THE NOT VERY CANNY FOLK AT THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

The financial acumen of the people who service the Ministry of Justice has never been a pre - requisite for employment.  Indeed government in general of whatever department has been infamous for selling off assets at giveaway prices the most scandalous of all being Gordon Brown`s selling our gold at a time when the market was at its lowest for years. In 2010 the MOJ began the great court sell off.  Buildings deemed superfluous to need were closed and most but not all were sold to a first come first served bidder. Wantage magistrates court was one of the first closures. It shut its doors in 2010 under the orders of that great EU fanatic and so called man of the people with his crumpled suits and hush puppies; Kenneth Clarke. It took six more years for a buyer to come forward and by then the MOJ were glad to get rid of it and get rid of it they did for  £657,000. I am not a chartered surveyor or property expert but it seems to me that the buyer was a very shrewd cookie indeed. Including the adjoining police property the flattened plot has become a site of flats for retired folk. Thirty two one and two bedroom flats have been built along with parking facilities with a minimum price of £280,000.  Allowing for demolition and building costs it seems to me that when the final flat is sold there will be £millions for the developer. As a capitalist I salute their receiving reward for risk taken but as a taxpayer I am appalled that unless there is a denial from MOJ there is no provision for a profit share for the seller.  In football sell on profit share is common.  Club A sells a player to club B for £x and has a contract that if (when) club B sells on player to club C for £x+y club A receives z% of £y.  But then football financiers are canny folk and who in his right mind could apply that description to Ministry of Justice.    

18 IS TOO YOUNG TO BE A MAGISTRATE

In 2012 the minimum age for magistrates was reduced from 27 to 18. I considered that a gross error at the time and still do.  The current minimum age for voting is also 18. The Representation of the People Act 1969 lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, with effect from 1970 and remained in force until the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 which allowed 16 year olds to vote for the first time but only in Scotland and only in that particular referendum. Soldiers cannot be sent into combat until 18. Jurors cannot sit until 18. In contrast however.  Felons under 21 may not be sentenced to a whole life order and so must become eligible for parole. Many (most?) car rental companies stipulate a minimum age of 21 although some allow 18 year olds to rent very small cars. The legal minimum age to enter into a marriage in England and Wales is 16 although this requires consent of parents and guardians if a participant is under eighteen. 

From the sample above it is obvious that age restriction rules are arbitrary. Physiologists and psychologists agree that the human brain does not attain complete adult functioning processes until the early twenties. Age and gender related politics have been a cultural phenomenon for twenty years in the West. The latest addition to this mindset is the furore we hear almost every day in one form or another over "trans" people and their so called rights. Even this morning on R4 "Today" there was a proponent on eligibility for such indeterminate people in female Olympic events.  I would posit that the virtually universal acclaim for 18 year old magistrates is as much a politically directed socially accepted position as the wish to reinstate the death penalty for treason and the murder of police officers is the direct opposite.  Similar arguments, I believe, had much to do with the Brexit argument being lost by those who did most to promote it. "Go with the flow", "be on the right side" and similar tendencies for many people not to disagree with a supposed "mainstream" have put us in this position.  

A 22 year old magistrate who has barely finished his induction training gave an interview last week to BBC. I have no idea at all with whom or with what agencies he made contact prior to the event if at all. I have no idea whether he instigated such proceedings or what was sought out by the BBC or any agencies as mentioned above. All I do know that unsurprisingly he messed up.  He was quoted quite correctly as saying inter alia, "  'Being a magistrate is challenging, it does test you and your morals. It is just about following your gut instinct,'  As soon as critical comments emerged on social media the helping hands of apologists swiftly enveloped him. At the risk of making comments with virtually no detailed knowledge of this man except what has been published I`m surprised that if somebody is accepted by an Appointments Committee his aspirations in life at his age have not led him to a more inspiring place that being a Tesco till operator. I write as one whose father left school at 14 to train as a barber before becoming a British Junior Chess Champion in his late teens and who achieved many social and political positions as befitted his sky high IQ. 

My opinion of a necessary requirement for magistrates amongst  many others can be summed up in two words, "life experience". I rest my case and hope he and others similar have learned from his error.  

THE COST OF PUBLIC RELATIONS AT M.O.J.

From time to time I have commented, often disparagingly, on the press/public relations department of the Ministry of Justice.  Latest figures on that department are that currently there are 31 employees at a cost of..........comprising employee salary along with employer pension and National Insurance contributions........£2,354,000. This represents 0.03% of the MOJ budget.

I don`t know how this compares with other central government departments but on the surface this F.O.I. answer appears to be less than I would have thought although with Failing Grayling doing his stuff at Transport MOJ staff have less hard work to do.  They only have to justify excessive closures of magistrates courts, fewer than needed magistrates and judges, elimination of legal aid, excessive trial delays and much else. 

