GOVERNMENTS DO BUSINESS; AN OXYMORON

Governments, whatever their protestations, seem only interested in the short term. Gordon Brown`s sale of much of the country`s gold reserves at the turn of the millenium when gold was at its lowest level for twenty years is perhaps the most infamous  such decision of recent years.  The selling of supposedly underused magistrates` courts` buildings at rock bottom prices, many in prime locations in town centres, is another example although usually known only to locals in the property business.  Bow Street Magistrates` Court was not just another court.  It was perhaps, after the Old Bailey, the most famous court in the entire world. In 2005 it was sold to an Irish property developer for €25 million.  Until recently it has remained empty.  After passing through the hands of Austrian hoteliers Rudolf and Christian Ploberger it has now been acquired by a Qatar company which plans to finally convert the old monument into another luxury hotel in Central London; a hotel one might say to be fit for a prince.  The price paid was £125 million. 

The costs of so called private finance initiative initiated by the Blair Brown combo during their years of covering the cracks in our society politically,  financially, morally and spiritually are being paid for at the present time and for many years into the future.  The sale of the courts` estate is likely to prove very *profitable for most of the buyers. 

Quite simply governments have shown themselves to be hopeless at the business of business.  Heaven help us when the real negotiations begin in Brussels and I`m a lifelong brexiteer.

	*
	FOI - 91736		July 2014

Freedom of Information Request

You asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

     “(1) Which court buildings closed since May 2010 have been disposed of

(a)  on the open market and (b) through an alternative route;

(2)Which court buildings announced for closure since May 2010 have been 

      (a) disposed of and (b) not disposed of;

(3) Of those courts announced to be closing since May 2010 that have been disposed of; and how much has been generated in capital receipts from their disposal.”

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for, and I am pleased to provide this to you in the annex to this letter. Table 1 provides information on court buildings disposed of since May 2010 on the open market and through alternative routes and the receipts generated. Table 2 provides information on court buildings announced for closure since May 2010 that have not yet been disposed of.

 Annex

Table 1: Court buildings closed since May 2010 that have been disposed of, their disposal method and the receipt generated

Property Name	Disposal Method	Receipt
Aberaeron Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£225,000
Aberdare Magistrates' and County Court	Open Market	£275,000
Abertillery Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£81,000
Acton Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£1,171,650
Alnwick Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£20,000
Ammanford Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£90,000
Ashford Magistrates' and County Court	Open Market	£375,000
Balham Youth Court	Open Market	£2,000,000
Barking and Dagenham Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£505,000
Barry Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£250,000
Barnsley Crown Court	Open Market	£170,000
Batley & Dewsbury  Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£300,000
Blandford Forum Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£175,000
Blaydon Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£145,000
Brentford Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£650,000
Bristol Magistrates Court	Open Market	£1,800,000
Camborne Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£137,500
Cardigan Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£48,909
Carmarthen CC	Open Market	£275,000
Coalville Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£245,000
Consett County Court	Open Market	£125,000
Cromer Magistrates Court	Open Market	£325,000
Daventry Magistrates Court	Open Market	£140,000
Denbigh Magistrates Court	Special Purchaser Sale to Denbigh Town Council	£165,000
Dewsbury County Court	Open Market	£278,000
Didcot Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£400,000
Ely Magistrates' Court	Special Purchaser Sale to Ely Council	£1
Gosforth Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£378,000
Guisborough Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£275,000
Halesowen Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£315,000
Haringey Magistrates	Open Market	£10,100,000
Harrow Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£1,125,000
Harwich MC	Open Market	£352,500
Hemel Hempstead Magistrates' Court	Special Purchaser Sale to Dacorum Borough Council	£650,000
Hexham Magistrates' Court	Special Purchaser Sale to Hexham Abbey	£102,500
Ilford County Court	Open Market	£1,313,013
Ilkeston Magistrates' Court	Special Purchaser Sale to Derby College	£610,000
Ipswich Crown Curt	Open Market	£360,000
Keighley Crown Court	Open Market	£130,000
Knowsley Magistrates Court	Open Market	£250,000
Launceston Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£87,500
Liskeard Magistrates Court	Open Market	£380,000
Llandrindrod Wells Magistrates Court	Open Market	£34,400
Llwynypia Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£471,010
Market Harborough Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£291,500
Melton Mowbray MC/CC		£147,000
Neath Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£450,000
Newark Magistrates' and County Court	Special Purchaser Sale to Newark College	£405,000
Newport Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£59,000
Newport Magistrates' Court (Gold Tops)	Open Market	£380,000
Northwich Magistrates' and County Court	Open Market	£260,000
Penrith Magistrates' and County Court	Open Market	£175,000
Penzance County Court	Open Market	£230,000
Pontypool Crown Court	Open Market	£200,000
Port Talbot	Open Market	£225,000
Pwllheli Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£131,101
Rawtenstall Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£135,000
Redditch Crown Court	Open Market	£345,000
Retford Magistrates Court	Open Market	£151,000
Rugby Magistrates' and County Court	Open Market	£285,000
Salford Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£544,000
Sandbach (HMCS Offices)	Open Market	£200,000
Southport Magistrates Court	Open Market	£304,000
Sittingbourne Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£430,000
Sudbury Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£112,000
Sutton Coldfield Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£440,000
Sutton Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£2,247,000
Swaffham Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£150,000
Tamworth Magistrates' and County Court	Special Purchaser Sale to Staffordshire County Council	£437,500
Tower Bridge Magistrates Court	Open Market	£8,525,000
Thetford Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£232,500
Wareham MC	Open Market	£290,000
West Bromwich Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£165,000
Whitehaven Magistrates Court	Open Market	£200,000
Wisbech Magistrates Court	Open Market	£150,000
Witney Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£330,000
Woking Magistrates' Court	Special Purchaser Sale to Surrey County Council	£1,050,000
Woolwich Magistrates' Court	Open Market	£335,000
Grays Magistrates' Court	Lease Surrender	n/a
Llangefni Magistrates' Court	Lease Surrender	n/a
Total		£47,317,584

