BARRISTER`S PREJUDICE AGAINST MAGISTRATES

The first time I put pen to paper in the public forum as a Justice of the Peace   was to sign an article in the Times repudiating prejudice, allegations and slurs towards the institution to which I had been appointed a couple of months previously  and which had been published a few days earlier.  During my time on the bench lawyer friends would occasionally delight in trying to  provoke me by recalling their colleagues frequent use of the term "muppets" in their references to a lay bench.  Scores of articles, speeches, advice, proposals etc from individual lawyers, institutions, policy advisors, pressure groups, politicians and not excluding Uncle Tom Tobley  have suggested with varying degrees of logic, passion and simple prejudice that the magistracy is not fit for purpose and criminal procedures in the lower courts should be presided over by a single District Judge.  Various reasons are usually offered eg cost encompassing greater efficiency of D.J.s, representative nature of J.P.s being essentially white middle class and elderly and lack of competence.  Generally those who hold these opinions argue vociferously for the right to trial by jury for the very lowest level of either way offences but see no contradiction in the single D.J. replacing a mini jury of three magistrates for summary matters. The *figures for appeals at Crown Court  against lower courts` decisions are an illustration of how often J.P.s get it right.   In short whilst there are logical reasons of cost and efficiency between a lay bench and a professional D.J. to be debated it is the old watchword prejudice which drives the argument amongst those barristers who feel they have to kowtow in court to those without a legal qualification.

PREJUDICE:- an unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favourable or unfavourable. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.

PREJUDICE:- prejudgement, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavourable, judgements toward people or a person because of gender, political opinion, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality, or other personal characteristics.

A perfect example of such self righteous opinion is that of the blogger The Secret Barrister who seeks to promulgate this decades old antagonism against my former colleagues.  Whilst his language is that of the arrogant know all his logic is that of the rabble rouser using individual failings as he sees them to castigate a majority of members of an institution. 

My own opinion presented many times here is that this government or the next for reasons of control will reduce considerably the powers of the lay bench.  Examples are already with us.  These changes will take place not because of magistrates` incompetence but, paradoxically for the Secret Barrister, because overarching government will no longer tolerate a truly independent minded lay bench over which it has little control when it comes to conscience.  The resignation of perhaps thirty J.P.s over the Courts Charge is but an example.  Professional government employed District Judges do not have the freedom to resign over "principle" .  Aye that`s the rub as the great man wrote.    

*

J.P. TAKES TIME OFF

After a heavy hour or two blogging I need a break.  Look in again in a couple of weeks when I hope to return refreshed and updated.

MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION TEACHES GRANNY TO SUCK EGGS

Being in a position to deprive a fellow citizen of his/her liberty is an onerous task and a supposedly rigorous vetting system is in place to ensure as far as possible that those appointed are suited for the task. And that task is fast tracking to become a most capable practitioner in a wholly new intellectual activity. To ensure total compliance when in office any word out of turn in or out of court is liable to lead to chastisement.  So it is plainly obvious that Justices of the Peace can be said to have an IQ of at least 100 and a modicum of common sense.  Going by the guidance issued by the Magistrates Association it appears that my former colleagues need assistance in deciding the qualities required when voting every three years for their bench chairman.  I would use the word "patronising" as a description.  Perhaps the MA is truly reverting to form and aping the attitudes of organisations with not a lot to say and a press office to run by scraping the bottom of its intellectually deprived barrel with this unnecessary nonsense copied below.  Perhaps next it will advise magistrates of the long forgotten green cross code to assist when they are crossing a busy street or teaching grandma how to suck eggs..

  

"Electing the bench chairman is a very important decision

for every magistrate. With elections taking place in the

Autumn months we have put together some key pointers

on the qualities that bench chairmen should ideally have

to help you to decide who will get your vote.

Experience

Clearly, elections should not simply be on the basis of seniority within the bench — magistrates must look for the best person to fulfil the role. However, a bench chairman must have sufficient experience of the magistracy to deal with the whole breadth of a chairman’s work.Previous involvement with aspects of court life apart from just

court sittings is important. This does not mean all bench chairmen have first to serve as deputies, but chairing another bench committee or sitting on the management team in a different capacity would help.

Management and leadership skills

The bench chairman is a key part of the judicial leadership and management team which helps ensure the judicial business of court runs effectively. This involves working closely with the justices’ clerk, liaising with the advisory committee or training and development committee (TDC) and attending the justices’ issues group (JIG) and area judicial forum (AJF) meetings. S/he will also need to cooperate outside the bench with other bench chairmen

or various other meetings such as court user groups. To work at this level, the chairman must be authoritative and tactful and needs to be able to look at issues strategically.

Community involvement

Bench chairmen are the public face of the bench and should help to promote links with the local community, working together with the bench Magistrates in the Community (MIC) coordinator. They should be prepared to attend events and support magistrates who work in the community eg being present at the local heats of the national Mock Trial Competition. They may also speak for the bench in the media.