FAILING GRAYLING IS POLITICS TODAY

Over the last five years I have not been alone in castigating the "improvements" brought about by the former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. Indeed quick use of the search box will indicate just what a catastrophe this incompetent man has been.  Reinforcing the fact that it was not a departmental failing of one sort or another today brings news of his ramshackle approach in his current job as Transport Secretary which has once more cost the taxpayers of the UK £millions.  The fact that Maymustgo (to employ a well used Twitter handle)  has kept this arrogant stupid man in position is yet just another facet of what the Brexit farce has brought us. He is an arch Brexiteer she dare not sack. This is politics today.

MUSINGS ON WEDNESDAY 2

I offer just a few points of reference for today.

Prosecutions for road traffic offences have fallen by two thirds since 2010.  I doubt that driving standards have improved so much in that time.  The only possible explanation is that with fewer police on patrol fewer miscreants have been apprehended. The numbers are here. 

The government is totally to blame for the current shortage of magistrates. The number of two person benches is on the rise precisely because of the shortage. But in the true tradition of government obfuscation we are told no statistics are kept on these events.  This is ridiculous. It would take but an instant to note these numbers given that every case is associated with the names of those JPs who sat on the occasion(s) in question. 

For examples of how the nasally inclined public school accented women in charge of the magistracy are allowed to rant and divert attention from actual problems readers could do worse than spending an hour or so watching the recent meeting of the House of Commons Justice Committee where those three ladies did their best to waffle with members of the committee generally not prepared to push hard. 

And finally as someone who was born just a few weeks before the end of World War 2 and whose close family members were active in the fight against the nazis, to discover that the  Judicial College has had to prepare and distribute for the judiciary advice on the disturbing rise in antisemitism is of great concern. Comment can be found here.  That this virus seems to becoming commonplace amongst the far left in particular is a direct result of the leader of Her Majesty`s Opposition giving tacit support by his silence to those concerned in addition to lying about his own support for those who would welcome and assist in the destruction of Israel and by implication the Jewish population.   

ADDENDUM

A  House of Lords answer published five minutes ago is illuminating as being another example of government not collecting simple statistics in case the numbers are detrimental to its probity.   

TV IN OUR COURTS IS INEVITABLE

Last week the Guardian published a lengthy article on the demise of court reporting.  It is a fact based information piece that offers no solutions to the perceived deficit. However these facts do not tell the whole story.  As I have posted here from time to time there are regular all day as it happens magistrates courts reports countrywide.  Insert court reporting in the search box. 

There is no doubt in my mind that it is a matter of "when" and not "if" live TV webcasts of all our courts  are common place.  These of course would have to be funded by commercial means.  The argument most often promulgated against such broadcasting is that the medium would become more significant that the legal process.  We are told that witnesses and more importantly barristers would perform for the cameras. Similar arguments were made by opponents to the televising of the House of Commons. With the Supreme Court`s proceedings a regular legal fixture I look forward to the day when I can choose to view the daily happenings at my local courts or indeed any court in England and Wales.  The Scots are already part way there. I wouldn`t bet against their more pragmatic legal attitudes leading to trials north of the border to be regularly on our screens within a decade. 

THE SUN SETS ON LAY MAGISTRATES

The government departments which have the greatest influence over the manner of the work that Justices of the Peace undertake are, surprise surprise, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. In May 2006 a previous Home Secretary John Reid admitted that when he was the incumbent the department was "not fit for purpose".  His honesty then has been borne out many times since.  The current prime minister oversaw so many failings when she was Reid`s successor it should have been a red light to her colleagues when she was placed in Downing Street purely as the least objectionable of a rum lot. But the lemmings in the Tory Party allowed themselves to be led towards the inevitable cliff where her and their incompetence are likely to bring at the best,  years of political and economic problems and street violence and a Marxist government at worst. 

Faced with the problem of the Isis teenager from East London telling the media she has no regrets over her actions and expecting public sympathy the current Home Secretary touted by some as a future prime  minister with all the resources of his department behind him made public his opinion that he would seek to prevent her from returning to these shores.  Presumably he was basing that statement having consulted his permanent secretary and read his own rules as below.

The essence of his opinion did not take into account that a British citizen cannot be made stateless.  There is no ambiguity in that fact. And the fact that the teenager in question did not have duel citizenship with rights of another country`s passport should have been apparent to him and his advisors. He now has had to backtrack and accept that if she reaches the UK border she cannot be excluded.

The list above of the Secretaries of State for Justice makes for sorry reading for any sense of continuity or joined up thinking in the department which runs the lives of magistrates. One hour ago the current Secretary issued a statement included in which was a very strong hint that the days of magistrates courts having the power to impose immediate custodial sentences are numbered. This is not surprising to those of us who follow such events. The dumbing down of magistrates themselves will surely follow. If they are allowed to remain on the bench it will be mainly as wingers to District Judges who will be the presiding officials. To those who will say that no government will countenance the costs involved it has been shown that if DJs sit without a qualified legal clerk or with merely a low level clerk such costs will be approximately similar to the sums paid to Justices of the Peace as expenses. 

