MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION REVEALS ITS WOKE APPROACH TO JUSTICE

The Kingdom of England can arguably be stated as having been founded in the last century of the first millennium perhaps a century after the founding of the northern part of the British Isles known as Scotland.  The 13th century saw the incorporation of Wales into the Kingdom of England. The Kingdom of Ireland was brought under English control between 1541 and 1691. A sixteenth century royal marriage led to the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and the Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707 leading to the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.  The establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922 led to the current designation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927.  The underlying political sentiments of those involved particularly for the last 200 years have been that there is much more that unites us than divides us.  That is until the latter part of the last century.  Whether by benign neglect or the emergence of an anti colonialism mind set in Scotland and Ireland separatism as a target began to take hold in some philosophical/historical  minds and actions within both nations.  The modern tragedy of Irish nationalism is still with us and the Scots seem to be plunging deeper and deeper into a death wish of economic turbulence and possible collapse. So what has this to do with a blog written by a retired magistrate with an interest in justice and the law?  In the last few weeks the Magistrates Association has been following a singularly IMHO divisive line of its thinking as indicated by its Tweets. 

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

11 Oct

It’s National Coming Out Day! Our LGBT+ Diversity and Inclusion Network provides a safe space for LGBT+ magistrates to discuss any issues which may affect them in court, as well champion equality and respect within the justice system

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

#BlackHistoryMonth recommended reading: Influential Black Britons illustrated book (published by UK Parliament). This resource lists individuals who have impacted UK laws and equal rights. Olaudah Equiano, Mary Prince, Claudia Jones, Lord Learie Constantine, Bernie Grant… (2/20)

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

11 Oct

It’s National Coming Out Day! Our LGBT+ Diversity and Inclusion Network provides a safe space for LGBT+ magistrates to discuss any issues which may affect them in court, as well champion equality and respect within the justice system. Find out more at - https://magistrates-association.org.uk/What-We-Do/MA-

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

2 Aug

Over on the

@JudiciaryUK

Instagram, Dan, our trustee and deputy chair of our LGBT+ Special Interest Group, talks about the importance of having a diverse magistracy and some of the transferable skills magistrates gain that can be so valuable to employers.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

27 Jul

Knife crime is a serious problem but there is no robust evidence that stop and search is the answer, while it could further damage the trust and confidence that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities have in the justice system.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

16 Jul

The MA’s disproportionality presentation provides information about the disproportionate over-representation of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people in the youth justice system, and what magistrates can do to address this in and out of the courtroom.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

16 Jul

It is encouraging that 18% of new magistrates are under 40, though there is still work to be done to attract more volunteers from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

14 Jul

‘Must-Listen-To’ Claxon: Hear MA board member & chair of our Young Magistrates Group,

@lukerigg

, talk on

@BBCRadio4

#FourThought about what it’s like to be a young magistrate, and why having more will improve justice. Luke you were excellent

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

9 Jul

Modelling for raising the retirement age to 75 projected that there will be 0.8% fewer BAME magistrates in any given year than at present. The MA has called for this impact on diversity to be mitigated by recruitment specifically targeting under-represented groups.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

29 Jun

'There is certainly no such thing as your stereotypical magistrate'.

Some retweets..

Magistrates Association Retweeted

 

Mawia Bin-Sufyan MStJ BCA

@MoawiaBinSufyan

 

·

19 Jun

Joining colleagues from across the UK for the

@MagsAssoc

inaugural meeting of the Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority Special Interest Group. Speakers included the MA Chair

@BevHiggs

and new CEO @TomFranklinUK

Dan, MA trustee and deputy chair of our LGBT+ Special Interest Group, speaks to

@JudiciaryUK

as part of #PrideMonth

 