Pastoral care

The chairman has a pastoral responsibility for all magistrates on the bench. Together with the justices' clerk s/he should be the first person that a magistrate contacts with any concerns.

The chairman needs to be approachable, readily available and able to keep confidentiality. S/he will need to be an empathetic source of guidance to magistrates who may be experiencing difficulties either on the bench, or in their personal lives.

Grievances and complaints

The bench chairman has a specific role as a first port of call in the disciplinary process, together with dealing with grievances, ie concerns best resolved outside the formal disciplinary process. A prospective chairman should have the right mix of tact, delicacy and robustness to handle grievances effectively. S/he must act with impartiality and be seen to be impartial.

Conduct cases and appeals

While s/he is not a formal part of the disciplinary process, the bench chairman has a specific role in conduct cases and appraisal appeals. A judicious, dispassionate approach to these matters is necessary.

Communications skills

The bench chairman's role is very wide and involves working closely with those both in and outside the court and liaising with other groups such as the local Magistrates’ Association. Being an effective communicator can be a key to his or her success. S/he will need to be able to develop good working relationships with others, be robust, empathetic, tactful and relate easily to those within and outside the justice system. The bench chairman will need to be a confident user of e-mail and the internet.

Consultation

As a representative of the bench, the chairman needs to ensure he or she is aware of members’ views and properly represents them. The ability to consult with the bench on key issues is essential for anyone in this role.

Commitment and teamwork

Being a chairman need not be all consuming. Of course a

candidate will need to be able to devote the time, energy and

commitment necessary for the role. But at the same time, s/he needs to know how to delegate appropriately (eg to the deputy) and work effectively in a team. The ideal bench chairman shares responsibility and is keen to develop a good team and nurture the leadership skills of other magistrates."

A JUDICIAL WAKE UP CALL

Professional people must jump hurdles of varying heights in order to be entrusted with the tasks and duties they have voluntarily offered to perform for those who directly or indirectly pay for or receive their advice and/or services. Only in the most heinous circumstances do those individuals receive the ultimate sanction for departing morally or professionally from their chosen path. Mass murderer Harold Shipman was a known drug addict and was supposedly rehabilitated and allowed to continue to practise as a physician. When it comes to members of the judiciary misbehaving, a casual onlooker might opine that the higher up the ladder of seniority the alleged “justice” is standing the greater the saturation of redness must appear on his hand before action is taken. 

Magistrates [and others] in my opinion operate within what is arguably the most politically correct organisation in the country……Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals  Service and under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice. The well known and accurate description; “justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done” is not merely a snappy phrase; it gives meaning to a necessary pillar of a free society.

Within the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office it seems there is no such consideration as “three strikes and you`re out”. It is sometimes  more a matter of slip up once however minor and out you go. It is questionable whether that philosophy operates amongst other professional supervisory bodies.Then pity or castigate John Harrison  ex J.P. on the Lancaster Bench who in 2010 was thrown out for nodding off whilst chairing an assault trial. It seems that judges, however, can fall asleep during a trial, admit such and continue on the bench. Such was the situation with His Honour Judge Michael Coombe [now deceased] who fell asleep during a robbery trial in 2002. Although convictions against the defendants were held at appeal in 2004 three of them had their sentences reduced. Interesting reports are available here and here. And his is not the only example. In 2001, Judge Gabriel Hutton was disciplined for falling asleep during a rape trial. In 1999, Judge Victor Hall was 'severely reprimanded' after he was convicted of drink-driving. There is more to read at Mail on line 
.
It seems that the propensity to conceal judicial incompetence at the higher levels like all such attempts at cover up from Watergate onwards will lead to more revelations. Sleeping judges are a not uncommon consequence of advancing age, stuffy courtrooms and listening to sometimes boring people talking boring nonsense.

A more recent "caught napping on the job" report was that involving  Recorder Philip Cattan. He was reprimanded in February and lives to judge another day.  Whether the same benevolence is allowed to magistrate Gary Kirkley of Bury & Rochdale Bench remains to be seen; his case has not been finally adjudicated.

So for any former colleagues especially those sitting in afternoon sessions……….an inability to have time for more than a cup of tea and a sandwich as opposed to a three courser and wine as our senior colleagues at Crown Court can avail themselves is no cause for despair. The motto is there is usually no second chance; keep awake or be fired!

NAMING AND SHAMING

To name and shame was in my memory a major factor in ensuring tolerable standards of behaviour within the family and wider circle but also when malfeasance and/or  outrageous  impropriety involved those in public office.  That naming and shaming could range in its reach from the family to headlines in local or national media.  When adults enter a British courtroom, unknowingly or uncaring to many,  they enter an environment and institution which is open to any member of the public.  This apparently simple and commonplace facility could arguably be described as one of the essential  pillars supporting our free society.  However for many generations it has been accepted that inter alia children and young people must have protection against the promulgation of their identities during proceedings where they are involved as witnesses or defendants. All those involved in the workings of criminal courts are thus familiar with s39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (“CYPA”) and its current incarnation Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.45.  Full details can be found on p15 of Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts.  