So all those inspired by the advertisements appearing countrywide encouraging applications for the lay bench enjoy the sun whilst it`s shining.  It will be dimming before long.  

DECRIMINALISE DRUG USE

I have long been in favour of the decriminalisation of drugs which are currently prohibited; heroin, cocaine and marijuana and the derivatives manufactured to get round current regulations which are sometimes more lethal than the originals on which they are based.  In the case of marijuana many jurisdictions have already legalised the drug in particular form.  The swinging sixties so called was an era of "weed" or "joint" or "squiff" the active ingredient of which is  tetrahydrocannabinol. However, already more than 70 different cannabinoids have been identified so far. These compounds have a chemical structure that is much related to THC, but their biological effects are quite different.  The current popular derivative among users is commonly called "skunk" which is a vastly different product and has more serious side effects than its ancestor of half a century ago.  Users of this and other prohibited substances have no knowledge of what they are taking and almost every day news media contain tragic stories of the effects of these products. Drug trafficking to the UK costs an estimated £10.7 billion per year and The Home Office has estimated the illegal drugs market to be worth £5.3 billion. Recent figures show that there were approaching 3000 deaths from misuse of prohibited drugs. Surely taxing such products and selling them at licensed premises with regulated content would be more sensible than the present situation. Dealing would be more heavily punished.  There is a downside insofar as some people might be tempted to try out these drugs especially marijuana who otherwise would not have done so. However I believe that it is a matter of when and not if for the time to come for change. Neither society nor individuals such as this  are helped by using the court process. 

ASLEEP ON THE BENCH

It seems a judge, not just a HH but a High Court judge  has been caught sleeping on the job. Unlike JPs who fail similarly she was allowed to remain in post. For an entertaining recent history of such failings read my post of 14th August 2015.

SOMETIMES DETERRENCE REALLY DOES WORK

It is perhaps not widely known that when a defendant is fined at court after conviction the fine is payable immediately and sometimes, just sometimes, it is paid immediately. There are those, however, who appear to treat the whole court and legal process as an interruption to their feckless relentless life of contempt for any kind of authority. Reading regularly in various publications of the amount of unpaid fines, £500 million, a £billion or even more........who knows the exact figure at any time.........reminded me of an experience shortly before my retirement. 

Joe faced fine and various court costs of £190.00 and when told the sum was due on the spot protested he had no money. When he was asked that knowing he was coming to court to plead guilty had he not realised he would be fined he moved his head inconsequentially. After another ineffectual exchange he was told to turn his pockets out. He refused. The jailers were told to take him to the cells and have his pockets emptied. Shouting obscenities he was led away. The next defendant who was sitting at the back awaiting his being called eventually had a similar question put to him about paying immediately. He told the court with alarming frankness, "I was going to tell you I had nothing but I don`t want to go to the cells like that bloke." He took £10 in £ coins and small change from his pocket as a down payment and was directed to the fines office. We later took £25.00 from Joe!

So the motto of this little tale is occasionally the principle of deterrence really does work.

KNIFE PREVENTION ORDERS; PAPERING OVER THE CRACKS

I have posted more than a few times on ASBOs and the like. Use the search box for posts.  Essentially they are civil orders breaching of which is a criminal offence.  I would term them displacement orders insofar as eg Drink Banning Orders can order the miscreant to do his/her boozing in another county or another town.  There have even been cases where the order has been nationwide.  They are IMHO a complete waste of time and an abrogation of our society to deter and if necessary punish people for their criminality.  But and it`s a big "but" they are simple and cheap to operate. And for the last nine years it appears that our criminal justice system is like the original motto of Tesco; pile it high and pile it cheap. The ASBO, CRASBO and DBO`s latest incarnation is the Knife Crime Prevention Order.  For actual details access this link. Stop and search operations were drastically curtailed by Theresa May as Home Secretary because it was asserted that they unfairly targeted young black men notwithstanding the fact that in many areas especially London it was young black men who were most likely to be victims of knife attacks. The spate of such attacks in London appears not to be met by police in sufficient numbers to show that the situation is under control. Thus this latest innovation.  I will not repeat the caveats expressed in the link above but it is my strong belief that this so called initiative will fail in its intention and will truly further alienate young black men.  This time there will be good cause for the resentment that will surely follow and that will make the relationship between them and police even more fractious. It is another example of increasing the powers of police to control our society by suspicion rather than by evidence; a catch all associated more often with jurisdictions where acting according to law is an afterthought rather than a priority.  These orders are just another example of papering over the cracks caused by the slashing of resources since 2010.