Note: A "special Purchaser Sale" is where the eventual buyer was identified at a very early stage in the pre-marketing process as a 'special purchaser'. 

Table 2: Court buildings announced for closure since May 2010 that have not yet been disposed of

Property Name	Current Position
Bournemouth Magistrates Court	Not yet on the market
Bishop Auckland Magistrates & County Court	Under Offer
Bracknell Magistrates Court	Not yet on the market
Bridgeport Magistrates' Court	Under Offer
Bridgwater Magistrates’ Court	On the Market
Burton-upon-Trent County Court	On the Market
Cirencester Magistrates’ Court	On the Market
Coleford Magistrates’ Court	Not yet on the market
Dorking Magistrates' Court	Contract Exchanged
Epping Magistrates’ Court	Under Offer
Flint Magistrates' Court	Not yet on the market
Frome Magistrates' Court	Contract Exchanged
Goole Magistrates' Court	On the Market
Haywards Heath Magistrates' Court	Contract Exchanged
Honiton Magistrates’ Court	On the Market
Houghton Le Spring Magistrates' Court	Under Offer
Houghton Le Spring The Ville	On the Market
Keighley Magistrates' Court	On the Market
Lewes Magistrates’ Court	Contract Exchanged
Lyndhurst Magistrates’ Court	Not yet on the market
Market Drayton Magistrates' Court	On the Market
Oswestry Magistrates' Court & County Court	Not yet on the market
Pontefract Magistrates’ Court	On the Market
Rochdale Magistrates’ Court	Contract Exchanged
Sherbourne Magistrates' Court	On the Market
Selby Magistrates’ Court	On the Market
Stoke-on-Trent Magistrates’ Court	On the Market
Totnes Magistrates’ Court	On the Market
Towcester Magistrates' Court	Not yet on the Market
Wantage Magistrates Court	Contract Exchanged
Wimborne Magistrates' Court	Under Offer
Witham Magistrates Court	Under Offer
Weston Super Mare Magistrates Court	Not yet on the market