What those tweets indicate to me is that the Magistrates Association following the many examples of woke inspired separatism is functioning in the mistaken belief that representation of all manor of variations in the make up of society provides a better quality of justice for all those who come to court. In simple terms the so called life truths of a bench are more likely to  provide outcomes which suit the individual`s circumstances than the intellectual challenge of weighing up evidence so that the facts of a case are teased from all that the court must consider in coming to its conclusion. The practices of the M.A. in having sub committees for some of the very varied groupings in our society is inimitable to the cohesion which binds together those very same groupings. Undue emphasis on "diversity" risks a mockery of the judicial 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 ______ ,
and I will do 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." [my bold]. There will be those who will retort that it takes eg a "life truth" of living as an impoverished or racially abused member of a minority group to understand and appreciate circumstances of any offender`s particular actions but from my experience much thinking along those lines is in direct contradiction of the last eight words of the oath above. The continued emphasis on recruitment to supposedly represent society does no favour for selecting the best people to be sitting in judgement on their fellow citizens. For example in Bradford where the ethnic composition is that the largest religious group  is Christian (45.9% of the population) and nearly one quarter of the population (24.7%) is Muslim is that to be the target by the advisory committee charged with appointment of magistrates? 20.7% of Bradford citizens self declare that they do not follow a religion. Are they too to be represented on the Bench in that proportion?


When I was appointed in 1997 a question on the application form was for the applicant to state which political party benefited from his/her vote at the previous general election. I left it unanswered. In due course I received a letter enclosing my application telling me that unless I resubmitted the form with every question answered my application would not be considered. I duly filled in the name of the political party for which I had voted. That question was omitted from the form a few years later. The powers that be no longer want to know who their applicants vote for but now do want to know so much more about the essence of their very being.


All this might be considered under the term "woke or not woke". When universities and many institutions are afraid to issue firm declarations to students and others who foster hate at those whose opinions they oppose, who ignore antisemitism propagated at all levels of our society in the guise of "anti Zionism" there is a fear pervading many to whom society has bestowed influence that speaking out about any topic which questions current societal  mores is a career and/or reputation breaker. In simple terms it`s called self censorship. When fear is the basis of the way we conduct our daily lives proto fascism is appearing over the political horizon. Unfortunately the Magistrates Association is slowly but surely being dragged into this cultural morass.

THE KING OF THE WORLD AT NUMBER 10

Since 1945 the Chancellors of Germany have been significant in the development of this country and its relationships with mainland Europe.  From   Konrad Adenauer (1949–63),  Ludwig Erhard (1963–66), Kurt Georg Kiesinger (1966–69),  Willy Brandt (1969–74),  Helmut Schmidt,(1974–82), Helmut Kohl (1982–98),  Gerhard Schröder (1998–2005) to Angela Merkel (2005– 2021) the last named perhaps more familiar than the others owing to her historical proximity and her distance from the ravages of 1933-1945. It was 2014 when despite the entreaties of the then prime minister David Cameron she refused to concede to him some very simple even basic steps to enable him to tell the British electorate that this country had secured at least a token of independence from some of the strictures imposed by the European Union. And this inability to negotiate a get out of jail free card begot the referendum and the referendum begot a most divisive fissure in the British political system in the post war era. The current government with its huge majority, led by the man who would be king of the world, has since 2019 tried to usurp the will of Parliament only to be stymied by the decisions of the Supreme Court. More than once he has conveyed his opinion that the Court was interfering in what were political decisions.  It seems that the new Lord Chancellor following in the footsteps of his master like a well trained puppy has expressed his master`s voice in that " A  'mechanism' to allow the government to introduce ad hoc legislation to correct court judgements that ministers believe are 'incorrect' will form part of proposals to reform the Human Rights Act".  Whilst such UK enacted legislation might not necessarily be to the detriment  of UK citizens he made clear that "Where there have been judgements that, albeit properly and duly delivered by the courts, we think are wrong,(my bold) the right thing is for Parliament to legislate to correct them."  This intention is nothing but the first tentative footstep to disavowing the very basis on which this country is governed; ie by the rule of law where no person, organisation or political party is above the law.  In some respects this would be unelected king sits in Downing Street largely because his 2019 opponent was an antisemitic Marxist whom the nation rightly rejected.  Imagine for one moment if he were in number 10 and his  Lord Chancellor the equally antisemitic.........oops anti Zionist Marxist Richard Burgon were to have made such a declaration.  There would have been outrage but the Tory press and a supine Cabinet have remained largely silent. The Prime Minister tries to disguise this whole charade by exclaiming that this process will restore the rights of Parliament. To be polite this is poppycock in my opinion. The earliest signs of an authoritarian regime  or one that is progressing along that road is to enact legislation to insulate itself from criticism followed by active steps to control and finally eliminate that criticism.  From Attila the Hun to Adolf Hitler via Genghis Khan and countless others the same formula is followed to ensure obedience to rule by decree; hamstring the judicial system and cow the judges.  A brief glance at the situation in Hong Kong over the last two years provides an example of how quickly the rule of law can be subverted to the rule of political authority. 