A SORRY STORY

I have voted Tory since 1979. The late seventies showed that the trade unions and the Labour Party had brought ruin to the country and the Tories under Margaret Thatcher had shown that their own moribund attitudes were for the past. The three day week and reading by candlelight were their nadir. In 1997 John Major with his determination to integrate the £ sterling with a "basket of European currencies" was so out of tune with the voters that they and I voted in a democratic social democratic party under the Labour label. We all had a clear choice.  We are now told by those who make their living commenting on the political situation that there could be an election at any time. And what is our choice?  A government led by a totally incompetent and personally unsuitable person who was appointed to her post because she was the second or third choice who aroused the fewest objections of a parliamentary party with the combined political IQ of a toad. She is bringing us closer to national ruin in so many aspects of our daily lives that there is a real possibility that there could be a true believing antisemitic Marxist occupying 10 Downing Street. The current state of our justice system provides the very evidence of what to a greater or lesser extent is happening throughout our society.  

Only last week the figures of homicides in England and Wales showed that there had been an increase of 14% in 2018 over the previous year. In tandem with that announcement was the publication of figures that noted what many have previously asserted but have been at best justified and at worst denied by those in power; police are under reporting crime. We have been told that we have the finest judicial system the world has ever known. That being the case it doesn`t seem to have convinced the MOJ that there is a sure way to be certain that there is a sufficient number of the senior judiciary to deal with the workload before it; paying the required rate to increase the supply, improve the current pension scheme and recognise that the working conditions are less than adequate. Today it is confirmed that in addition to a shortage of magistrates, a situation that was predictable to a MOJ which has been blind, deaf and dumb to its own inadequacy, more than half of all magistrates courts have been closed since the Tories in coalition took power in 2010. Earlier this month dozens of courts were in chaos owing to breakdowns in their IT systems. 

I know about the above because I was personally involved and still take an interest in the judicial system and its ancillary parts. But there are many who know similar problems in their own specialities. Indeed I`m certain some are reading these words who could tell similar tales but chances are these stories won`t make the news until catastrophe happens eg Grenfell where corruption and incompetence that caused that tragedy are waiting to be teased out of witnesses and evidence presented when the enquiry  resumes.  Two aircraft carriers launched way behind schedule and over budget that won`t have planes to fly from them  and be fully operational until 2021, nuclear submarines in a similar situation and an army which outsourced recruitment and now is thousands short in manpower: and that is just a small part of the failings of the MOD. 

There is no need for me to continue in this vein.  We all know it. The current chaos on Brexit was inevitable.  The warnings were there. The foundations of those warnings were solid. And that is about the only solidity  in this  whole sorry story.  

AN INADEQUATE CONCLUSION AT HEATHROW

One would have thought that suggesting there was a bomb and assaulting a security officer in the vicinity of the threat at Heathrow, would have been enough for an intending passenger to be arrested on suspicion and eventually charged with appropriate offence(s). In the case of the son of a world famous singer he was, unlike many who have committed similar offences, cautioned by police.  This was a disgraceful dereliction of duty by the police.  The officers involved and any superiors who agreed the caution should be charged with misconduct.  

How can police who often are under great pressures hope to command public respect with their becoming judge and jury and coming to such an inadequate conclusion?

OPINIONS OF A DINOSAUR

Last week the High Court rendered a not widely publicised decision on the future fate of the two British prisoners held in Syria by Kurdish forces.  They are accused of being not only Isis terrorists but part of the infamous group of murderers who filmed their murder by decapitation with a knife of innocent people and broadcast their horrendous deeds to the world.  This was part of a cold blooded exercise to terrorise those who opposed their attempts to impose Sharia over vast areas of Iraq and Syria.  The Home Secretary had agreed their extradition to the USA where they could be subject to the death penalty if found guilty of the charges laid against them.  That High Court decision leaves the way clear for them to face the legal system of a foreign jurisdiction where if found guilty for their alleged crimes the death penalty is an option.  

The Home Secretary has explained this apparent anomaly insofar as the death penalty has long been abolished in the UK.  "Our longstanding opposition to the death penalty has not changed. Any evidence shared with the US in this case must be for the express purpose of progressing a federal prosecution."

From time to time polls have indicated that there are deep divisions in this country on whether or not Parliament should reverse the abolition decision which was initiated half a century ago and when assurances were made by parliamentarians that adequate custodial sentences would not lead to increases in homicides.  This was a fatuous affirmation to the great British public. Proponents of the current position are quick to cite that only a few nations including certain states in the USA use the death penalty  and that these are indeed mainly countries where democracy is in name only. 

Two years ago a poll indicated that EU Leavers were sympathetic to bringing back capital punishment.  Last year Sky News published a poll showing that Conservatives had a majority also similarly in favour.  Having the good fortune to still be on this Earth after having enjoyed three scores year and ten and having been accused of being a dinosaur I am firmly of the belief that social mores work on a cyclical basis where opinions swing just as the weight of a pendulum reaches its amplitude and reverses its direction of motion. I believe that we are in just such a situation where the amplitude is about a decade or so from the vertical.  The discussions over the EU are just a single example of this.  The return of capital punishment could be another.  

IF NOT CUSTODY; WHAT????