FIRST HEARINGS AT VIRTUAL COURTS

During my time on the bench the main use of video appearances was for bail applications from remand prisoners.  Virtual courts are now common place as I understand.  What I hadn`t realised was the burden upon defence lawyers when such procedures are in place.  Law Society guidance published earlier this year is quite an eye opener.  Just as landlords and estate agencies under recent legislation have had thrust upon them a duty of establishing a prospective tenant`s right of abode in the UK or hospitals` requirement to undertake similar checks on foreign patients the onus has been placed upon lawyers to ascertain situations with which they might feel less than comfortable or indeed competent. When these additional tasks are combined with the meagre fees of legal aid it is no surprise that there is a danger of the process being given less than 100% attention.  The explosion in numbers and responsibilities of "agencies" at arms length control of government and duties placed upon third parties in order for said governments to evade direct responsibilities is a blight on all of us. 

WITNESS [IDENTITY WITHHELD] FOR THE PROSECUTION

A blog which has been around for as long as I have or longer; The Defence Brief, has today published information which should be read by all who are interested in the criminal law and the attempts to diminish rights of the individual within that context.

LATE NIGHT PISS UP IN CHESTER

There are some factors in the ladder of life that hit home only when one reaches the upper rungs. One of the most telling is the apparent shrinkage of the human bladder. In common with many of my generation I have found that when one is away from home and notices the proximity of an apparently clean and well ordered public lavatory one makes use of the facility whether or not in urgent need. Most J.P.s have adjudicated on cases involving this ultimate human requirement to urinate in inappropriate places. Rarely in my experience have offenders been of the retired variety: more often than not they have been of the young and inebriated variety. They can be summonsed on a variety of charges and sometimes one can but feel the utmost sympathy for such individuals…….there but for the grace of god go I. The provision of town or city centre facilities when the pubs close is variable to say the least as are the obviously unpleasant results of such variability.

Chester City Management are trying to civilise the situation within normal shopping hours whereby the public can use the facilities at various retail establishments without the need to purchase anything or to be made an object of embarrassment. But all is not free flowing and unfortunately for late might revellers the story is not quite the same. But instead of being in the dock at the local magistrates` court a few years ago the powers that be  devised an out of court disposal that they hoped would act as a deterrent to future bladder incontinence; a walking tour of those areas favoured by late night public excreters. It seems that disposal has been disposed of. But the great British, in this case, Chester public, doesn`t take such discomforts lying down.

COMPUTER SAYS GUILTY

Yesterday I posted on proposed new sentencing guidelines on breach of court orders and in particular breach occurring whilst an offender is under a suspended sentence order.  My conclusion was that the greatly increased minutia of the sentencing structure has allowed sentencing per se to have become almost a tick box exercise, such a philosophy having supposedly been considered and rejected when Sentencing Guidelines was first published.  With a lay bench of three magistrates there is always the possibility of a single voice suggesting a variation from the guidelines when there is sufficient reason to back up such a  proposal.  When a District Judge (MC) is presiding that option is removed.  A recent development is for a single magistrate to sit alone in an office albeit with a legal advisor in simple matters which do not have a possible custodial outcome and are generally strict liability.  My initial comment on that scenario is the difficulty that that J.P. might find if for whatever reason within lawful boundaries s/he has a different opinion from the L/A on outcome especially with some L/As tending to advise to or sometimes beyond the limits of their responsibilities. Considering the trend over the last decade it does not appear to be fanciful to predict the possibility of a non human digital approach to trial and sentencing.  Verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights have been subjected to analyses which predicted verdicts of a computer accurately in 79% of cases. It is only a matter of a generation before such artificial intelligences become even more a part of our daily life.  Who is to say that those advances will not include interaction with current legal processes. 

NEW? GUIDANCE? [AND OBFUSCATION] ON BREACH OF COURT ORDERS

When the concept  which became Sentencing Guidelines was in an embryonic stage great consideration was given to the tick box thinking behind guidelines of the State of Michigan USA.  This approach was rejected at the time [2006]  With the latest consultation likely to be incorporated into the current Guidelines in 2017 it seems that we have travelled from London to Michigan via the North Pole or  its southern counterpoint; take your metaphorical pick. It now appears that public protection is to be a consideration in sentencing for breaches of court orders.  What`s so innovative about this aspect of the job?  I, and many former colleagues, applied such  modus operendi to our sentencing structure years ago even when a legal advisor thought it inappropriate.  In doing so we would make the point clearly in the sentencing pronouncement.  No bench on which I was a participant was ever appealed on that basis nor was any colleague`s as far as I know.  Now it is likely  to be official policy.  