What these proposals are of course intended to do is to further insulate the executive organs of the state from the burden of complying with the law, as of course put in place by, err, Parliament.  With Parliament and particularly the House of Commons enjoying a brief period of respect after the murder of one of its own there is no doubt that those who enabled Johnson to his present position are first and foremost tasked with securing their own and their party`s re-election.  Until and unless Her Majesty`s Loyal Opposition is capable of providing an alternative we might in the next couple of years look back at 2016 as the worst event since 1939. 

11 YEARS ON AND NOTHING MUCH HAS CHANGED

The Law Gazette`s comments page on extending the sentencing powers of magistrates courts has as expected produced the same old arguments that one reads almost annually when this proposal gets a public airing. The usual  people respond that the best way to serve justice is to remove entirely the powers of magistrates courts to use custody as a sentencing option. Earlier this week The Guardian had published this.  A new Lord Chancellor has already in his short time in office come out with the usual platitudes.  No doubt there will be more to come.   A looming financial crisis is once again going to be an excuse for delaying the much needed finance to reduce the abysmally long delays especially in the crown courts. All this hoo ha reminded me of a post I wrote almost exactly 11 years ago on 20th October 2010. I think it might jog a few memories and even be instructive if I copy it below in full.

 

 QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE/SHORT SENTENCES

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 20. Oct. 2010. – 12:52:52

A question and answer session yesterday with Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke on short sentences at Magistrates` Courts is worth copying here below.

Short Custodial Sentences
Oral Answers to Questions — Justice
House of Commons debates, 19 October 2010, 2:30 pm

Next debate » « Previous debate All Commons debates on 19 Oct 2010

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

What recent discussions he has had with the Sentencing Guidelines Council on its guidance on short custodial sentences.

Kenneth Clarke (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State, Justice; Rushcliffe, Conservative)

The Sentencing Guidelines Council has not issued any specific guidance on short custodial sentences. We have had no discussions with the council on this topic, which we are considering as part of our assessment of sentencing policy.

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

The Secretary of State may be aware of a recent case in my constituency in which a young man suffering from autism and Asperger's syndrome was subjected to a series of horrific attacks by three other young men. The judge said that the attacks could almost amount to torture, yet the three perpetrators were given community orders. During the general election, Mr Cameron, now the Prime Minister, told the country that we are not convicting enough. He then explicitly said that

"when we do convict them, they're not getting long enough sentences."

Just two weeks ago, in his speech to the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister said that

"offenders who should go to prison will go to prison".

I agree with the Prime Minister-does the Secretary of State?

Kenneth Clarke (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State, Justice; Rushcliffe, Conservative)

One of the failings of the last Government was to take a popular subject from the popular press and make rather shallow partisan points out of it. Sentencing in individual cases is not a matter for Ministers, and should not be a matter for sensational comment to the newspapers by Ministers with the frequency that it was. We have to ensure that justice is done, particularly to the victims of crime, and that justice is carried out in such a way as to reduce the risk of reoffending. We have made our approach to crime perfectly clear: we must punish the guilty. Prison is the right place for serious criminals-they will not commit more crimes while inside-but we also strive to avoid reoffending. The case that the right hon. Lady mentions was obviously a serious case for the victim, but newspaper cuttings from Salford are not the source of future criminal justice reform.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to acknowledge that very few people are sentenced to prison for a first offence? The vast majority of people who serve short-term prison sentences do so only because they have been given community sentence after community sentence, all of which have failed. The last thing to do with those people is to give them another community sentence, only for it to fail once again.

Kenneth Clarke (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State, Justice; Rushcliffe, Conservative)

It is very pleasant to say that I largely agree with my hon. Friend. He has probably been upset by reports that I am minded to abolish short prison sentences. Actually, I have always expressed precisely the opposite opinion. It has never been my view that we should abolish all short prison sentences. Indeed, I have rather shared his opinion that with the kind of irritating recidivist offender who is causing a lot of damage, if they offend over and over again there is quite often no alternative to a short prison sentence. There are too many such offenders, and although there are cases in which we can avoid the use of short prison sentences, if we do that we must have a very effective alternative.