RECENT cases dealt with by Taunton Magistrates' Courts include:

Richard Anthony Ward Coombes, 42, of no fixed address, two counts of theft as a trespasser, 12 weeks prison (consecutive) on each count, £780 compensation; theft as a trespasser; damaged a detention cell, one week prison (consecutive); used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, two weeks prison (consecutive); caused a nuisance or disturbance to an NHS staff member, possession of cannabis, breached a criminal behaviour order, no separate penalty. (G). 

The above is copied from yesterday`s "This Is The West Country."
The report below is copied from "The Gazette" [Blackpool] yesterday.

Blackpool Magistrates' Court

A father-of-eight repeatedly messaged his former partner in breach of a court order. Lee Morement even contacted a male friend of his ex’s and tried to dissuade him from having a relationship with her, even though they were only platonic friends. Morement, 36, of Ribble Road, Blackpool, pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a restraining order. He was sentenced to 16 weeks jail and ordered to pay £115 victims’ surcharge by District Judge Jane Goodwin sitting at Blackpool Magistrates’ Court. The judge told him: “You have yet again broken an order designed to protect her.”Prosecutor, Pam Smith, said Morement was made the subject of an indefinite restraining order in September last year which banned him from contacting his ex or going near her address. On December 23 he messaged his ex stating: “Put me back in jail all you like,” before messaging a male friend of hers warning him off from having a romantic relationship with her. He had previously breached restraining orders and at the time of the offence was on licence from prison after assaulting his ex.Steven Townley, defending, said his client and ex had been together 18 years and had eight children.There had been problems in their relationship because Morement had a bad drinking problem and they split up in July. Since then he had only seen one of the children because the others were said not to be ready to see him. In a December (sic)  he was at a party and had been drinking. 

Both these offenders were sentenced to immediate custody. The government pressurised by campaign groups and looking for further savings on its bill for prisons seeks to explain that all will be well if magistrates courts have the custody option removed bearing in mind that 4% only of cases at those courts result in a custodial sentence. I would invite any reader who supports such proposal comment on what they might consider a suitable non custodial sentence bearing in mind of course that only those in the courts at the relevant times would have heard all the proceedings.  

THE GONE MAGISTRATE

There is a prominent article in today`s Times [copied below] urging the government to allow Justices of the Peace to retire at age 75, five years older than the current age. It has been common knowledge for over a decade that the age profile of magistrates was such that a severe shortage of JPs was to be expected.  Indeed the discomfort for HMCTS is that not surprisingly many benches in addition to being short of magistrates per se will have fewer approved chairman to preside over courts.  That will lead inevitably to a need for more District Judges and Deputy DJs because as with the current shortage of nurses and GPs it will be nigh impossible to achieve the required additional numbers in the anticipated time frame.  My two predictions are that even although magistrates` training is currently nothing short of rudimentary unless government supplies more money future training standards will be below that which in the past produced lay personnel of such quality that they could preside over experienced legal practitioners with confidence notwithstanding of course the assistance of legal advisors. My other spot of crystal ball gazing leads me to conclude that owing to the aforementioned situation and desire for government control lay benches of magistrates as are now recognised will simply be allowed to wither on the vine. Already single justice procedures are active; it won`t be long before District Judges will take over most of the summary work and Justices of the Peace will be lucky if they are retained as wingers only or for other out of court processes. Thus will end over six centuries of truly justice for the people by the people.  Nobody will care; that`s the pity.

THE SACKING OF RICHARD PAGE ex J.P. PART 3

Latest news on sacked magistrate Richard Page; he is one step closer in his appeal to be re-instated. Previous posts on this topic going back some years can be seen by putting "Richard Page" into search box. 

COURT CLOSURES LATEST INFORMATION

Read very latest information from House of Commons on court closures. 

POLICE TOLERATE VIOLENCE

I would opine that in the age group over aet 50 a minority only has been the victim of violent crime.  That group would include most judges and magistrates  their familiarity with violent criminal offending resulting from their experiences in court and the anecdotal and statistical analyses that circulate within society. Until new years eve I was within that group. Whilst eating and drinking at a grand party where my table of ten was occupied by five couples who were strangers to each other I got into conversation with a young retiree from Whitby who told me his sorry tale of an event in August. He was cycling home on his just purchased  brand new state of the art lightweight racing bike when, on a narrow uphill section of a country road, he was verbally abused by an irate driver and passenger of a high powered Audi because he was holding up their progress. Eventually he was able to pull into a shallow lay by to allow the impatient driver to overtake. At the top of the hill a few minutes later he found his way barred by the passenger standing in the road screaming abuse. With no warning or provocation from the cyclist he severely assaulted him damaging his eye which required intensive hospital treatment and badly damaged his bicycle to the tune of thousands of pounds. A few days later he revisited the scene and discovered to his surprise that  the whole affair had been covered by the security cameras of a nearby house.  He contacted local police who viewed the footage and confirmed that they knew the alleged assailant but that they could not take the matter to the CPS owing to a lack of police manpower. IMHO a charge of ABH would not have seemed inappropriate. 