Interesting comments in the documents published today concern suspended sentence orders or more simply custody suspended.  As I had to advise various colleagues and also probation officers upon their pre sentence reports recommending SSOs; the custody threshold has to be crossed before consideration can be given to its suspension. It would seem that not all sentencers follow that line of reasoning because amongst other matters in the documents is written, "Since there is no current guidance on all types of breach of court orders and where there is, its scope and format varies, this will replace the existing out of date instructions that have seen some suspended sentences being imposed when a custodial sentence was not the appropriate sentence". [my underline] In another curious observation there is a statement of what is an admittedly lack of information on sanctions for breaches of SSOs; "Very little evidence is available regarding current sentencing practice for breach of suspended sentences. The Council therefore explored this in discussions with sentencers and probation officers and staff. A review of case transcripts was also conducted, to identify factors currently influencing activation of custodial sentences upon breach, and when it may be unjust to activate a suspended sentence in full or in part." I can say with full knowledge that this is wilful head in the sand obfuscation by the MOJ.  

A Freedom of Information was made last year on this very subject........ Dear Ministry of Justice,
    
     For the last five years how many suspended sentence orders have
     been made by magistrates` courts in actual numbers and as a
     percentage of all custodial orders?
    
     For the last five years how many of these SSOs as above have been
     breached and resulted in the activation in whole or part of these
     orders in actual numbers and as a percentage of all SSOs 



The answer was as follows:-

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice holds the information that you have asked for. However, because the cost of complying with your request would exceed the limit set by the Freedom of Information Act, on this occasion I'm afraid I will not be taking your request further. In this letter I explain why that is the case and I also provide you with some advice as to how you could refine your request so that we may be able to answer it.

The law allows us to decline to answer FOI requests when we estimate it would cost us more than £600 (equivalent to 3½ working days’ worth of work, calculated at £25 per hour) to identify, locate, extract, and then provide the information that has been asked for.

It may help if I explain that the Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database holds information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. This database holds information on offences provided by the statutes under which proceedings are brought but not all the specific circumstances of each case. This centrally held information does not allow us to separately identify breaches of suspended sentence orders. This detailed information is not reported to Justice Statistics Analytical Services due to its size and complexity.

In this instance, to provide you with the information, we would be required to contact all Magistrates’ courts in England and Wales and ask them to search individual case files where a suspended sentence order was given to ascertain how many orders were breached.  To collect and collate the information you require on the scale you have requested would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ set out in Section 12(1) of the FOIA.

You can find out more about Section 12(1) by reading the extract from the Act and some guidance points we consider when applying this exemption, attached at the end of this letter.

You can also find more information by reading the full text of the Act, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/12.

Whilst you could narrow the scope of your request in order to try and bring it within the cost limit, for example by requesting information for a particular court, I would like to take this opportunity to advise you that it is very likely that any information that may be held within scope of your request may be exempt from disclosure under the FOIA under the terms of Section 32 (Court Records). Therefore it is likely that any subsequent narrowed request could be refused under Section 32.

However, outside the scope of the Act and on a discretionary basis  I am pleased to inform you that you can view data on suspended sentences given at Magistrates ‘ courts via the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2014

Select and open “Magistrates’ court data tool” folder

You will be able to view the number of suspended sentences given at Magistrates’ court in England and Wales, from 2004 to 2014. The percentage of suspended sentence orders can be calculated by dividing the number of suspended sentence orders by the number of custodial sentences and then multiplying by 100.

To conclude, Martin Graham of the Sentencing Council seems now to accept that public protection is an important factor in the sentencing of those who breach court orders. “Where they breach orders and cause or risk harm or distress to others, they can expect robust penalties to be imposed.” [my underline]

With a labyrinthine maze required for the operation of these latest guidelines perhaps a simple tick box a la Michigan would be preferable on our aforesaid journey from London.  