The current case making the news without there being public knowledge of the name of the teenager  convicted of stabbing his teacher in Bradford has caused a certain disquiet amongst newspaper editors and others. The likelihood of his serving only three years custody from a headline sentence of eleven years has added to the controversy.  Whilst that sentence (and others in similar circumstances where youth are involved) can IMHO be argued on the basis of the as yet still undeveloped juvenile brain where the biological connections which socialise us as a species are still some years from completion the prohibition on naming and shaming by the judge cannot be justified.  I will not fully rehearse the arguments here; they are, I am sure, well known to readers.The judicial decision seems to imply that naming and shaming at least in this case is no longer applicable or desirable.  I for one disagree.    I would go so far to suggest that the lack of such sanctions in general has led us into a situation where anything goes and shame means absolutely nothing especially to those  in public office. The investigations into Police and Crime Commissioners is an indication of the almost Banana Republic attitude of publicly elected or appointed officials.  Indeed a couple of years ago at this blog`s previous site I gave vent to similar feelings.  When ASBOs were introduced  it was  thought that the shame of the public disapproval bestowed would assist in attempts at rehabilitation. By all accounts that desire was misconceived. Approbation a plenty was often the result from the reprobates` peers.  The College of Policing has recently published an interesting report on Chief Police Officer misconduct. It does not mention by name any officer whose frailties or misconduct are already in the public domain and whose histories are likely to have been utilised in the study.  Depending on how one reads that omission naming and shaming might still be operating even if beneath the surface but then again.....................

POLITICAL MYOPIA

As I have posted here more than once 70% of acquisitive or violent crime is considered to be caused by addiction to drugs and/or alcohol.  This is not "hot" news.  All those in relevant government departments know it; the medical profession knows it..........it is indeed common knowledge.  Any sane or rationally governed society would make provision for the unfortunates who cause such damage to themselves and a wider society and by that criterion we are certainly not a sane or rational society.  Examples are before the courts every day of the week.  However when a chairman in a magistrates` court makes an announcement like this to an admitted alcoholic offender I truly despair;   "This idea of drinking and being drunk in a public place is beginning to be a problem. However, we're going to fine you for this matter today. and the costs are going to be considerable."  I realise the sentencing options are limited.  From the sparse court reporting we have no information on the offender`s previous history but it is unlikely he was of previous good character.  

There are hundreds of thousands of offences annually from the simple as above to the most serious arising from drink/drug addiction.  All the asylums and large publicly owned buildings closed in the last two decades to be converted into luxury flats or other developments were worth their weight in much more gold than their sales or the sellers realised. I suppose that with politicians`  myopia, having a five year horizon and their own re-election  their first consideration we can expect nothing better.

APATHY AT MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION ELECTION

When elections of any sort for any post are held and the winner(s) declared, after their majority is announced the next figure usually published is the turn out.  This latter number can often cause as much interest as all the others put together an example being the percentage of voters in the recent general election who did not vote Conservative or the Conservative vote being expressed as a fraction of all eligible voters.  These figures have been bandied about in comparison to the recent overwhelming vote to strike by the workers on the London Underground.  I make no comment on the relative significance of either percentage  vote but merely as an illustration.  In a similar vein I have for readers to access here the results of the recent election for the next chairman of the Magistrates Association.  In my opinion my former colleagues who have remained members of MA  have nobody to blame but their own apathy for the likely inadequacy of their representatives vis a vis govenment over the next three years.

SCALLYWAG J.P. BLOGGER REMOVED

About four months ago a new blog by somebody who was apparently a serving magistrate appeared on blogspot describing its content as "views of a scallywag" [a person, typically a child, who behaves badly but in an amusingly mischievous rather than harmful way; a rascal](my definition).  The author was content to offer her/his views on current events likely to interest colleagues and I can`t recall s/he ever referred to any matter from her/his own courtroom experiences unlike this  blogger before retirement April past.  Today the message below appeared on the site:-

Sorry, the blog at magistratemusings.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.

The other blogger of the genre changed his format when, I presume, fears of the Senior Presiding Judge`s strictures three years ago reached his backbone.  

If scallywag has indeed been admonished for her/his outpourings it is a sad day for freedom of expression.  I know s/he reads this blog.  It is open to her/him to update us on the situation if s/he so wishes.  

HOW MANY POLICE CONSTABLES DOES IT TAKE..........??

