THE NOT SO SIMPLE SACKING OF RICHARD PAGE EX J.P.

Ex magistrate Richard Page is continuing his protest at being sacked from office by suing the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice.  This is a very interesting and important case because the outcome will be significant to all who hold what some would describe as intolerant religious beliefs. It is not unlikely that the many Muslim magistrates who statistically would hold similar beliefs are watching closely. A brief perusal of a much more detailed post of 18th March 2016 predicting such a development might assist some in understanding the origin of this situation.

BEING FREE TO OFFEND

Being free to offend is a fundamental right for a democratic society in order for that society to continue being democratic. Until recently the law in this country was the antithesis to that concept. 1st February 2014 saw the end to s.5 (1) Public Order Act thus decriminalising insulting words or behaviour in the hearing or sight of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. For "distress" read offend and many who would stifle debate have emerged as latter day Mary Whitehouses seeking to show that current fears of internet trolls are a direct result of such freedom. There is a coherent argument that the enormous increase in anti semitism disguised as anti Zionism can be attributed to that change in the law.  Nevertheless we are all better off  by facing down such arguments than prosecuting them.  I am a collector of political cartoons and for me an interesting example on this subject occurred recently in New Zealand. The original source document should be compulsory reading for all who have an opinion one way or another on whether there should be prohibition of what some would describe as offensive material and the right to publish such.

JUST ANOTHER COURT SITTING

Freemen of England: regular practitioners in the magistrates` courts will have enjoyed the appearance and ravings of those who have refused to recognise the court`s authority citing that they were members of a group as per the title at the beginning of this post.  I dealt with a few in my time. I particularly recollect a male about 50 years old who was dressed as if about to appear in a pantomime as Toad of Toad Hall. After being sent to the cells for an hour for contempt his manner on his re-appearance in the dock was just a little subdued and his bravado gave way to humble acceptance of his fate. Suffolk magistrates appear to have been a little less robust than I when dealing with a defendant who challenged the prosecution to trial by combat.  So much for CJSSS. 

Perhaps I have harped on rather a lot about the advantage of bringing back the workhouse updated for today`s offenders.  Yet every day in every court there is a poor misbegotten soul who demonstrates that the court process is for him/her a complete waste of time and money. Here`s today`s example from the court in Durham.

SECRECY AT MAGISTRATES` COURTS

Even those who had no knowledge or interest in the Parole Board a month ago will surely have learnt something new to their advantage.  Another veil on the face of the justice system has been allowed to drop revealing that since its inception this body of the "great and the good" has been more secretive than the Masons when it comes to public scrutiny although I was pleased to note yesterday that the latter is baring its chest to allow public view of its innards. The courts too are on the same ladder to allow public scrutiny to some limited extent. Scotland has allowed cameras in court although not "live" as in America.  The Supreme Court has gone further with its proceedings indeed "live".  The internal workings of a jury are still sacrosanct although IMHO it is long overdue that all aspects of that system from eligibility (jurors currently do not need to be British citizens or be examined in their comprehension of English language) to composition; it is nonsense that a jury comprises an even and not an odd number of members.  But the deliberations by magistrates in the retiring room are not so open to scrutiny.  When I was appointed there was no requirement for the chairman to explain how the bench reached its decision.  Many did give a brief summary but it was only when it was decreed that its reasons had to be made public and recorded in the court files that attention was paid by chairmen to the views of his/her colleagues and "I feel he`s guilty" remarks were rightly criticised and replaced by reasoned logical debate.  There is, however, a very large gap in the openness as we have it today: nobody outside the retiring room knows whether the bench reached a unanimous or majority decision. I have been of the opinion for many years that this is a situation which fails the "openness" test. Juries under direction can reach a publicly stated majority of 10:2. If convicted defendants in the lower court were aware that it was a 2:1 guilty verdict then they might feel it worthwhile appealing the verdict and/or the punishment. Indeed there is an argument, however tenuous, that such a verdict should allow an automatic appeal at crown court for those who wished and/or could afford to pursue the matter. 

Recently Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd the former Lord Chief Justice has been reported as saying, "The answer to most of these problems (referring to openness of Parole Board) is open justice."  Surely a similar argument, discounting expense or politics, applies to magistrates` courts?