OURS NOT TO REASON WHY?

Whilst I was active in my chosen profession more than once I refused to offer my services requested by some individuals because for various reasons I considered that any actions I might have undertaken for or on their behalf were liable to be misconstrued or a basis for spurious complaints based upon their likely malevolence.  I should add that I was a self employed person offering my services under my own name.  I most certainly was not an employee in a public service. In fact my position was similar to the Asher family who own and manage a bakery in Belfast and who, earlier today, faced the disappointment of losing their appeal against their refusal to bake a cake for a same sex couple.  The Appeal Court apparently based its decision against the Asher`s  argument that the bakery would have been endorsing gay marriage equality by baking the cake. 

Apart from that factor to this simple J.P. (retired) that decision seems to find no reason to consider that a self employed business owner can refuse to offer his trade or service at his/her discretion.  So where are we with what I suppose is an equality based fundamental?  If a service or good  is supplied to person "A" and s/he complains with no evidence or argument in support that the service is not to a certain prescribed standard, requests a refund and threatens further action but then requests that a similar service or good be supplied to a relative and this request is refused is there a breach of the law? Indeed is the refusal to supply a service without giving a reason sufficient for legal action to be taken? 

I am not a person of religion but I do have every sympathy for the Ashers. 

RANK LOSSES

On July 22nd after a little research I posted on the numbers and ratios of ranks within the police forces of England and Wales.  It is interesting to note that the Met intends to remove the ranks of Chief Inspector and Commander.  Removal of Assistant Commissioner rank is also possible. It is not unlikely that where the Met leads others will follow.

A USEFUL QUESTION AND ANSWER

Some Commons questions to Justice ministers are so off the page that it seems to me that they are asked  simply for the M.P. involved to be able to add to his list of "see what I do for you, my constituents.....how important and clever I am."  But the question and answer available here concerning assaults on police officers is actually quite useful; in my humble opinion of course.

THE MAGISTRACY; ARE ITS DAYS NUMBERED?

I have seen the future of the magistracy and it is uncertain.  That, in a nutrshell, is what I get from reading the report published yesterday. Some points unsurprisingly seem more significant than others.  There was a conclusion that magistrates indeed suffer from low morale or perhaps the report could have been more honest and should have read that they have had low morale thrust upon them.  There was endorsement of changes to allow J.P.s to sit singly on simple summary non imprisonable cases eg TV licensing but also including driving without insurance; an offence which could involve a driving disqualification.  That seems incongruous cf eg to no TV license. There was also equivocation that a single J.P. sitting in an office dispensing justice on papers submitted would not be presiding over justice being seen to be done in a public forum.  There was general satisfaction that a lay bench could be entrusted to preside when its maximum tariff was doubled to twelve months custody although there was the usual objection from the usual suspects namely The Prison Reform Trust and  the Howard League for Penal Reform.  Proposals for perhaps increased out of court activities were welcomed as were so called  problem solving courts.    That there was support from any quarter including J.P.s for fixed term appointment is astonishing.  For those interested refer to section 3. In what profession is it considered that after ten years training and experience your time is up?  The reasons put forward were spurious to say the least. There was a great deal devoted to training: the action of teaching a person or animal a particular skill or type of behaviour. I sense that much of what was written on that subject would have been more accurately written under a heading of indoctrination: to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.  There was a sense throughout that a core system had to be followed beyond IMHO that required by a J.P.`s oath of office.  Unsurprisingly the system or non system of appraisal and CPD were  interrogated.  Having myself undergone appraisal by a member of another LJA I was surprised that according to the report all appraisals are carried out within home court by home court appraisor colleagues.  There certainly is room for improvement but the current fad for CPD seems to be a step too far. It`s a bit like expecting auxilliary firefighters to  call out to an explosion in a tube station; it is beyond their call of duty.  If HMCTS as I believe would prefer only full time professional judiciary  to sit in the lower court it should be open about it. 