Although I am cautious when reading of a latest form of crime statistics which appears to indicate that the trend is up, down or sideways there is more than a little fascination in the structure of those in blue employed (in reducing numbers) to keep the peace. According to current figures there are:-

1.68 chief superintendants for every ACPO ranked officer

9 inspectors and chief inspectors for every superintendant

3.3 sergeants for every inspector

5.2 constables for every sergeant

Figures for 2013 were:- 

4.86 constables for every sergeant
 
3.26 sergeants for every inspector
 
3.49 inspectors for every chief inspector
 
2.2 chief inspectors for every superintendent
 
2.24 superintendents for every chief superintendent
 
1.82 chief superintendents for every ACPO rank


I have no knowledge of the internal workings or management of large organisations but it does seem that the police are top heavy at the higher ranks of chief inspector and above. The army also seems to be similarly afflicted with around 200 brigadiers and  generals  for a force of around 100,000 reducing. 
.
Perhaps this is a historical anomaly and recruitment and promotion are trapped in a time warp?

GUT GEMACHT DEINE EHRE*

Readers who are not magistrates or district judges are obviously interested in the legal process and will make up their own minds as to the efficacy of the following short report from Germany.  Those who view these pages with experience of being sentencers  might ask themselves why the sentencing guidelines which restict thinking out of the box are often more of a hindrance than a help in appropriate sentencing.  Similarly visitors here who, apart from the previously mentioned groups, are football fans might be wary of misbehaviour whilst watching their team in action if a bench eg in London ordered a Spurs fan to buy an Arsenal shirt to compensate an Arsenal supporting victim or a Liverpool bench ordered an Everton supporting miscreant to do similarly with a Liverpool shirt for a Reds fan.  That unusual sentencing outcome is just what occurred to a free thinking judge  recently in Munich.   

Would that our senior judiciary and others had not allowed themselves to be overwhelmed by the greasy pole climbers at the Ministry of Justice in implementing the proposals for sentencing guidelines a decade or more ago and perhaps we would now have fewer in prison as reported in the previous post.  

*Well done your Honour

PRISON POPULATION BULLETIN

All that there is to know currently about prisons, prisoners and some unanswered questions.

DIVIDE AND RULE

At least the provincial press is taking notice;  matters even loosely connected to "justice" per se are rarely the topic of news editors.  Court cases from both the crown and magistrates` courts do provide regular column inches easily filled but "justice"; that it is a different concept entirely, rarely considered by more than about one third of the population with whom it makes contact unlike the NHS where almost everyone has a story  to tell:  that is until recently.  

Grayling`s emasculation of much that is just  has left  a cold unresponsive ice to his successor.   This ice has been broken now by the actions of criminal lawyers of both persuasions.  With only a modicum of fanfare but great internal support those whom governments have tried to denigrate by calling them fat cats have shown they have fangs.  Actions which a decade ago would have been unthinkable have finally caused a Justice Secretary to consider his options. As with teachers, doctors and many other groups with multiple representation governments of all hues operate the ages old policy of divide and rule. It is too early to predict the winner in this contest but meanwhile unrepresented defendants especially in the magistrates` courts must rely upon an under resourced CPS staffed often by agents who are not empowered to make any decisions, legal advisors trying hard to complete the court list and magistrates struggling to ensure justice is done with the level playing field and equality of arms being often outdated philosophies. 

20/20 HINDSIGHT WILL BE CAMERON`S EXCUSE IN 2020

Civil liberties...........a phrase and concept which can cause the best of friends to engage in bitter debate.  It can be one person`s license to defy authority or another person`s excuse to call for greater control of unpopular demonstrations of minority opinion. There is rarely a controversial civil liberties situation that can clearly be argued black or white; the answer or solution is usually one of determining which shade of grey is applicable.  That is until the recent outburst from the Police and Crime Commissioner of West Yorkshire.  He wants to use his powers to ban lawful protests because he can`t afford to police them. 

Just what sort of society are we becoming?  The ruling party has made itself a hostage to the NHS and that has resulted in the Home Office and Justice Department undermining  our whole justice  system  from inter alia  border controls at seaports and airports, general policing, probation services and  courts system to deaths in police custody and prisons.  Somewhere in Whitehall there must be voices telling their political masters that all this has to stop or we will wake up in 2020 with only 20/20 hindsight to excuse the calamity of what we will have become.

THE ANOMALOUS SITUATION OF DRINK DRIVING ON PRIVATE LAND

There can`t be many magistrates who haven`t listened to a defendant before them for drunk driving or drunk in charge  using as his/her defence the proposition that the road or area where the alleged offence took place was in fact private property and therefore  the offence of drink driving is not committed.  Such arguments can succeed if the evidence is there to support it which shows that the public are specifically excluded from the land in question or there by invitation of the owner.  This argument succeeded in a particularly sad case of a child killed by a farm worker who was well over the drink drive limit whilst driving a tractor in the early morning after drinking the night previously. 