MISCONDUCT OF SENIOR POLICE OFFICERS

Police misconduct is rarely out of the news these days. Whether that`s because of more reports being available to the public or more actual misconduct is difficult to tell.  One thing is for sure and that is the enormous increase in the numbers of senior officers involved. Two years ago I commented at length on the situation.  We now know the scandal of the lies and cover up by those at the top of South Yorkshire Police at and following the Hillborough tragedy. Only today it has been reported that the senior detective who conducted interviews with "Nick" the informer in the Edward Heath paedophile case, Diane Tudway has been promoted to superintendent whilst she is under investigation for allegedly misleading a judge into granting search warrants to raid suspects` homes.  She is of course currently not guilty of the charge but it is disgraceful that with such a matter unconcluded she is given a promotion to such a senior rank.  Yesterday Police Scotland`s Chief Constable resigned under a cloud.  A couple of weeks ago the Deputy Chief Constable of Essex Constabulary Matthew Horne was found guilty of three counts of misconduct. At the end of last year the fourth most senior officer in Derbyshire Constabulary was suspended. Today the Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary was suspended pending a misconduct tribunal in April.  In September  Naveed Malik, assistant chief constable (ACC) at Cambridgeshire police admitted gross misconduct.  Former Wiltshire Chief Constable, involved in the "Nick" affair, and newly appointed as Cleveland Police’s new Chief Constable this week is being investigated for alleged misconduct. Very senior officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland are currently under investigation. 

These cases are from the last few months.  There have been many others of a similar nature historically but they are not available in a statistical form because the Home Office keeps the numbers of senior police officer misconduct cases under wraps; so much for freedom of information. There are numbers for the plods up to rank of Inspector but no more. The College of Policing can publish a 95 page report but statistics of those of high rank involved in misconduct.......NO!

This is a matter of great public concern or should be.  Already trust in the criminal justice system with regard to the courts` process for defendants is disturbing owing to actual failings within the Crown Prosecution Service and the lack of legal aid for a majority of defendants in the magistrates` courts. Police are at the coal face of that system and in an increasingly authoritarian and "safe space" society it is paramount that they are led by people of integrity.  It will be the misfortune for us all if standards are not raised for those paid small fortunes to do that job.  However the omens are not good.  The Home Office is unfit for purpose in this and in so many other aspects of its portfolio. 

BRITISH JUSTICE TODAY

Jails are at bursting point, probation service is overwhelmed and undermanned, police are turning blind eyes to "minor" criminality, CPS is failing in its prime duties, Justice Secretaries are playing musical chairs and the Parole Board must ask serial rapist if he consents to wearing an electronic tab were he to be released on license. I rest my case.

THE CPS SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

Two weeks ago I posted on the news that the Crown Prosecution Service was publishing its own court reports.  It seems that this is merely the beginning of a campaign by said organisation to control the news.  The finding of gross failures  in its procedures that have caused outrage in legal circles notwithstanding the personal traumas inflicted on innocent parties must have inspired its discredited DPP to accelerate the program.  With the decline in local court reporting by local media it is not unlikely that a case spun by the weasels of the CPS press office will be at best a PR moment or at worst a sign of government managed news eclipsing other sources.  Where has been the comment  of libertarians and those who value a truly free press? Justice is being assailed from many quarters.  The new CPS beta version website might not be PRAVDA but it is an unwelcome sign of things to come.

GIVING "ADVICE" TO ERRANT JUDGES

So far this year the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has issued various pieces of "advice" to three magistrates. These "investigations" in general are very often directed against those who do not perform the required number of sittings (perhaps c40% of total) or those whose behaviour or speech is considered inappropriate.  For obvious reasons where matters of sentencing by magistrates are concerned the appeal system at crown court prevails. But what happens when a judge`s sentencing decision is so out of kilter with accepted norms i.e. Sentencing Guidelines that the Appeal Court doubles the previous sentence?  My understanding is that such cases would be dealt with "informally".  This seems to fly in the face of procedures of a similar if different significance with other professions.  

In the current climate of mistrust and/or failing confidence in government in general, experts in particular and our criminal justice system above all such "in house" secretive "advice" to the bewigged should be in the public domain and the longer the wig the louder the sanction. 

HENRY VIII AND ROTTEN TOMATOES FOR THE MANY NOT THE FEW

"From today (29 January), 9 further terror-related offences will fall within the scheme which allows the public to challenge sentences handed out by the courts."