Today I read a headline in the Aberdeen Evening Express and other similar journals that reads "Funding cuts force police to tolerate violence, says senior officer". 

STOP BLEATING ABOUT THE MAGISTRACY`S LACK OF DIVERSITY

The 2018 judicial diversity statistics, surprise surprise, give a diversity breakdown of the judiciary as of 1 April 2018. The data shows that 55% of magistrates were female (compared to 54% in April 2017) and 12% of magistrates declared themselves as Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (compared to 11% in April 2017). Just 4% of magistrates were aged under 40, while 11% were aged 40-49, 31% were aged 50-59, and 55% were aged over 60. Latest numbers on ethnic diversity in England and Wales are as below:-

For some years the "great and the good"  plus many lesser mortals with more volume than sense have berated the magistracy as being out of touch with current mores and thus not being representative of society is unable to perform its public function notwithstanding that all magistrates on appointment take the following oath:- “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of Justice of the Peace , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” 

When magistrates are criticised a Martian observer might conclude that individually and/or collectively  they are not adhering to that oath. Others, often those leaning leftwards in their philosophical thinking, might disagree but very few if any of many lobbyists have made audited statistical results that conclusively show that the supposed lack of so called diversity is failing us as a society. Ethnic minority JPs are very well represented on the magistrates` bench. If there were such a failing it would inevitably call into question whether or not J.P.s were acting contrary to their oath of office. The arguments of "groupthink" are then raised or as a well known figure who died in 33AD is recorded as having said at the time, "They know not what they do". We are told our unconscious or subconscious prejudices are fashioning our performance and we must be re-educated out of them. The Chinese are well adept at this argument and the treatment thereof. 

Age, class and ethnic diversity are the three areas where criticism of the magistracy is concentrated.   Justices of the Peace are not paid; carefully scrutinised essential expenses are available for essential travel and subsistence.  Some employers will subsidise the system by allowing the thirteen days minimum annual sittings required to be taken without loss of earnings but many will not.  JPs in that situation must then decide if they can afford to take the loss of wages or holidays in lieu. It is therefore as clear as day that many individuals will be ruled out or will rule themselves out of applying for the magistracy.  It doesn`t take an Einstein to appreciate that only those lucky enough to have understanding employers or sufficient income will offer themselves for selection. The self employed formed about 15%-20% of my colleagues but that is only my finger in the wind estimate.  No official figures are available. Those banging on about a lack of "young magistrates" appear not to have offered sensible if any ways to persuade under thirties or even under forties candidates to apply.  I was self employed from my early twenties but could not contemplate an application much as I wanted to until I was over fifty when I was in a fortunate and comfortable financial position and I was the rule not the exception.  No government now or in future will pay magistrates a going rate which must be around £300 daily. It would ruin MOJ budgets.  More likely is the scenario of District Judges taking over the prime functions at all magistrates courts and relegating a rump of JPs to wingers for trials and in single justice procedures.   Outwith the financial barrier to younger applications is the consideration of whether the current minimum age of 18 is compatible with the wisdom needed to operate as a magistrate. It was only in 2004 that that minimum age was reduced from 27. Youth has its place of course but IMHO it was a gross mistake bowing to a spurious societal requirement that age diversity had to be a factor in making courts supposedly reflect the society in which they operate. Class references are a leftist mantra for so much of what they consider are our failings as a nation.  Nobody within a magistrates bench gives a monkey`s fart about class.  Individuals are respected for their ability to do the job whether bus driver or barrister and there was more than one of each on my bench. The class argument is typical socialist claptrap.  From the statistics above the magistracy is as ethnically diverse as a tube of smarties; all colours and tastes are there on merit.  If protagonists of "increasing diversity" are unhappy then let them spell our what their wish list is.  If quotas are mentioned then normal argument has failed.  

The rambling socialist discourse being deliberately overheated by Corbyn and his cultist following will seize upon any aspect of our society where the Tories have allowed their sometimes equally unhelpful dogma of austerity to override sense and sensibility when it comes to our justice system.  Legal Aid or more accurately the lack thereof is perhaps the most regressive measure taken in recent decades. The Tory governments since 2010 are directly responsible for this blot on the legal system. Reduced or unavailable legal aid increases the power of the state over the individual and is a direct impediment to justice being seen to be done. 

Magistrates deserve more than lip service support from those within the legal family.  Continually harping on about diversity is unhelpful if not disingenuous. 

HAPPY NEW YEAR when it comes

Peace and goodwill to all men might now be considered a hackneyed way to convey the meaning of Christmas but a Happy New Year to all is beyond misunderstanding. This retired magistrate hopes to be up and running again by the end of next week after having given thanks once more to the inventors of the amber liquid. 

