above brought in courts should not come as surprising.

TRANSFORMING SUMMARY JUSTICE

As far as the magistrates` courts` system it is unlikely that many associated with its workings would consider the Crown Prosecution Service  the most efficient part of that system.  The reasons are many.  Underfunding and the consequent staff reduction of lawyers and clerical staff since 2010 are much to blame.  But also at fault is the internal management system which as part of the civil service would not be tolerated in a well run business.  Of course the organisation is not in being to make a profit and relies upon other incentives to produce the most from the people it employs.  In this regard it fails.  Not unnaturally the MOJ relies on numbers to put its own spin on procedures and outcomes.  A sentence with petard and hoist comes to mind.  I quote below from my post of 20/12/2013:-

“The first three quarters of this year showed there were 117,582 trials of which 52,783 were effective; ie 45%. What is equally interesting is that of the 20,467 ineffective trials (disregarding cracked and vacated trials) tardiness by the CPS or the inability of it to get its witnesses to court was responsible for 5,782 [28%] of those. In 281 instances the CPS prosecutor was engaged in another court and could not proceed with the listed trial.  Ineffective trials as a result of maladministration within the courts system, ie responsibility of HMCTS, numbered  5,733 [28%]   Annotated problems with defence lawyers and/or their clients were responsible for 5,374 ineffective trials.  Of course it must be borne in mind that the “defence” figures are an amalgam of hundreds of disparate organisations none being a monolith like the CPS with a central administration.  Similar percentage figures for the whole of 2011 when the coalition had its feet firmly under the justice table were:-“

Effective trials                                                            44%

Tardiness of CPS as above                                          28%

Maladministration by HMCTS                                    29%

It seems that the CPS is embarking upon yet another initative; Transforming Summary Justice.  It is highly unlikely that the in depth views of those on the bench who will have to apply the intended procedures have been consulted and it is very unlikely that had they been consulted approbation would have been given.

With the increasing numbers of litigants in person appearing before magistrates this so called initiative is probably going to lead to more miscarriages of justices; miscarriages of justice which don`t for obvious reasons make the headlines.  Make no mistake justice for  poor, illiterate, addicted and mentally challenged defendants in this country is being increasingly withheld.  With legal advisors being beholden to their employer, the same employer to which the CPS must kowtow , it is now all the more important for the magistrate chairman of bench to be much more proactive in dealing with those defendants.  S/he must assume the mentality of a continental magistrate in being inquisitorial in his/her approach.  The level playing field is now a concept for legal historians. Equality of arms is now merely a wish for bygone days.  While there is still a Justice of the Peace presiding over a trial there is still the possibility of real justice in the aforementioned circumstances.  I am afraid that I do not have the confidence that all District Judges will approach such events    in a similar manner.

TOO OLD AT 70

So by a few laughs and poems in a courtroom two former colleagues forced to retire as I was last month  managed to obtain some headlines in local news media........good for them.  There are many ways to skin a cat as the story goes.  I can reveal that currently the  Equality & Human Rights Commission is studying this very problem and I will be reporting just as soon as there is a whisper emanating from that organisation.

JURY MEMBERSHIP SHOULD BE LIMITED

The issue of religion when its tenets come into conflict with our legal system were rare indeed before the mass immigration from Pakistan.  Occasionally members of the Plymouth Brethren or similar Christian sects would demand that they be excused from certain civic functions or requirements.  Apart from events across the Irish Sea such matters were of little consequence to the mass of the population such were the low numbers of such congregations.  There were and occasionally are news reports of some difficulties Orthodox Sabbath observant Jews have with regard to Saturday working.  Legislation in the last twenty years has reduced the numbers of such cases to a handful.  But with three million Moslems now settled here many bringing with them attitudes to religion and society not seen here since Victorian times we read increasingly of occasions where these attitudes seem incoherent to western thinking with its more relaxed approach to religious doctrine whether Christian or Jewish in all their variations.  Stories of Moslem supermarket check-out staff refusing to price up pork products might or might not be apocryphal but certainly there is a current situation that rarely reaches a mass audience.  One such was the refusal of a niqab wearing witness to reveal her face in court.  Personally I never had to make a decision in such circumstances but it is not unlikely that across the country ex-colleagues have been confronted with such situations which of course don`t reach the national press owing to the reduced reporting of magistrates` courts` cases. However when a religion orientated collision happens at a crown court there is a much greater likelihood of publicity.  And so it was recently at the Old Bailey.  The end story is one of compliance by the juror in question but my point is that it would seem not unlikely that similarly minded such individuals  have been, are or will be future jurors.  In such circumstances how could such a person contribute to a reasoned logical discussion on a defendant`s guilt or innocence?   With an almost unfettered system for selecting our peers to sit as jurors in judgement including even those who are not British citizens or with little command of English, is there not a very strong argument for this open door policy to be re-considered?