That sentence is the headline of a press release from the MOJ. Not satisfied with putting obligations to report those suspected of connection with terrorism upon landlords, estate agents, bankers, lawyers and uncle Tom Cobley the spiders at the centre of the Petty France web are seeking to have public opinion increase sentences on those convicted of terror related offences. Not satisfied with offering the judiciary so called sentencing guidelines about which the public has quite rightly no particular interest or knowledge, this government and the Ministry of so called Justice the senior incumbents of the latter being moved in and out like players in a game of musical chairs, seem only to be interested in a week`s favourable headlines.  There is absolutely no logic to this and similar actions. In the release we are informed that, "141 criminals had their sentences increased, helping victims and their families get justice. This is a small proportion of the 80,000 Crown Court cases heard each year, where in the clear majority the judiciary get it right". So because 0.18% of cases are appealed by the Attorney General a whole new avenue of legal activity is opened. If there were true philosophy in this regard it is not unlikely that there would be at the very least a substantial minority of opinion which would welcome the opportunity to reinstate the death penalty for particularly heinous murders multiple murder in the cause of terrorism being a certain candidate. Allowing public opinion to manipulate judicial decision making is no more than seeking favourable headlines from a government which has no sense of purpose and is merely looking for daily uplifts to its polling position. It began with the positioning of the "victim" to a quasi judicial role and has progressed from there.  There is no doubt that the judiciary will be undermined by this development although of course all will remain silent until they are pensioned off. Let us therefore bring back pillory and the stocks and a plentiful supply of rotten tomatoes.  At least that would be an honest expression of letting the public have what government thinks it wants. 

I am no hanger and flogger but neither am I a soft hearted believer in abolishing short sentences or for society to turn the other cheek. But I do believe that for justice to prevail there are many actions that government should take in particular with regard to legal aid and the belief that a digital image can substitute for reality.  I am however just bleating in the wind.  The authoritarianism seeping into our daily lives will only be appreciated when Cobynista Marxists rule over us and Henry VIII powers are in the hands of those who would wield them for the many not the few to our eternal cost.

WEALTH BUYS INJUSTICE

From time to time in any profession where procedures are often discretionary a ruling body or professional society will issue guidance about preferred methodology or similar such instructions. In the case of motoring offences where there is a choice of adding points to the offender`s license or imposing a disqualification, however short, advice given to me and my colleagues was to impose the requisite number of points to reflect the seriousness of the offence(s).  It seems magistrates at Norwich have not had the benefit of similar advice or were too weak to follow the unwritten guideline when they banned a wealthy businessman for a month instead of imposing 6 points on his license which as a totter would have led to a disqualification for 6 months. 

Once again justice has not been seen to be done and wealth buys injustice. It is another example of a bench being brought into disrepute by those who can afford high quality advocacy to mesmerise an ineffectual bench.   

NOT A BRITISH GULAG

Every interested party bar none voices the opinion that our prisons are overcrowded.  There are those who would abolish custodial sentences being available to magistrates` courts.  There are others who would retain custody for offences only involving violence and no others.  There will be other combinations I`m sure with a similar end result in mind.  There is, however, one feature of criminality that is unchallengeable; around 70% of crime is associated in one way or another with alcohol and/or drug abuse.  No amount of tinkering at the edges of this problem will solve it.  There must be a radical change in thinking by government, NHS and all those involved in whatever capacity.  Offending addicts must be removed from the court system and installed in a half way system in conjunction with the NHS where compulsory incarceration and treatment is available.  Those who show quick response could be released before those who reject or fail to respond to treatment adequately.  To those who liken such a proposal to a British gulag I would answer that current practice is proving ineffective and costly and a case like this is just a single example of the thousands that the courts process annually.  But as with so much that needs parliamentary attention,  with an incompetent, ineffective prime minister leading a minority government it could be decades before this aspect of our justice system receives the priority it should.

CPS PRODUCES ITS OWN COURT REPORTS

I have in the past commented on the lack of or poor quality of court reporting in local media although of late there have been some reports along the lines of "A day in the life of a magistrates` court". A year ago I posted on HMCTS producing its own court reports from West Sussex Magistrates` Courts.  It seems that now the Crown Prosecution Service is trying to alter its public persona by publishing its own reports of court proceedings.  I find this a disturbing development.  It seems that by doing this it is attempting to nudge its public image in a direction of its choosing owing to the fact that it is extremely likely that only cases which suit its objectives will be published. Nobody can doubt that the CPS has been subject to adverse criticism recently with its chief officer taking some flak from media and this blogger and others. However this is a sinister approach to improving its performance and I would hope that many in the justice system will indicate their disapproval. 