THE TOAST IS THE AMBER LIQUID

If, dear reader, you`re a newcomer to this blog I hope you might return from time to time.  If you`re familiar with this site and can tolerate my sometimes unpopular themes I thank you for your persistence.  But to all who might peruse my meanderings here and @bloggingJP I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a New Year free of Brexit headlines. Since the latter is unlikely to be more than wishful thinking enjoy the amber liquid on its most appropriate time for being in the glass and not the bottle. 

THE MEANING OF THIS

I have just a brief post today.  The advertisement below from today`s edition of "Police "Professional"is for an Inspector at the MET.  If you were a white person interested in this job what would be your feelings on reading this last paragraph?

We view diversity as fundamental to our success. To tackle today’s complex policing challenges, we need a diverse workforce made up from all communities. Applications from across the community are therefore essential.[my underline]

THE CONTINUING SAGA OF RICHARD PAGE EX J.P.

My most recent post on this story was earlier this year on 15th February. For those unfamiliar with the history that post has a link to my first comments on the case a year earlier. It is a carbuncle on the face of this country`s supposed leadership in all matters legal that after almost three years Mr Page is still ascending the labyrinthine steps to a conclusion. It is a matter of some concern that at a time when HMCTS is supposedly spending a billion pounds on digitalisation of the courts` process that fundamental matters affecting our very democracy are proceeding at a snail`s pace.  It is in cases of this nature that underlying freedoms are won or lost. My opinion is that as with many supposed "changes" in legal matters the basic freedoms we have assumed as our right under the law are being salami sliced from us. The fate of Richard Page should be a concern for us all. 

HEAVEN HELP US

I have a fear of becoming boring and repetitive but when a report of yet another multiple offending scumbag paedophile being given custody suspended I hold my head in my hands. If judges cannot show the abhorrence felt by the public in their sentencing decisions they will lose public support as is happening within our political system. When politics and the law are held in contempt the day of the populist draws ever closer. Heaven help us. 

MAGISTRATES DON`T NEED COMMON SENSE

There are times when I read of sentencing practices at magistrates courts that I despair.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the law is being brought into contempt, if not literally but certainly metaphorically.  There are those who would abolish custodial sentences of less than six months.  Two responses come to mind; increase minimum sentences to six months which has no possibility of enactment or admit that the idea of public protection does  not have a place in sentencing guidelines.  Pressure upon pressure has been placed upon the courts to prevent offenders being sent to custody. There are low level recidivists who are beyond redemption under current thinking.  I have long suggested that workhouses [for various posts put workhouse in search box]  designed for this century where under lock and key inmates can be made to undergo cold turkey regimes to rid them of their drug and/or alcohol habit which drive more than 70% of crime much of which the establishment describes as low level. Such criminality affects ordinary people much more than it touches on the lives of those who make the rules.  The example of this scumbag serves to illustrate all too clearly how inadequate are some courts.  To suspend his sentence flies in the face of common sense.  Ooooops!  I forgot;  common sense is not a requirement for magistrates in this era of sensitivity and safe space political agitation. . 

JUDGING THE JUDGES (AND J.P.s)

In the last three weeks four magistrates have been disciplined by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.   As is always the pattern very few details are published. The whole disciplinary process is cloaked in secrecy.  This involves proceedings more suited to the 1950s than 2018.  Both from the point of the view of the public and the good name of those sanctioned there at least should be the opportunity for the latter to explain their position to a wider audience if so desired. The Law Society Gazette has a similar take on this subject in its article published at the weekend.   

LIFE SHOULD BE LIFE: END OF

When I was twelve years old I wrote an essay the subject of which was "Why I want capital punishment abolished".  Eight years later when abolition took place I was aware that all the proponents of that unique change (noting the increasing restrictions on its application) in a centuries old policy were very ready to offer their assurances that new sentencing powers would ensure that the public would be every bit as protected as pre abolition.  That was a fatuous guarantee.  However I, in harmony with a majority of the population, was prepared to be supportive on the basis of time will tell.  Well; time has told.  What ever statistics are used and/or manipulated homicides have increased considerably  in the last half century. There are occasions when a significant minority of people has a certain repugnance at the conclusions of the Parole Board.  The furore surrounding the black cab rapist who was scheduled for release a few months ago  persuaded the Parole Board to have a re think. It seems, however, that the great and the good on that Quango have once again given two fingers to public opinion.  The release has been authorised of triple child killer David McGreavy after his 45 years incarceration.  Their reasoning is that he is no longer a threat to the public. This indeed might be the case but it does not justify IMHO his release. Restricted prison accommodation or cost cannot be used as an excuse in this matter. Consideration for him in any way similarly must be ignored. His crime was of the most heinous nature.  There have been few of equal barbarity.  His punishment was life imprisonment.  If this lowest form of humanity cannot serve out his remaining days under lock and key we, the great British public, will find that our respect for the justice system will be accelerated further towards terminal decline. 