The terms of this anomalous  situation might be where the boundaries exist of the castle which is the Englishman`s home.  In the light of the numerous exceptions to the privacy of that castle and what lies within it I doubt there will be much resistance to the tweaking of the legal situation so that another event like the tragic one at Swithens Farm will not go unpunished.

MAGISTRATES//AGE//ETHNICITY

For those interested in the latest statistical analysis of how many magistrates are of whatever age, gender or ethnicity you only have to look here but ginger haired or twelve fingered people are not yet included nor are those carrying the gene for self importance but one can`t have everything from statistics.

COURTS CHARGE AND THE LOST CREDIBILITY OF MICHAEL GOVE/MAGISTRATES RESIGN

I took my retirement from the bench a month or so earlier than my chronology suggested owing to the simultaneous imposition of the iniquitous courts charge introduced in April.  In my mind it had become a retiring issue; the straw which would have broken this camel`s back.  The so called "victims` surcharge" imposed from 2012 caused me personally a twinge of conscience owing to its being non means tested and therefore increasing the financial burden on those least able to bear it.  It is thought that it was a resigning issue for scores if not hundreds  of colleagues as was the amalgamation of courts that same year. The courts charge is of a different dimension. In the lower court it begins at £150 for a guilty plea to a summary offence, £180 similarly for a guilty plea to an either way offence increasing to £520 after conviction at trial for a summary offence and £1,000 for conviction at trial of an either way offence. These charges are not means tested.  In his letter to the Magistrates Association house magazine explaining his decision to resign from the magistracy   George Lyons with 15 years on the bench wrote:-

"I have spent 15 years on the bench and was in the very privileged position of sitting as a chair in the adult and youth courts gaining knowledge and experience every day that I sat. We would exercise our discretion on every aspect of sentencing, within the guidelines, and arrive at a proportionate sentence for the offence charged. I cannot tell a defendant that the costs are reduced because they do not have the means to pay them then say, without any regard to personal circumstances, that I also impose £180 admin fee (that is what it is) and warn that a prison cell is waiting if they do not pay."

His is an opinion probably shared by the majority of his colleagues nationwide.  It is thought that at least twenty other J.P.s have resigned.  The Justices Clerk to my old bench has written to all my former colleagues telling them that if they are unhappy to be imposing the charge they should resign.  

Much as I am was an admirer of the current Justice Secretary,  by accepting his office and acquiescing to this legal abomination he has devalued himself as a man of good conscience.  Reversing his predecessor`s action on limiting prisoners` reading materials is not enough for him to regain the credibility he justifiably attained at Dept. of Education.    

THE EYES HAVE IT

Today a recent news item has attracted my attention and which as a former eye care professional I can comment upon with expert knowledge.  

in 2013 police were given powers to notify the DVLA to revoke a motorist`s driving license if they considered his/her vision fell below the standard required; i.e. an ability to read a number plate at 20 metres. This was one of these pieces of legislation which came into force with barely a whisper.  I will say from the outset that this innovation is akin to offering a haemophiliac a band aid when s/he cuts a wrist.  For at least forty years eye care professionals have campaigned individually and as professional bodies to have the current DVLA so called eyesight requirement reformed so that such professionals can authorise that a certain standard has been reached by an aspiring driver.  As the present vision level allows an individual who can see eg a dustbin lid  held at 20M but be unable to see the person holding it  owing to blurring of all but the central few degrees of useful vision, often the case in chronic glaucoma,  it has long been argued that an applicant`s visual field should be an integral part of any vision test.  Satisfactory colour vision especially red/green discrimination is another aspect of vision which at least should be noted on a license application if not an impediment to receiving approval.  The same could be argued for those with monocular status eg lazy eye,  who therefore lack true binocular 3D vision.  Governments failed to act using the excuse that those advocates were merely proposing regulations to line their own professional pockets when they were in fact fearful of the motoring lobby in all its forms.  So PC Plod now has the power to have your license revoked.  Don`t say you haven`t been warned.

SEARCH WARRANTS AND OTHERS SIMILAR

I was unsurprised to note the implications of this case at the Divisional Court. Their lordships take a fairly uncompromising view of the magistrates involved and by extension magistrates in general.  There is a reference to the bench taking only 45 minutes to decide on the application. Perhaps their lordships are not familiar with the daily throughput at magistrates` courts.  Warrants are considered by legal advisors as an unfortunate intrusion into the time available to get through the anticipated list which is itself often over subscribed.  It is not uncommon that their desire is to get the job done as quickly as possible without omitting to cross the "T"s when required and of course dotting the "I"s. Indeed it appears that the need to get over the rubber stamping tendency  is still there.  With warrants of entry by utility companies in this era of reducing benefits to the lower paid and unemployed  it is nothing short of misconduct if there are still magistrates out there who do not subject such applications to the utmost scrutiny.   Once more this lends urgency for my former colleagues to be more inquisitorial whilst in the middle chair whatever the topic in consideration and however unexpected  or objected to  by the legal advisor. After all it is still but for how much  longer a magistrates` court.