MORE COURT CLOSURES/MORE GOVT. LIES

This government`s determination to close more magistrates` courts continues.  The belief in Whitehall that video courts can deliver equal justice for all and reduce costs has become as much as a totem for the MOJ as a free at point of use NHS has become for the Health Department. Outside metropolitan areas in particular the MOJ is still providing vastly inaccurate figures for travel times on public transport for those who will be required to spend up to two hours in making their way to a courtroom for a 9.30am start including time for consultation with lawyer. 

To quote from the Northern Echo; " The Ministry of Justice is proposing to close Northallerton Magistrates Court – but its analysis states it is quicker for some people living near the town to reach Middlesbrough.The proposal to close Northallerton Magistrates Court involves transferring its work between magistrates courts at York, Harrogate, Skipton and Middlesbrough.It is currently running a consultation over the proposal.But a table which compares estimated travel times from local towns which currently use the court, appears to show it takes people one hour and 48 minutes to travel the 19 miles from Richmond to Northallerton. It also estimates it takes just under three hours by public transport, at two hours 52 minutes."

 The report continues; "Justice Minister Lucy Frazer said: “This government is investing over £1billion to reform and modernise the justice system – making it more convenient, easier to use, and providing better value for the taxpayer.
“As we increase the use of digital services, it makes sense to consider the wider role and need for Court buildings and assess whether some are still necessary to provide effective access to justice.
"Where physical courts are to close, every penny raised will be put back into funding changes which will make justice easier to access for all at the same time as offering protections for the most vulnerable.” 

Let me overlook the misuse of the word "investing". The correct term is "spending". "More convenient and easier to use"; that is nothing short of a lie.  The sale of court buildings, often at giveaway prices, is what is funding the so called digital revolution in our courts. Video courts are valuable under defined limited circumstances eg when prisoners have to appear in court. Video representation for them, usually with a lawyer in court overseeing the situation, is an efficient way to to proceed when resources are limited but for Joe Blogs encouraged at every stage to plead guilty to appear on a screen to answer a charge will lead to injustices to numerous to be collated. This is a one way development to remove citizens` rights.  It is to be deplored. 

MORE ON EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP

“The reasons for exceptional hardship are proven because you will lose your employment and a roof over your head.” This is an extract from a statement made recently by a bench chairman at Manchester Magistrates` Court. Last week I posted on exceptional hardship.  Unfortunately for motoring law and the principle of deterrence as exemplified by the totting legislation of "12 points means disqualification", the law IMHO has failed in this example. The Magistrates Association has published guidance on this matter; para 4) v is of particular interest.  A newsworthy appeal against exceptional hardship being rejected was heard in Glasgow in 2012.  The website Counsel Direct has valuable opinion on the subject. 

Exceptional hardship cases are heard almost daily in many courts nationwide.  At no time during my tenure was any official guidance given. Indeed my own notes were welcomed by many colleagues to assist them in their finding their way through sometimes lengthy appeals by advocates for the offenders. It is about time that magistrates understood all the factors which should be considered in such cases. 

CRUISE CONTROL WITH A DIFFERENCE

Car enthusiasts........now there`s a term that the green lobby would have bracketed in a similar group to litter louts or football hooligans.  I`m not at all ashamed to admit that a couple of decades ago I bought a bright red Triumph TR6 convertible; a classic British sportscar with an engine so simple to fiddle with that I with two left hands even managed to change injectors.  Belonging to the TR Club occasionally I joined with fellow enthusiasts to drive in convoy along some narrow country roads to an olde English pub where half a pint of cider was made to last a couple of hours whilst oily knowledge and experience was exchanged between geeks, anoraks or call us what you will. In fact there are dozens if not hundreds of similar groups and clubs nationwide doing exactly the same.

It seems that such activity has been banned in what is termed the Black Country for quite some time.  According to Halesowen News " A High Court decision to extend a ground-breaking injunction banning car cruising in the Black Country for a further three years has been welcomed".Apparently this prohibition includes "driving in convoy". 

I wonder if opposition from car club members has been voiced. When police nationwide are forever excusing their failures to protect people or property to have such additional tasks forced upon them seems nonsense.  But of course there`s another point of view: give police a choice between undertaking old fashioned police duties such as preventing disorder or an easy collar..............you see where I`m going so I`ll put on the handbrake now.

EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP:APPLYING GOOD JUDGEMENT AND DISCRIMINATION

Exceptional hardship is a subject that can arouse deep differences within a bench during retiring room deliberations.Indeed it has been the subject of a few posts here over the last few years. Four years ago there was this one and in June the following year I posted this. 

Generally my opinion has been that those offenders who moan the most, namely professional drivers, are deserving of the least sympathy followed by obviously wealthy individuals who could easily afford to hire a driver for six months.  However the finding of exceptional hardship is one of those remaining considerations which are entirely within the bench`s discretion.  Where some difficulty might arise in the decision making is when the offender has proven worth to the community and/or perhaps a history of good deeds or valour in the case of active or former servicemen.  There is certainly a fine line to be drawn when eg a hospital doctor applies for exceptional hardship purely on the basis of his/her occupation and a carpet fitter.  

A case earlier this week at Flintshire Magistrates` Court is a perfect example of a bench coming to what I agree was the correct decision in allowing the application to succeed.  This offender`s recent history certainly was a sound basis for allowing him to continue driving.  The problem is that I read too many reports and have experience of situations where sympathy by a bench overrides good judgement and discrimination. 

WHEN A JUDGE SWEARS

On 12th August 2016 I commented on the judge who threw verbal caution to the wind and swore back at an offender who had used his basic knowledge of olde English to vent his feelings at her.  Not surprisingly the matter reached the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office which yesterday cleared her of misconduct.  Truth be told I`m a little surprised but not disappointed. Like the rest of us judges are human and have fallibilities. What did enter my mind was the recollection of apparently heavy treatment dished out to Justices of the Peace for a lot less. I suppose some are still more equal than others.

NO NONSENSE AT LIVERPOOL CROWN COURT IN 2017

All too often blogger and public reaction to crown court sentencing is less than enthusiastic.  In an interesting and sometimes amusing report in the Liverpool Echo sentencing comments from the city`s crown court judges in 2017 are worth a few minutes reading time IMHO of course. Access the page here.

DRIVING JUSTICE WITH HANDBRAKE ON

An apparently simple case last week at Teesside Magistrates Court has left me thinking. It involved the defendant being found guilty for the second time of carrying a weapon and receiving a suspended custodial sentence.  What set what`s left of my little grey cells firing off in all directions was the conclusion reached by the bench that the knife in question was accepted as being for trade purposes; namely for decorating but also an "offensive weapon". Whilst I was active such a defence (for trade) was an acceptable defence against the charge. Has that changed?  The magistrates seem to be in two minds on this matter and have effectively driven the judicial vehicle with the hand brake applied. There is no mention in the report if his advocate was considering an appeal. Make up your mind after you read all about it here.

AND THEN THERE WERE CUTS

A new year and amid an overdue recognition by senior legal eagles on both sides of the bench that the quality of British justice is in freefall from which it might never recover it is curious to read the last 2017 edition of the Scunthorpe Telegraph copied below  highlighting what I too recollect at my own court was happening around two decades ago.  It all seems so petty now with not an inkling of the savage financial cuts which began in 2010. Kenneth Clarke who is merrily trying to usurp the decision of the British public and have the Leave decision overturned didn`t just turn a blind eye to imposed cuts as Justice Secretary in 2010; he thoroughly encouraged them with a 23% reduction in funding that year and was proud to proclaim he was the first Cabinet Minister to satisfy the Treasury of having done its wishes.  

"One piece of news hitting the headlines in Scunthorpe 20 years ago was the decision to stop the supply of free biscuits to magistrates. John Towndrow, vice-chairman of the Humberside Magistrates’ Courts Committee, revealed it cost £400 a year to provide the local justices with biscuits to dunk in their coffee and tea. He said the committee had been faced with making savings of £145,000 that year and needed to cut the annual budget by three per cent over the next three years. The cuts had led to the closure of courts in Barton, Brigg and Epworth, job losses and under-funding for ushers, with clerks on occasions having to take over their duties.

“I am bitterly disappointed that my fellow magistrates have lost the only perk they had, namely the free biscuits with their tea or coffee,” Mr Towndrow said.
“However, the search for savings in every department has led to swingeing cuts. I am sure the local justices will appreciate the reasons for the withdrawal of their biscuits.”

The cutbacks also saw filter coffee-making machines in Scunthorpe removed and replaced by jars of instant coffee, tea bags and flasks of hot water. Mr Towndrow said previously the coffee had cost 20p a cup, but now the expense had been reduced to only 4p.However, one justice of the peace, who asked to remain anonymous, told the Telegraph: “This really takes the biscuit! It will only save pennies over the year.”"