Sadiq Khan (Tooting, Labour)

May I begin by saying how much I genuinely relish the prospect of debating-and, dare I say, arguing-with the Lord Chancellor and his team on the matters in their portfolio? I am also looking forward to working with the coalition Government where there are areas of agreement between us, notably on the use of restorative justice projects such as community payback-a subject that has already been raised by Elizabeth Truss and other colleagues. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that most people who receive short prison sentences are persistent offenders who have refused to change their behaviour, even after undergoing community sentences, as has been said. He has said that he is not against abolishing the power of magistrates to award short sentences. Will he commit today not to reduce, in the sentencing review now taking place, the power of magistrates to give custodial sentences where appropriate?

Kenneth Clarke (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State, Justice; Rushcliffe, Conservative)

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place, and I look forward to debating with him. He has certainly got to Cabinet level a damn sight more quickly than I ever did, so I am sure that he will prove a formidable challenge to the Government. As I have already said, we will not take away powers from magistrates courts, which sometimes find it absolutely inevitable that they have to give somebody a short prison sentence, because everything else has failed and that person is continuing to cause damage to other people. However, we hope to provide magistrates with the full range of alternatives. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said a few moments ago, more credible community sentences-sentences with a properly punitive element that might have a better chance of rehabilitating the offender-should be tried in more cases, and we will try to provide them for magistrates.

Sadiq Khan (Tooting, Labour)

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for that answer. He has made it absolutely clear that magistrates will not have the power to give short sentences taken away from them. For clarity, will he also confirm that the cuts that will be announced tomorrow will not lead to a reduction in any prison places or to any prisons being closed?

Kenneth Clarke (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State, Justice; Rushcliffe, Conservative)

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to follow his predecessors in making a great policy point about a target for the number of people in prison, because there is no evidence that that does any good to anybody. We do have to- [ Interruption. ] The present numbers are enormous compared with the numbers when we were last in office. There are 20,000 more people in prison than there were when we last had a Conservative Home Secretary in charge. We are looking at what works, and what protects the public. Prison must be used for those for whom it is essential, but it is simply not the case that prison is the only way of dealing with all offenders. Once we have punished people and given others a break from their activities, the key thing is to do more than the present system does to reduce the risk of their reoffending and committing more crimes against more victims, to which the present system almost condemns us. More than half of prisoners-

John Bercow (Speaker)

Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but we now need shorter questions and shorter answers.

FROM CLEVELAND TO MONTY PYTHON

Officially Justices of the Peace are considered by the authorities who govern  them pure and simple as members of the judiciary. But their very status as unpaid part time volunteers supposedly representative of the communities in which they live or work sets them apart.  As a retired member of that fraternity I feel that I can comment from the unique position of having had a foot on both sides of the divide.  

There are many commentators being paid thousands of pounds a week to provide their supposedly enlightened viewpoints of the daily events which enter into what can loosely be described as our justice system from alcohol excess to public xenophobia. Recently there have been a few situations which IMHO offer an overall insight into its workings.  

The establishment of elected Police and Crime Commissioners ten years ago was supposed to allow the public some influence albeit at a distance over local policing.  Today there are few within the circle of legal influence who would disagree with the abandonment of this circus.  There have just been too many scandals associated with the position. The latest concerns Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner Steve Turner.  Considering the Cleveland Constabulary was considered the country`s worst this latest revelation I suppose comes as no surprise.  For the people of Teeside and surrounds this must induce or reinforce a lack of confidence in the law and lawmakers; a prelude to dissatisfaction with the norms that must be upheld for a thriving civil society. 

Sadly it seems that that brutally abused woman Sarah Everard is forever going to be remembered  by millions for her murder at the hands of a monster in a police uniform. And in the same context the current Commissioner of Scotland Yard is going to be remembered by many who wonder how she was appointed to the job in the first place considering her record of misjudgements which killed one man and ruined the lives of others.  To compound such a record of ignominy it seems she is about to appoint her choice of investigator into the whole sorry mess.  I would call it the schoolgirl marking her own homework. 

Hardly a day passes when the term asylum seeker legal or illegal does not appear in a headline or news bulletin. The current Tory Party conference will thousands of words on the topic today and over the course of the event. It has been said that one way to reduce the magnetic effect of this country to those striving to travel here is to turn off the magnet; reduce the attraction. The Home Office has been trying various ways to do just that.  Removing an allowance to make  phone calls  has been declared unlawful by the High Court. The fact must be faced is that this country cannot be an almost open door for the thousands of mainly young men from the Middle East and Africa who annually are landing on our shores however the distress in their native lands. To square this circle with a humane and lawful policy will take the wisdom of Solomon. 

Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders were instituted after my retirement so my knowledge is hearsay.  But it seems they operate akin to various orders around domestic abuse and other matters of disorder where ASBO was the forerunner; civil orders the breach of which become criminal offences. Since then they have proliferated.  They operate on the civil basis of probability and IMHO are open to abuse.  Surely all the supposed brains at the Ministry of Justice can do better?

Northern Ireland is literally a law unto itself. But even there some matters stretch credibility.  One such is those charged with murder being given bail. The structures of this province within the UK have always been an anomaly.  I wouldn`t bet against the unification with the Republic by the decade`s end.  

The legal age of sexual consent for heterosexuals in the UK is 16, in Japan it is 13 and in Nigeria it is 11. In Scotland 16 year olds can vote but in England it is not until the age of 18 at which one can also be appointed a magistrate.  Whether or not one`s opinion on these age limits is positive or negative it is sheer fact that a human brain is not fully developed until the early to mid twenties. However owing to a recent Court of Appeal decision puberty blockers can be supplied to children under 16. Of course I cannot comment on the judicial basis of this decision but I do wonder at the outcome. 

Self harming is a cry for help.  For those of us with a more rational disposition it is almost unfathomable.  For the sufferers it is tragic.  To perform such an action in public is beyond comprehension. But does it justify the criminal penalty of  a £40 fine, an order to pay £85 court costs, £60 probation costs and a £128 victim surcharge? 

It used to be said that judges have no real understanding of the common people ie you and I and live a rarefied life from birth to retirement. Governments of all colours for decades have sought to increase public confidence in the judiciary leading to the establishment of the Sentencing Council and Sentencing Guidelines. It would appear that these initiatives have been by passed by HH Judge Timothy Spencer QC when he sentenced a potential terrorist to read some classic English novels. If only Monty Python were still active: what a sketch that would have made. 

A CLASS DRUGS POSSESSION DECRIMINALISED IN SCOTLAND

This blog has consistently argued for the decriminalisation of drugs in England.  The current system has failed miserably to stop, control or persuade  drug users, occasional or habitual, to give up their habit or addiction.  Drug use has been estimated to account for c 70% of acquisitive and/or violent crime.  So called county lines drug supply routes were unknown a decade ago but  as night follows day they developed a few years subsequent to their establishment in most USA urban areas.  Centuries prior to the ravings of the Scottish National Party Scotland was justly proud of its independent legal and educational systems. The quality and attainments of the latter under the SNP have not been matters of pride but so far the legal system has withstood the porridge brains of those who inhabit   Pàrlamaid na h-Alba otherwise known colloquially as "Holyrood".  

Witness corroboration is required in Scots law as the evidence of one witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a charge against an accused or to establish any material or crucial fact. A common form of corroboration in regards to criminal offences is there are two or more witnesses to an offence.  In all probability this has allowed the wrongful criminal conviction rate to be far below that in England and Wales but apparently there are no official statistics I could find to substantiate that opinion.  I quote from Wikipedia; " As at 31 March 2007 [my bold]  the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had received a total of 887 cases since April 1999, when it was established. The Commission completed its review of 841 of these cases and referred 67 of them to the High Court. Of the referrals, 39 have been determined: 25 appeals were granted; 11 appeals rejected; and, 3 abandoned. Chief Executive, Gerard Sinclair, says that normally the court rules about half the referrals to be a miscarriage of justice each year, which would equate in 2003 to roughly 0.005% of the total number of Scottish criminal convictions. But, says Sinclair: "Even if it were just one wrongful conviction a year, that would still be one too many."  The secrecy behind the apparent publication of current statistics is at odds with the welcome live televising of some major Scottish trials.  Combined with the "third verdict", in many ways the legal system north of the border is far in advance of many other jurisdictions in protecting the rights of the individual citizen.  