IS THE LAW AN ASS?

Notwithstanding Apple`s recent climbdown over payments to artists during the first three months of its new music download scheme as I type this I`m listening to music ripped from CDs I`ve purchased previously on to my hard drive.  It seems now I`m a law breaker after the recent ruling at the High Court.  By all accounts it is generally recognised that this legal decision has nowhere to go; it will rarely if ever be implemented.  Is this truly a case where one might consider that the law is an ass!

JURIES AND JURORS

It seems another juror has encountered the wrath of the Lord Chief Justice owing to her researching details on the internet pertinent to a defendant. In this age of recent mass immigration and widespread internet use jurors are still chosen largely unfiltered from publicly held lists. At one time not too long ago  certain classes of summonsed jurors could recuse themselves on account generally of their importance to society so in effect many middle class professionals were unavailable by choice. That situation as we know has changed and nobody including judges and others of equally high status is excused without very substantial reasoning. Such people bring with them a lifetime`s accumulation of knowledge, much of it highly specialised, to the proceedings.  If evidence presented is directly contrary to their personal knowledge are they to choose how to balance that conflict?  The purists might answer that only the evidence heard in court has any relevance but where does that leave the truth?  

From my contacts and enquiries into attitudes of magistrates I have the sense that many are becoming more inquisitorial in their approach to trials involving unrepresented defendants in order to ensure as much as they are able that justice is done and if that means the truth will out rather than the abler proponent of evidence then so be it. 

As a matter of interest  WikiIslam has the following information copied below.  If these statistics are to be taken at face value how would individuals holding the reported opinions be appropriate for jury service whether in trials of co-religionists or others?

United Kingdom

More than 60 percent of British Muslims want Shari'ah law in the UK

The special poll [conducted by the Guardian/ICM organisations] based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61 per cent wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles – "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law"^[46]

October 2006

1 out of 3 British Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslim apostates should be executed.

In the survey of 1,003 Muslims by the polling company Populus through internet and telephone questionnaires, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Eighty-six per cent said their religion was the most important thing in their lives.

Nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds believed that those converting to another religion should be executed, while less than a fifth of those over 55 believed the same. The survey claimed that British authorities and some Muslim groups have exaggerated the problem of Islamophobia and fuelled a sense of victimhood among some Muslims: 84% said they believed they had been well treated in British society, though only 28% thought the authorities had gone over the top in trying not to offend Muslims.^[47]

January 2007

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today. The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.
. . .
The most startling finding is the high level of support for applying sharia law in "predominantly Muslim" areas of Britain.
Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were "right".
Nearly two thirds thought the video images shown last week of British troops beating Iraqi youths were symptomatic of a wider problem in Iraq. Half did not think the soldiers would be "appropriately punished".
Half of the 500 people surveyed said relations between white Britons and Muslims were getting worse. Only just over half thought the conviction of the cleric Abu Hamza for incitement to murder and race hatred was fair.^[48]

February 2006

At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday. The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted
. . .
However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said.^[49]

June 2009

32% of British Muslim students support killing for Islam; 40% want Shari'ah Law

According to a new survey done at 30 universities in Britain, the young Muslim student body in that country is extremely radicalized. The poll asked 600 Muslim students and 800 of their non-Muslim peers about politically touchy subjects like killing in the name of Islam and Sharia Law—and the results were like night and day between the two demographics. While hardly anyone in the non-Muslim sample accepted killing in the name of religion, basically one-third of all Muslim students in Britain supported this.
. . . In an ironic twist, this survey and its shocking poll results were made available only through the Wikileaks leaking of Julian Assange. The poll was revealed as part of a secret, diplomatic cable that emerged from the US Embassy in London.
Other results in the pro-Islamist survey results are also troublesome. For instance, more than half of all British Muslim students insist on being represented by a political party that is Islam-based. The clear-cut, overwhelming theme in this poll data from this leaked cable relates to the fact that many Muslims even in so-called civilized countries like Britain still want to relapse to the Middle Ages (or earlier, even) by making Islam central in all aspects of their true-believing lives.^[50]

December 2010

 

The recent speech by the Prime Minister shows that there is gradual realisation that  the political getout that the underbelly of those who are committed to violence in the name of Islam is a tiny minority   is not necessarily the case.  Similar arguments can be made about members of or adherents to other religious or political denominations where controversy  might arise eg Scientology, English Defence League to name just two. It is inconceivable that such cares have not entered the thinking processes of those high up the ministerial tree in Petty France.  It must only be a matter of time when jury selection  becomes more inquisitorial and more highly selective if it is to retain its position as central to the legal process otherwise there is a risk that a fully inquisitorial system of continental procedures will be proposed.