As it is with the conclusions that the lower court should have a twelve month sentencing power, that problem solving courts should be presided over by J.P.s, that J.P.s should sit as wingers with DJs presiding  and support for other out of court activities my take from the very lengthy document and notes is that all these factors with nefarious reasoning behind them lead to the result that my opinion of some years that the magistracy in 2025 will be demoted to only out of court functions has not been altered.   In its current form its days are numbered.

THE FUTURE OF THE MAGISTRACY

The hot topic amongst legal observers is Role of the magistracy within the criminal justice system.  My comments when I have fully digested the content.

STATISTICS MISUNDERSTOOD AND THE POLICE

Statistics statistics and ever more statistics are the curate`s egg of modern civilisation; good in parts if we only knew which parts.  Many media today are commenting on an independent analysis of the government`s Troubled Families programme which is excoriating in its analysis of the outcomes in contrast to government claims of 98.9% per cent of families being helped.  The NHS and the police are probably the most high profile quangos which also attempt to bewitch bother and bewilder us with numbers.  

Leicester Constabulary is no shirker in this regard.  Leave a window open or be careless in closing your back door securely and you can forget about any investigation if you`re unlucky enough to be burgled. "But" says a Leicester police chief, we didn`t mean that.  As the 60`s Newcastle R&B group put it so memorably for those of a certain vintage, " But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood." 

I say to Leicester cops......it doesn`t wash.  You`ve got history in trying to evade your responsibilities or as you might put it......attempting to manage these responsibilities with ever reducing budgets. Last year if one were a citizen of this ancient city and were unfortunate to live in a street with odd number in the address and  had reason to believe somebody had tried to break in there would have been no member of that force breaking the speed limit in their grossly overdecorated BMW rushing to your aid.  No trainee detective would have been eagerly taking notes and summoning scene of crime officers to search for clues.  

Other forces are also misleading us with numbers unrelated to actions. Defiance of rules is almost endemic. The Met is literally a law unto itself. Its actions in relation to misconduct hearings of senior officers is to make them go away. Other forces including North Yorkshire have tried to bar reporters from misconduct hearings.   Of course numbers of officers being investigated owing to complaints from the public are published by the IPCC but so much of the whole procedure is controlled by individual police forces that one must have serious doubts as to the overall process and the accuracy of the findings.  It is therefore hardly surprising that the IPCC will be undergoing major change during this parliament. For public confidence in our police it`s not before time.

When a newspaper reporter attempted to attend the first day of the hearing earlier this week, they were turned away on the grounds that they had not given the required two days notice.

Read more at: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/yorkshire-police-inspector-keeps-job-after-misconduct-hearing-1-8142012

When a newspaper reporter attempted to attend the first day of the hearing earlier this week, they were turned away on the grounds that they had not given the required two days notice.

Read more at: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/yorkshire-police-inspector-keeps-job-after-misconduct-hearing-1-8142012

MET POLICE TO USE BODY WORN CAMERAS

The  Metropolitan Police today announced all officers are to wear body-worn cameras.  Personally I am not persuaded against this initiative.  However in an article copied below first published in the web journal Policing Insight already the arguments against this initiative are being made. Make up your mind time has arrived.

 

"Body-worn cameras for police officers are being rolled out globally, but until recently, limited evidence was available as to their effects. In one of the largest randomised-controlled trials in criminal justice history, the University of Cambridge and RAND Europe have recently published several papers looking at the new technology - with some surprising results. Alex Sutherland of RAND Europe outlines the findings and their implications.

Billions of dollars are being spent worldwide on the roll-out of body-worn cameras for police officers. With so much at stake, there is an urgent need to understand whether body-cameras are helping police officers and members of the public, and under what conditions they work best.

“ We are only just beginning to understand the full ramifications of applying this technology on the frontline of policing.