And so to possession of class A prohibited drugs. Last week it was announced that those in possession of class A  drugs would not be prosecuted if it could be demonstrated that the user had no intention to supply. Effectively possession of drugs for personal use has been decriminalised.  The extraordinary death rate from drug use in Scotland has driven this innovative change of policy. In 2020 1,339 people died as a direct result of drug use. In England and Wales with over ten times the population the number who died from drug use was 4,561.  One doesn`t have to be a statistician to note the scale of the problem in Scotland. In Glasgow last year the death rate was 30 per 100,000 people.  It is not unlikely that that rate will be exceeded this year.  This change in outcomes follows from the declining proportion of drug users in recent years being prosecuted in court.  There is a caveat to my welcoming this momentous change in process: without any provision so far published to rehabilitate and wean addicts as opposed to "recreational  middle class users" off heroin and cocaine a chance is being missed to drastically remove the problem from the largely marginalised youth of deprived neighbourhoods.  I have argued in previous posts for the establishment of compulsorily attendance in medically run institutions devoted solely to that cause........the rehabilitation of drug addicts.  Under the newly established attitudes to such a major problem for society in general and countless families in particular this would seem an opportune moment for the Scottish government to take one more step and find the cash and motivation to wipe off the blot of having Europe`s worst rate of drug addiction.  

ARE GUIDELINES ACTUALLY REQUIRED FOR "EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP"?

I have posted here more times than I care to remember on the topic of exceptional hardship.  They can be accessed by putting those words in the search box.  I have also posted not infrequently that the sentencing abilities of a magistrates bench have been greatly restricted by the ever increasing "guidelines" from the Sentencing Council. There must now be thousands of magistrates who have no experience of a bench under an experienced chairman following a well developed sentencing structure in which, sometimes under the guidance of a legal advisor and sometimes not, a sensible ladder of various and varying possibilities played out. The current system will, if not now, in time lead to a tick box system in which an algorithm will issue a sentence and the bench will be tasked with deciding if any amendments are needed for any individual case.  Exceptional hardship is one of the diminishing number of issues for which no guidelines currently exist although my understanding is that that exception is currently under review.  A recent simple report makes the problem clear.  The very essence of the totting procedure is that every driver should be aware that 12 penalty points within three years equals disqualification.  For many high street law firms exceptional hardship is a very nice money tree.  In my early days on the bench as a newbie winger my protestations against my senior colleagues` decisions to allow the exceptional hardship defence in the flimsiest of arguments went unheard.  As a chairman having done some individual research as was available on the subject I would steer my colleagues along strictly rational grounds sometimes in conflict with an overbearing intrusive legal advisor voicing her concerns which we took on board and rejected. Latest  figures from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) show that nearly 9,000 drivers still hold a licence despite exceeding the 12-point threshold.  Why should anyone with customers/ clients/ patients dependent upon their advice/opinion/labour be treated more favourably?  Where is a line to be drawn?  From my experience colleagues wanted to accept arguments from  middle class professionals much more often than from those of a lower social status. I firmly then as  now reject this view. The doctor in the case above was well aware of the consequences of her actions.  Indeed it might be argued that she would (should)  have been more aware than most of the consequences.  Indeed her culpability IMHO was increased by her social and professional position. An interesting argument which should be mandatory reading for all magistrates was heard at the  APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY in Scotland 2012.  As is often the case appellants with adequate financial resources have the wherewithal to challenge a ban resulting from losing an exceptional hardship argument.  Perhaps this is actually an area where magistrates need to be subject to guidelines so that their oath might be realised in actuality as opposed to theory. 

 “I, ____________ , do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ____________ , 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.”

PLUS CA CHANGE ...................

We now have the 8th Lord Chancellor/ Justice Secretary since 2010. It doesn`t need advanced mathematics to appreciate that at that rate it is impossible for anyone however gifted to truly appreciate all the nuances of the job and to set the direction of travel without the combined resources of those who keep the wheels turning ie the department`s civil servants.  But the great British public really doesn`t care about "justice" until perhaps the summons appears in their letter box.  Al they know is the few brief lines in their local paper or what they read or hear on social media:- Twitter Law. With in depth reporting of criminal matters becoming more sparse week by week, headline criminality excepted, it is cases like this which form the concept of "justice" in the public mind.  Compared to many that report seems comprehensive but it leaves the impression of "soft" justice: perhaps that is justified.  There is nothing reported by the presiding magistrate which seems to justify the leniency dished out to this offender.  Taking this a step further it is this mindset which has increasingly driven sentencing to the highest levels of severity in a generation at a time when prison conditions are fast approaching a national disgrace, probation services have yet to recover from their decimation by the most incompetent of the previous seven Lord Chancellors  and increasing emphasis on so called victim-hood. The new boy at Petty France will, no doubt as all his predecessors have done, in due course issue a long statement of how knife crime will be a priority and criminals will receive their just deserts but all I can add is plus ça change plus c'est la meme chose.