 

METROPOLITAN POLICE AND ITS BIZARRE AND SHORT LIVED INITIATIVES

According to Charles Darwin`s theory as I understand it diversity and ability to exploit and reproduce advantages granted by mutation are necessary for survival.  I suppose in my simplistic thinking process the years since the big crash and subsequent years of austerity such analogies could also be applied to institutions.  The Metropolitan Police Service is as good an example as any.   In 2010 in an effort to retain officer numbers yet cope with the early funding cuts imposed by the previous government the Met limited its recruitment of new constables to those who had served as unpaid volunteer special constables for at least one year previously.  I have been unable to source when this policy was ended.  It seems a penchant for those with all those badges and braid on their caps and blue uniforms is to dream up more new schemes to make more headlines than they make sense.  

The Met yesterday announced that for a trial period of a month all new aspiring recruits must be able to speak a second language other than English.  The obvious caveat to this policy is a would be recruit without such language skills will postpone any application until this trial period has run its course.  After all anybody making a career choice to become a police officer can hold off for a month. However if this nonsensical policy is to be taken seriously {remember when every doctor`s or dentist`s waiting room or town hall  had leaflets in umpteen languages until some wise old owl of a civil servant realised that doing this did nothing to encourage the use of English by immigrants} one would have thought that the required ability to converse in a foreign tongue would be applied to those which would most often be encountered on the streets of London.  One would have thought wrongly.  Indeed the languages required are:-

• Yoruba (Nigeria)
• Hebrew
• Arabic
• Hindi
• Punjabi
• Italian
• German
• Turkish
• Greek
• Spanish
• Polish
• Portuguese
• Sinhali (Sri Lanka)
• Bengali 

Hebrew is the language only of prayer for many Jews worldwide  and native Israelis of whom only about 10,000 are thought to live in London.  The Jewish enclaves in London where over 200,000 people live are populated 90% by native British born people so the Met Commissioner can`t be thinking of having multi lingual bobbies in Golders Green.  In Hackney or Stoke Newington where the Jewish residents are mainly of the black coat Chassidic variety Yiddish is the spoken language. Although written in Hebrew characters it is a Germanic/Polish tongue so that a Hebrew speaking recruit would be wasting his/her skills.  Perhaps he thinks that he should not recruit Arabic speakers without offering the quid pro quo to the other side.  But he is seeking Sinhali  and not Tamil speakers where refugees from a most recent and vicious civil war are still at odds.  And for Cypriots of that ethnically divided island he is recruiting Greek and Turkish speakers so no favouritism there. German is on the list I have rarely met here or abroad a native of Germany or Austria who was unable to speak English almost fluently. Perhaps the Met knows something the rest of us are ignorant about.  With the influx of immigration from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania where Russia is a second language there is no inclusion of any of these four languages.  And Romanian and Bulgarian are also excluded when Spanish is on the list.  Gujarati is omitted whilst Hindi and Punjabi are included........bizarre!

This policy will be as short lived as the above mentioned "be a special first" policy.  It will wither without a whimper. No worries for the Met.  It`s PR department can soon persuade more hard up TV production companies to put together a few more hours cheap reality TV to tell us how wonderful they are.  

MAGISTRATES BEING "OFFENSIVE"

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) (formerly the Office for Judicial Complaints) recently published its annual report.  Nothing unusual in that one might say and one would be correct except...........when the figures are looked at more closely and especially compared to those of 2012, 2013 & 2014 as far as magistrates are concerned.

In 2012 14 J.P.s were involved.  Of these 6 were removed by reason of being low sitters and therefore not fullfilling their obligations when appointed. 8 were  removed from the magistracy.  Notably there were none who were merely given "advice" as to their conduct or were reprimanded.  Similar numbers are recorded for 2013.  7 were sacked for not meeting the minimum sitting requirements and 3 were removed for other reasons. Once again there were no complaints that resulted in non dismissal decisions.  All that changed in 2014.  There were 40 J.P.s investigated of whom 7 were sacked for low sitting and a similar number was given "advice" as to conduct.  The major change was that 24 were reprimanded over their conduct which seems largely to have been misplaced comments usually within the court or retiring room. This year to 11/05/2015  has seen 16 brought before the investigating committee of whom 5 were removed from the magistracy for being low sitters and a similar number for other reasons. 6 were reprimanded.

It seems that complaints within the court buildings  by colleagues on colleagues are increasing in number. In other activities "whistle blowers" have been newsworthy for some time usually when risks of harm to third parties are involved.  Now perhaps increased sensitivity to the spoken word has become common both in the courtroom and the retiring room. It is beyond dispute that Justices of the Peace have a duty of circumspection in what they say outside the privacy of their home and especially in the public arena but even so perhaps "offensive" has been applied in circumstances beyond the meaning of the word.  

I do recall about ten years ago a colleague commented to a Saudi national convicted of theft that he was lucky he wasn`t in his own country where he would have been at risk of losing a hand.  She was asked to explain her comments before the Deputy Justices Clerk who had been informed of her remarks by a winger.  She duly did making it clear that she wasn`t prepared to be reprimanded for making a statement both true and pertinent to the situation. To give him the credit due the DJC took the complaint no further. I wonder what the situation would be today.