AT THIS MERRY TIME THE CANARY IS WARNING

Council Tax more than any other tax can be seen to be used where we live and work.  Many untruths about the results for non payers are propagated by political vested interests.  The actual numbers receiving the ultimate sanction and why can be accessed here.

There was great publicity from the  diarrheac output of the MOJ press office not so long ago on a new offence  of controlling or coercive behaviour under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The result? not very much........just another example of how government thinks that throwing more legislation at a problem will cure it. 

So begins another period of hedonism where the word "merry" is the common adjective.  Thinking about it that word is rarely used in any other context. My opinion for what its worth is long might that continue.  There are too many political correct apologists and activists of propagating all that`s wrong with our world.  As a non religious person I`m all for the free expression by those god fearing of one faith or another but those who are intent on taking us back to the middle ages where tolerance of difference did not exist  must not be able to have the tolerance and equal voice in this progressive world.  At some point the liberalism of the democratic state must decide when purveyors of hate must be silenced. With anti semitism once confined to private conversation now becoming an almost regular public occurrence the time must be approaching when that warning canary of religious and right and left wing extremism, call it Islamism, fascism and Marxism, must be confronted head on.     

So Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and thank you, my reader, for allowing me to occupy your time for just a few minutes today and previous days.

STATISTICS ON GENDER RELATED LEGAL MATTERS

It`s coming to that time of year when this blog and many others will go into hibernation for a couple of weeks.........but not just yet.  Recent parliamentary questions on two different subjects within the remit of the MOJ produced statistics for women and women-V-men that some readers might find interesting? disturbing? gratifying? or you name it.  Judge for yourselves below.

PRAISE FOR LOCAL COURT REPORTING

I`ve complained often enough about the lack of local court reporting. Today`s an exception. Very full reports in two local media on proceedings at Ealing and Staines Magistrates` Courts where the latter had a District Judge(MC) presiding although the reporter failed to mention that. Both reports well worth a few minutes.

SUCH MAGISTRATES SHOULD QUIT

BuzzFeed, a provocative on line agency, in association with the Magistrates Association this week published a lengthy account of the situation from both sides of the bench of unrepresented defendants in the magistrates courts.  Its detailed account could be summarised simply by two facts; defendants without lawyers are prone to be convicted in circumstances where legal representation might have got them off or their punishment mitigated and magistrates are only too aware of such failings and are too mealy mouthed to do anything about it.  I posted comprehensively on this subject 28th September 2015 where I proposed simple inexpensive measures to counteract the situation.  However with regard to the BuzzFeed quotations from magistrates, assuming their veracity, I have nothing but contempt for former colleagues who blithely admit to miscarriages of justice or unfair conclusions whilst they were in a position to mediate. Of course there will be the usual cry of magistrates are merely overseeing the process and must not enter the legal fray.   This cop out must be ended.  Magistrates and of course District Judges(MC) in an era where the power of the state is vastly superior to those of most defendants must now assume an inquisitorial role in the interests of justice being done and being seen to be done. My contacts with former colleagues convince me that the independence of the magistracy where it really matters, in the courtroom, is now compromised. JPs are trained to kowtow to the legal advisors who are assuming more influence than just offering legal advice.  This will require some magistrates with memory of times past to impart to their newer colleagues that almost forgotten spirit of radical thought and confidence to assist unrepresented defendants when such defendants exhibit blatant inability to assist themselves. 

Some of the magistrates quoted by BuzzFeed and some results eg 

"defendants without lawyers are being found guilty of crimes they did not commit and being sentenced too harshly."

"They’re not being fairly treated, through no fault of the court." 

"many magistrates said they were concerned that those without lawyers faced being found guilty of crimes they did not commit."

"I cannot recall any cases this year where non-represented persons defended themselves effectively.

"On at least two occasions recently I have sat in a trial that should never have come to court"

It amazes me that magistrates can sit through proceedings over which the chairman should have control and wash their hands over such abominations in the name of justice.  They should hang their heads in shame and offer their resignations if they fear HMCTS more than their own consciences.  Access BuzzFeed here. 

