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.