Body-worn cameras should, in theory, help both police officers and the public they serve.
The basic notion is that awareness of being filmed should help to curb inappropriate behaviour by police and/or suspects, keeping situations calmer. Evidence from a range of sources shows both humans and animals alter their behaviour if they know they are being watched.
The camera’s effects are not limited to the street. Footage from body cameras should aid prosecutions and help improve police accountability.
However, the idea that body-worn cameras are inherently ‘good for policing’, or can do all that is claimed of them is more complicated in reality.
Our research finds plenty of areas around their use that need to be considered. It concludes that we are only just beginning to understand the full ramifications of applying this technology on the frontline of policing.
One of the largest trials in history
In one of the largest randomised-controlled trials in criminal justice history, the University of Cambridge and RAND Europe have published several studies looking at body-worn cameras’ use in law enforcement.
This research, led by Dr. Barak Ariel at the University of Cambridge, included eight UK and U.S. police forces, 2,122 participating officers, a total population of two million citizens, and encompassed two million hours across 4,264 shifts.
The studies focused on assaults against officers, use-of-force by officers and complaints against police by the public.
Surprising results
The findings from the first study are perhaps surprising. Rates of assault against officers during arrest were 15 per cent higher when body-worn cameras were in use, compared to shifts where cameras were not present.

“ On the other hand, if cameras genuinely increase the risk of assaults then we need to understand why this is happening.

We think there are two plausible explanations for this finding.
First, police officers might feel more able and equipped to report assaults against them once they are captured on camera, even if the officer does not sustain visible injuries. This footage can provide officers with the confidence and impetus to report assaults.
Secondly, there is an argument that the video monitoring might make police officers less assertive and more vulnerable to assault, meaning that the actual rate of assaults increases.
Whatever explanation is correct, it is important to understand this in more detail. On the one hand, improved reporting of assaults means officers could receive more support and recognition. On the other hand, if cameras genuinely increase the risk of assaults then we need to understand why this is happening.
Use of force 
The findings from the second study on the rate of use-of-force by police on suspects during arrest were also contrary to our expectations.
The rate remained unchanged by the presence of body-worn cameras on average, but further analysis showed that this result depended on whether or not officers used their discretion about when to turn cameras on.
During the research, officers were instructed to record all stages of police-public interactions and issue a verbal warning of filming at the outset.
However, many officers preferred to use their discretion, activating cameras depending on the situation. This is important, as police officers sticking closer to the protocol led to use-of-force falling by 37 per cent, whereas use-of-force increased when officers used their discretion.
Drop in complaints
More recently, the third study found a 93 per cent drop in complaints made against police forces following the introduction of cameras.

“ We called this ‘contagious accountability’, as we think the ‘civilising effect’ of wearing cameras on some shifts ‘spilt over’ to when officers were not wearing cameras.

There are two possible reasons for this steep fall. The presence of the cameras could mean that police officers are behaving more appropriately in encounters with suspects and, as a result, fewer complaints are made against them.
On the other hand, it could be that the footage from the body cameras provides evidence of encounters between police officers and members of the public, so inaccurate complaints are less likely to be made.
What was interesting is that we saw an across-the-board decrease in complaints, both in situations where officers were wearing cameras and where they were not.
We called this ‘contagious accountability’, as we think the ‘civilising effect’ of wearing cameras on some shifts ‘spilt over’ to when officers were not wearing cameras.
Further research
Complaints against police are costly, both financially and in terms of public trust. In the US, complaints can be hugely expensive, with some resulting in multimillion-dollar lawsuits (just one of these can wipe out the budget for a small to medium sized police force). Meanwhile, in the UK last year, data from the UK Independent Police Complaints Commission showed a continuous rise in complaints across the majority of forces, with each requiring investigation (and thus cost).
Further research continues to be carried out that looks at the use of body-worn cameras within police forces. This is important in explaining the reasons behind these findings and gathering further evidence for what works in policing regarding the use of body-cameras. In the meantime, more training and engagement with police officers could help to ensure they are confident in the decisions they make while wearing cameras, and are safe in their job.

Alex Sutherland is a research leader at RAND Europe. He will be chairing the opening session of the University of Cambridge’s Festival of Ideas on Monday 17^th October called ‘Body cameras: safety or threat?’"

LOW VALUE SHOP THEFT IS SUMMARY ONLY OR IT SHOULD BE?