THE REALITY OF A DAY IN COURT

From time to time I have commented here on the day to day comings and goings at magistrates` courts; on delays, sentencing etc and all the scenarios that are part of the normal day`s sitting. I have also posted on the sometimes misleading headlines of local print media when reports are published. Indeed the rising influemces of social media are an ever increasing restraint on publishers` financial resources to enable old fashioned court reporting as it used to be.  With all that in mind it was interesting to read last week of Kent News` intention to do an in depth review of a day in a local courtroom.That report was published last week and makes sorry reading but conveys with more reality what is actually happening than the rosy perception projected by all the myriad statistics published by MOJ............read and digest.

BENCH GOT IT WRONG

I suppose upon some reflection that I have commented here when it has seemed apposite on sentences being too weak rather than the reverse.  Today I find myself in the opposite corner. Curfew is a useful sentence because it is a deprivation of liberty and can be applied immediately upon a finding of guilt without the need to have a pre sentence report.  For those reasons it is essential that the bench takes on an inquisitorial role to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and the offender fits the punishment.  At least that is the way in which I personally approached such a disposal. For a bench to impose a curfew on a grandmother of previous good character who deprived the DHSS of £12,500, a relatively small amount for an offence  in such circumstances, is a disgrace. The report does not state under which section of the law she was charged.  If defence lawyer did not immediately appeal against sentence she ought to be ashamed as should the bench for the imposition of a sentence which was totally unsuitable in the circumstances.

POLICE MISCONDUCT//LATEST NEWS

Earlier this year on 18th October I posted on the change in regulation which had previously allowed police officers under misconduct investigation to resign and avoid such investigation.  Not surprisingly I was pleased. Well; today I`m not. In short this  new legislation in some circumstances allows officers to retire while under investigation.  The College of Policing appears not to have this new information on its website.

It would be interesting to know statistics of police chiefs charged with misconduct. 

FREE SPEECH MUST FOLLOW VOLTAIRE

FREEDOM OF SPEECH:- While lovers of liberty in all lands have urged the necessity of freedom of speech none put the case more pointedly than Voltaire when he wrote, “I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.”  Perhaps that sentence exemplifies the difference between those of a libertarian bent from all others whether of the Left or the Right.  In 2009 The far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders was allowed entry to the UK after appealing successfully a ban imposed some months previously by the Home Office. His visit passed without incident.  Currently there is growing opposition to a proposed visit by Franklin Graham an American evangelist preacher on the grounds that he is likely to provoke a possible reaction from Muslims, gay people and others whom Graham has castigated in speeches in the USA.  The rise of a British Muslim population of 3 million has simultaneously led to increasing criticism of conservative Christianity and its adherents` proselytising. Cases of people wearing a cross around their necks have hit the headlines when their companies have ordered them to remove such items. For generations the Plymouth Brethren in England and the "Wee Frees" in Scotland have quietly lived their lives within their own strict rules and communities.  They too hold views not dissimilar from the aforesaid American and Dutchman. In short outside Northern Ireland religion was a private topic in this country until the immigration of hundreds of thousands of people from lands where religion was not only public but carried with it political inferences long dismissed here.  

The latest manifestation of perhaps anti Christian bias within the justice system was demonstrated by Lincoln Magistrates on 14 September when a Christian preacher was convicted of using threatening and discriminatory language whilst preaching in that city. That verdict was overturned on appeal at the crown court.  

I have posted three times in the last year or so on the topic of hate crime: 9th August 2016, 3rd April 2017 and most recently 22nd August this year.  It truly requires senior judiciary to halt this apparent upping of the ante as to what constitutes "hate".  Provided no incentive to violent action can be construed from actual words used, those opposed to the views and opinions of people like Geert Wilders, Franklin Graham and others whether of the Right or the Left, Christian or Muslim, gay or trans or whatever should make their arguments orally, in writing or through social media. Banning those who voice what some consider unsayable is a short slope to the unthinkable.

SCHOOL CENSUS

For very many years the governments; Labour, Coalition and Tory have been less than expansive about the number of illegal immigrants in this country including those who arrived legally and overstayed. Indeed that evasiveness was no doubt a factor in the arguments on immigration prior to the Referendum.  The Right criticised the Left for its attempts to play down the problem and the Left accused the Right of little short of racism and bigotry.  There is one certainty and that is government still does not know the numbers of foreigners living  here.  From time to time we read in the media of those illegals having children in the UK and using that as an argument under Human Rights that their stay in this country be legitimised.  Since June 23rd last year various measures have been put in place to determine the nationalities of people who fall into certain groups which have contact with state authority.  All defendants in court must now state their nationality. Surprising no one the legal profession has been blowing its top into a so called breach of rights.  Now a similar uproar has occurred over the requirement of childrens` parents or guardians to name their child`s nationality as part of a schools` census.  IMHO with education defects being seen as a major problem from low industrial productivity to the limiting of lower social class children being able to climb out of poverty it seems perfectly reasonable to have facts on the nationality of such where eg lack of English as a native language in the home might be proving a detriment to inherent ability.    Of course the Left immediately cries racist or fascist in any situation where it thinks it will enhance its support amongst new arrivals.  To that extent a High Court Appeal against the census is underway by a group calling itself Campaign group Against Borders for Children.  I sincerely hope that appeal fails.