A PAT ON THE BACK

For the first time since my retirement I attended a magistrates court not long ago. In the past I have described,  as an insider, some of the shortcomings of my own court and the system in general.  Indeed much frustration has been ventilated here but the 10.00 a.m. start of that recent session demonstrated to me at least a facet of English justice of which I felt justly proud to have been a very very small part. Whether that experience was typical is another matter. 

In the witness box: a Spanish interpreter sworn in; at hand a young woman recently arrived from South America was to make a statutory declaration. She had recently received a notice from a firm of bailiffs demanding around £600 in fine plus costs for non payment of a fine for a motoring offence. Her declaration stated that for various reasons she had received no earlier notification that any offence had been committed, no demand for payment and queried the offence details themselves.

The procedure was carefully explained and translated for her and she left the courtroom with a perfect understanding of what might follow. I thought to myself what other country would provide such a service at no cost to a short term visitor with only her native language available for all but the most basic topics. 

ETHNIC PAKISTANI MURDER RATES BELOW THE HORIZON

 

A decade ago most people would have been hard put to offer a meaning to the term "woke".  They had gotten used to the term "politically correct" but there was another expression which had yet to appear amongst the deluge of print in broadsheets and others; "cancel culture".  The term "racist" had become common parlance decades ago.  Until perhaps thirty years ago it was used in its basic form as an adjective  to describe being prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalised.  As a noun it identified being a racist as a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalised. How times have moved on. Whilst the "N" word is virtually forbidden and rightly erased in almost any context there are still epithets in common parlance used to denigrate Jewish people; Jew boy and Yid can still be heard whilst Zionist has been robbed of its true meaning to castigate Jews (Israel) for the situation of  those in Judea and Samaria who term themselves Palestinians.  It is ironic that there have been historic periods when the Jews of mandatory Palestine and earlier were themselves termed Palestinians.  Currently the term Paki has been become an overall term of derision for those originating from the sub continent. The users appear to be indifferent to or unaware of the dozens of ethnic minorities from Iran to Afghanistan and including Pakistan  many of whom wear a head covering or clothes of their ethnic backgrounds. However there is no doubt that many of those of Pakistani descent in England  are from families who originally inhabited outlying rural areas where Sharia was predominant as opposed to the more cosmopolitan people of the cities eg Karachi and Islamabad.  Many of those families settled in the north of England. For the last twenty years many organisations including police and politicians have gone overboard to explain the criminal actions of Pakistani men, often now 2nd or 3rd generation in this country as somehow not being associated with their ethnic status. They felt the risk of being called racist was more than they or those for whom they had responsibility could bear. And so the scandals of abused white girls by Pakistani men went underground and denied by the "great and the good" until pressure was so overwhelming that the roof was raised at the extent of what was effectively a cover up of the real facts.  The racist abuse of the accusers was quietened for a while. 

That now brings this post up to date. The UK has a population of 62 million.  Those identifying as Pakistani number 208,000: i.e. 0.34% of the population.  The table below shows that of 265 convictions of murder in 2020 seven of the offenders were of Pakistani ethnicity. To put that in context those seven represented 2.64% of the total number of convicted murderers. In other words that ethnic minority`s murder rate was 776% in excess of its numbers in the population.  These are government statistics; facts and facts alone. I believe there are vested interests in keeping those facts, shall we say, below the horizon and generally out of sight. 

STAR CHAMBER 2021 STYLE

A simple question; can justice in its myriad forms be secret?  The answer must be a resounding "no". Whether in the confines of a small room in a magistrates court where  the Single Justice Procedure is in operation,  in the hinterlands of China or at 81 – 82 Queens Building, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand London, WC2A 2LL, the home of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,  the answer is the same; no, no and no. It is not fanciful nor an exaggeration to refer to the last named as a Star Chamber; a system with an ominous history.......... an English court which sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century, and was composed of Privy Counsellors and common-law judges, to supplement the judicial activities of the common-law and equity courts in civil and criminal matters. Being under the suzerainty of the sovereign its processes are a historical treasure trove.  Indeed they were formalised as follows:-