Sometimes one is faced with a situation so obvious to the observer but apparently to nobody else that there is hesitation in even mentioning it.  Such was my reaction today on reading of a trial by jury for a supermarket theft of goods to the value of £20.79.  Although new guidelines came into operation since my retirement from the bench it was my opinion that in such a situation this offence should be  treated as a summary only offence in accordance with section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 where the maximum is 6 months’ custody.  However this is subject to one exemption; an adult defendant is to be given the opportunity to elect Crown Court trial; and if the defendant so elects; the offence is no longer summary and will be sent to the Crown Court (new section 22A(2))

With many offenders thinking in error [or persuaded so to do by their lawyer] that juries are less likely to convict than magistrates is this exemption not a waste of time?  Low value theft should not allow for election by a defendant. It should be summary only.....end of story.

COURT INTERPRETER STATISTICS

If there is one factor about our justice system as a whole of which we should be proud  it is the intention, although not always achieved, to ensure that any witness will have provided an interpreter if the court or tribunal has doubts as to an individual`s ability to comprehend the proceedings if English is not a first language.  How often do we read of British citizens abroad being forced to endure legal proceedings without such services being provided.  Detailed figures on the provision of language services are available here with an accompanying guide.

CLOWNING AROUND

Halloween will soon be upon us with the dreadful American cover all of "trick or treat" now firmly established upon the mainly middle classes and their children.  So we middle and working classes who are preyed upon and who likely live  in houses and not five storey housing blocks  will have the required bribes near at hand to pacify the young beggars even those dressed in clown outfits. Is it a coincidence of the calendar that adults dressed a la Stephen King`s killer clown have been playing games here and in the United States; games which might frighten those of a nervous disposition?  What seems certainly not playful is the attitude of police and in this instance police in Worcester.  Assuming that said clowns are not in possession of any bladed article or similar is it really necessary to take such a heavy approach to what are probably lonely miserable misguided adults who are so pathetic that they cannot perceive that their behaviour whilst not threatening might actually frighten some folk. Do such individuals realise they run the risk of a declarable criminal record by their foolish antics?  I suppose that for the police it`s an easy collar and one more supposed crime solved.

GAGGING INTERNET TROLLS OR GAGGING FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

It seems that Alison Saunders at the CPS is about to slice just a little bit more from our freedom of speech.  In the aftermath of many comments, some more warranted than others, on the effects on psychologically vulnerable individuals  of on line abuse Ms Saunders has warned that social media users could be prosecuted for a range of offensive behaviour not excluding virtual mobbing or doxxing which means putting someone`s personal details on line. On the other hand she has advised that prosecutors should exercise considerable caution before bringing charges under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Communications Act 2003.  The new guidelines state that the communication or post must be more than offensive, shocking, disturbing, satirical, iconoclastic or rude and be more than an expression of  unpopular or unfashionable opinion, banter or humour even if distasteful.  It will interesting to read of the application of the guidelines in the next well publicised such case in the public domain.

SENTENCING OF PAEDOPHILES

In the year ended March 2015  6400 convictions for paedophilic and other sexual offences were recorded. In the first quarter of this year 2288 cases were brought before the courts either way or on indictment. We are told that sentencing for such offences has become more severe but as in all statistics there are anomalies.  In this case the offender was given seven years custody but as in all such disposals it is not unlikely he will be released early.  It cannot be said that the sentence was unreasonably harsh or too light.  Yet in this matter twelve months custody suspended for two years was the outcome.  Another case that caught my attention was  this one where the disposal was 10 months custody suspended for two years plus extras with a most bizarre plea of mitigation apparently helpful in his escaping immediate custody.    

Such heinous activities are on the increase.  Their detection and processing through the justice system costs a fortune. If thought through logically why should these perverts not be required to pay substantial sums towards these costs.  After all many other users of the justice system are being given no choice whether in the civil or criminal courts about paying for the privilege.  Substantial costs could be offered by offenders to receive a reduction in custody imposed.  Of course some would object that going down this route would benefit wealthy offenders but are not higher fines already available in magistrates` courts in lieu of more onerous disposals?