RENEWAL

Over the last few days the British Medical Association has been making clear the views of its members in opposition to the Health Secretary`s stated intention of ensuring a fully operational seven day service at NHS hospitals.  Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the BMA there is no doubt that it is putting forward its policies and arguments effectively. Compare that with the Magistrates Association`s responses to the actual and proposed closure of about a quarter of magistrates` courts since 2010.  The following is its response:-

MA National Chairman Richard Monkhouse has commented:

“Our members know that court closures are coming, the Lord Chancellor and his predecessor have both said as much. We accept that there is scope for efficiencies in the system and that frankly some courts are underused due to a variety of reasons, not least the trend in fewer cases coming to court over recent years.
“As with previous closures, our prime concern is that access to justice and the administration of the law is not adversely effected. To that end we will be engaging with the consultation and making our views known accordingly.”

Now........it is beyond question that comparing magistrates and the M.A. to doctors and the BMA is almost but not quite like comparing chalk to cheese.  Their membership, finances, constitution  and functions are totally different but that IMHO does not excuse the MA from appearing to be a lapdog kowtowing to government dictat.  Surely there is room for a new organisation which actually works on behalf of and in the protection of Justices of the Peace.  

THE ARROGANCE OF POWER

So..........more courts are to close........oops! apologies for misleading my reader.  The government has just issued a consultation on the topic.  That makes a big difference of course.  It`s available here but after reading through all the self congratulations by the minister the appropriate page appears not to be available. 

P.S. Notice where he describes courts` availabilities by car travel.  Perhaps it doesn`t occur to the arrogant worthies who write these pieces that so many attendees at magistrates` courts rely upon public transport. 

LEGLESS DONKEYS

If prizes were awarded for  an  ability on meeting a donkey  to leave it without the benefit of its hind legs  it would surely be awarded to the rabid left wingers in academia and politics who rarely fail to use one word when a dozen are available.  With the spectacle of Greece before us there are still so many who don`t acknowledge that King Cnute contrary to popular belief did not attempt to show his earls and thanes he could control the waves but indeed the exact opposite; that he too was a mortal being who had no powers to that effect. With Michael Gove exorting more lawyers to work pro bono is this the new  government`s way to improve productivity?

A group writing under the banner of Respublica believes there are professionals who owe it to society to work for nothing.  They wrap up so much verbiage in the 36 pages they take to offer their message I fear for the future of the donkey as a species.  Who am I to argue with such enlightened minds.  I wonder if Jeremy Corbyn is a subscriber or even the aforesaid Mr Gove?

TRANSLATION SERVICES BY CAPITA plc

More numbers to be crunched upon with regard to translation services provided to the MOJ by Capita plc who you might recall  secured their contract in somewhat unusual circumstances at the beginning of 2012.

"THIS IS YOUR FINAL FINAL CHANCE"

Considering that about 70% of crime is committed under the influence of or for the acquisition of drink or drugs I am firmly of the belief that our laws should be amended so that confirmed and unrelenting alcoholics and/or drug addicts who are  a danger to themselves and/or the public should be incarcerated in a medical institution where their addictions can be treated by specialists.  This of course would be expensive but not as costly as the merry-go-round of offence, arrest, court, prison, release, offence............The case reported here is a typical classic example of where we are now  from the bench chairman`s patronising words......“You could say a suspended sentence order is a suspended sentence order and he should go to prison. “He is making progress with the probation service and they still want to work with him..........“He has shown gumption and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.” “This is your final, final chance.” to the utter disrepute into which the meaning of justice is brought.  A suspended sentence order is meaningless if it is not executed to some degree without good cause.  One third sentence reduction for an early guilty plea is a joke thought up years ago to encourage villains not to try for an acquittal at trial when there is absolutely no hope.  In a case like this and a million others it makes a mockery of the system yet again.  So this being a final final chance what hope is there for the protection of the public including supermarkets?  Where are the politicians with  cajones big enough to make the appropriate proposals?

POLICE ETHIC

Police officers don`t like being argued with.  Anyone familiar with magistrates` courts proceedings will be only too familiar with the scenario; a police officer tells a by stander or otherwise disinterested passer by to move on or similar and that person comments on the activities before him or her or contests the officer`s authority.  Before too long the matter has escalated and the 3rd party is in handcuffs.  It comes to court and the defendant is acquitted and the question in the retiring room is how could such a matter after supposedly being reviewed by CPS actually come to court. Although the report here is sparse and it seems it has yet to come to court the thrust of the case is the manner in which the defendant complained of the treatment to which he was subjected as a result of objecting to the original police action.   Is it really in anybody`s interest except a cop getting another collar for such apparent aggression to be part and parcel of the police ethic?