JUSTICE OF WHICH TO BE PROUD

There is much to be said for the opinion that justice for all but the rich is no longer the certainty that it was a couple of generations ago. But then a little reported event happens along and all that can be said is that there is still a flickering flame within the system of which we should be proud.  "A Muslim suspected of involvement in "terrorism-related activity", who complained that Home Office movement constraints prevented him from visiting McDonald's and treating one of his children to a Happy Meal, has failed to persuade a High Court judge to relax restrictions." The report makes no mention of how his appeal was funded but I would hazard a guess that he was legally represented under legal aid.  I wonder where else he could have pursued his appeal on such grounds at state expense.  The brief report is available here.

TOO MANY CHIEFS AND NOT ENOUGH INDIANS? (2)

On 25th July 2013, shortly before my previous host site was taken down, I commented on the numbers of serving police officers in England and Wales and the ratios of how the various ranks were proportioned.


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




On 8th August 2015 I posted as follows:-

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 superintendents for every ACPO ranked officer

9 inspectors and chief inspectors for every superintendent

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? 

I followed those figures up on  22nd July 2016:-


Current figures are for 2015:-

Thus the ratio of ranks is now:-


5.17 constables/sergeant
3.36 sergeants/inspector
3.44 inspectors/chief inspector
2.02 chief inspectors/superintendent
2.43 superintendents/chief superintendent
1.68 chief superintendents/ACPO rank

Are there too many chiefs and too few indians? The numbers above indicate a constable:ACPO rank of 493.78. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than I can comment on the significance of these numbers?
                                                    ______________________________________________

Latest figures and ratios are:-


5.11 constables/sergeant
3.40 sergeants/inspector
3.43 inspectors/chief inspector
1.80 chief inspectors/superintendent
2.76 superintendents/chief superintendent
1.55 chief superintendents/chief officer

The current ration of constables to police chiefs is now 458.56/1.   I have no idea of the optimum staffing ratios for an organisation like the police.  But I do know that with various constabularies rationing their investigative procedures public interest in these numbers is bound to become more critical.
 

SUSPENDING CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

Today December 1st the prison population is 86,859. Prison capacity is 87,411. That equates to the fact that prisons are at 99.37% of their capacity. It probably is not unconnected to the fact that suspending custody seems to be a preferred option when at all justified and at times without that justification. My last sitting was in March 2015. According to the Sentencing Council "the percentage of cases sentenced to a wholly or partially suspended sentence decreased sharply, from 6.0% in 2013–14 to 0.5% in 2015–16. This decrease coincided with the abolition of suspended sentences in the Magistrates’ Court for offences committed on or after 1 September 2014".  I therefore have no first hand knowledge of the current situation. But I do read court reports.  Caught driving whilst disqualified this person was given custody suspended. Why he was not banned for an increased period but subject only to six penalty points only those present in court would know.  A registered sex offender who re-offended in what one assumes in a similar fashion was given a suspended sentence at a magistrates` court. Perhaps a legal eagle can explain this apparent contradiction vis a vis Sentencing Council as above. However my main thrust today is the apparent proliferation of suspended custodial sentences notwithstanding again the figures above. In 2016, 56,317 offenders had a suspended sentence order imposed, representing five per cent of offenders sentenced. In the twelve months to June this year 1,216,915 were sentenced at all courts of whom 88,091 were sentenced to immediate custody and 55,450 to custody suspended. Figures for 2010 were 1,334,083, 103,770 and 48,976 respectively.  There are those who shout loudly that far too many offenders are imprisoned.  This dovetails nicely with the severe restriction on prison capacity; a situation wholly owing to government policy.  The single irrefutable fact is that when offenders are incarcerated the public is protected from their further offending. That fact is debated by criminologists as being no antidote to further re-offending after release to the detriment of that very same public. 

I doubt there will not be similar controversy for decades to come.