JUSTICE: THE COMING DISASTER

I`m not saying the Lord Chief Justice was slow to get off the mark and I`m not saying that I have crystal balls but sometimes I do wonder at the rate at which pennies seem to drop when justice  in all its facets indicates a sense of the direction in which it is travelling or being forced to travel by the executive.  Every year it seems the Sentencing Guidelines have become more prescriptive.  The aforementioned LCJ spoke recently on the emergence of AI in the courts.  He did not specify the Sentencing Guidelines but alluded to other aspects of what we call the justice system that could be involved.  Having retired just prior to the introduction of the digitilisation programme my opinions are based on what I read and hear; certainly a poor substitute for experience. On 7th October 2015 I concluded my post that day as follows:- "There are those who fail to see this changing face of justice and there are those who see it but don`t recognise it for what it really portends but the most disheartening factor of all is that there are many on and off the bench who do realise what the future holds but remain silent for reasons not always honourable  IMHO of course." 

Since then there have been many changes. The Single Justice Procedure has, I believe, come in for its fair share of criticism, many more magistrates courts have been closed, national and regional magistrates have been appointed by the executive presumably on the basis that their support can be shown as an indication of general support of the magistrates on the Clapham Omnibus, video courts are being utilised as if personalities have no importance and of course legal aid is virtually non existent for defendants and a financial  loss for ever increasing numbers of lawyers. On 26th October 2016 the final paragraph of that day`s post was:- "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."  

Only those on the "inside" can hope to have the slightest influence on the catastrophe for individual freedom and justice which is coming our way. It seems that whilst they are in receipt of the Queen`s shilling their mouths remain closed. That, unfortunately, is the way it has always been. But perhaps there are still some who can voice their opinion without fear or favour to avert the coming disaster. 

SUPPORT JUSTICE: SUPPORT HH JUDGE MATTHEWS

The vast increase in the numbers of unrepresented defendants has been a major feature of courts, criminal, family and civil since 2010.  The many Lord Chancellors since then have attempted to deny the subsequent problems arising directly from the cause of this eruption and have sought to minimise its effects by the introduction of ever more applications of digital technology of one sort or another. There are two fundamental foundations to a justice system; equality of arms and a level playing field. . One can only guess how many injustices have been allowed to happen by the imbalance of the former. Within the magistrates` courts there are no statistics of defendants who do not present with a lawyer. The latter in recent years has been undermined by the prosecution`s inability to follow the rules on disclosure.  High profile cases especially with regard to rape have exposed this iniquity.  Whether this lack of information is by lethargy, accident or design will be known only to that small coterie in Petty France where the most hard working section is the press office. 

I retired from the bench in the early part of 2015.  Even then it was becoming apparent that in my opinion a real risk of justice not just being seen to be done but not being done per se was staring me in the face at almost every sitting. It did not happen by calculation but I realised that my manner when presiding over cases involving unrepresented defendants was changing ever so subtly. The traditional approach of seeking only "clarification" when directly questioning a witness had occasionally to be sidestepped to avoid a possible or probable miscarriage of justice. In that year I posted twice on this subject. 

Similar problems have almost certainly been presented to judges at crown court. How many have gone unreported is anyone`s guess but recently none other than a High Court judge His Honour Judge Matthews has been castigated by the Appeal Court for his inquisitorial approach to an unrepresented defendant. The Law Society Gazette has a recent report.

There is no doubt that very soon those law lords who offer guidance often only when they are retired will provoke discussion around the very basis of trial law in England. My personal justification for sometimes incurring the disapproval of legal advisors was that I would rather push the boundaries of what was hitherto acceptable practice than see a possibly innocent person convicted because s/he was unable to construct the vital question or interpret the obvious flaw which would have exposed the CPS case`s failings. HH Judge Matthews deserves the support of all those with similar opinions. 

COURT STATISTICS: NUMBERS AND YET MORE NUMBERS

For those who like their legal knowledge or some of it in numbers latest court statistics published yesterday can be accessed from here.

DISPLACEMENT ORDERS NEED DISPLACEMENT

Archimedes' principle states that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces and acts in the upward direction at the centre of mass of the displaced fluid.  The word displacement and its derivatives was for many centuries associated mainly with that fellow Archimedes. Anthropologists also found the term useful in describing ethnic or national groups who have been removed from an area and possibly replaced by others.  It is almost twenty years since the principle of displacement entered the legal domain with the introduction of ASBOs where a civil order made with criminal sanctions if breached could enable miscreants to be banned from any area the court designated.  Various other displacement orders have since been legislated eg Drinking Banning Orders followed ten years ago. Offenders were prohibited from a particular area and were pushed into adjoining towns or counties if they wanted to go to a pub.  Indeed there have been cases where a recidivist was banned from drinking in any public place in England. Such prohibition orders are just an easy way to avoid constructive answers to habitual offenders such answers to consist in varying percentages of deterrence, punishment and rehabilitation all of which are costly in comparison.

The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office has since 2010 cut to the bone the resources necessary for the justice system to function for all of us; law abiding citizens, defendants and witnesses and those who work within the whole system. This recent case is a perfect example.