The proceedings, recorded in English, gathered together the details of a case as presented by plaintiff and defendant. Each of the following stages in the proceedings was officially recorded:

 A petition or bill (also known as a pleading) from the plaintiff would be submitted to the court laying out their grievance

 A response from the defendant, known as an ‘answer’

 A response from the plaintiff, known as a ‘replication’

 A further response from the defendant, known as a ‘rejoinder’

 Interrogatories – a set of questions that could be put to the witnesses of either party – in some cases interrogatories seem to have started off the procedure

 Sworn testimony, known as ‘depositions’, in answer to the questions in the interrogatories

Those unfortunate enough to come within the judicial orbit of the JCIO are faced with navigating the The Judicial Conduct (Magistrates) Rules 2014 and its updates.  

This year to date 18 magistrates have been sanctioned by the JCIO.  How many have been investigated and have escaped "notoriety" is as much a state secret as the number of Boris Johnson`s illegitimate children or the Duke of Sussex`s real father.   Of these unfortunates eleven were found to have failed to sit the minimum number of times strictly specified to them at their interview and certainly discussed with each before disciplinary proceedings were initiated. But we will never know why a sitting MP on the supplemental list was allowed to continue in that position even although he had previously faced disciplinary sanction.  It is apparent that any JP who is automatically shifted to the supplemental list at retirement and who wants to retain the perceived vanity of the letters JP on his/her letterhead had better not be caught for the most minor misdemeanour which might lead to a conviction or a suspected contravention of the judicial conduct rules above. But there have always been those whose interest in the magistracy has 99% to do with his/her perceived kudos of that suffix and 1% to serve his fellow citizens in the justice process. Nevertheless whilst the General Medical Council and many similar disciplinary bodies hold hearings in public or publish the content of such hearings it is notable that misconduct of police and judges is still under the cloud of secrecy.  Perhaps it will be historians in the 23rd century who will have access to these matters as we now have to the processes of the Star Chamber.  

POLITICS AND THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

Perhaps the single most reasonable criticism of our courts is that to many observers the sentence doesn`t fit the crime.  Very few matters, especially at magistrates courts, are reported in a degree of depth that allows knowledgeable and fair criticism. That in itself is IMHO a valid enough reason why media outlets and government should explore the benefits to each of live TV or on line screening of the day to day happenings at magistrates courts initially and crown courts in due course.  This post inter alia consists of extracts from recent newspaper reports which indicate sentencing which some readers might find disturbing (to paraphrase some of the ridiculous woke pronouncements heard every day prior to the showing of some TV programmes)  insofar as the apparent variation or inconsistency shown by the benches in question. Thousands of similar cases are heard every year.     

 The following case was heard at Reading Magistrates’ Court Friday, May 21

JORDAN HINDS, 27, of Holberton Road, Reading, admitted possession of cannabis in Reading on October 9, 2019. He was also convicted of two counts of driving under the influence of cocaine and one count of driving under the influence of cannabis on the same date. He was banned from driving for 12 months, fined £530, ordered to pay court costs of £620 and told to pay a £53 victim surcharge.

 A ROUND-UP of recent cases heard at Newport Magistrates’ Court.

MATTHEW WILLIAMS, 27, of George Lansbury Drive, Newport, was jailed for six weeks and banned from driving for three years and 21 days after he admitted drug driving in an Audi S3 with cocaine derivative benzoylecgonine and cannabis derivative delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in his blood on Ringland Way on December 27, 2020. He was ordered to pay a £122 surcharge.  

16th August The Mail Barrow in Furness South Cumbria Magistrates Court

Barrow drug driver disqualified for 12 months

MAN from Barrow has been disqualified from driving for 12 months.Liam Clawson, of James Watt Terrace, Barrow, was found to be over the legal limit for benzoylecgonine whilst driving on Island Road on February 10. Clawson, 33, admitted the offence at South Cumbria Magistrates' Court last Tuesday, where he was also fined £150. 

DRUG driver has been banned from driving for 15 months by magistrates.Mr Kamen Alty, of Maple Avenue, Ulverston, was found to be over the legal limit for cannabis whilst driving an Audi A3 along Quebec Street on May 28. He admitted the offence at South Cumbria Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, August 10, and was also fined £300.

The following are the latest results contributed by HM Courts Service, for cases sentenced by West Sussex Magistrates’ Court sitting at Worthing and Crawley from July 30 to August 6, 2021.

Alan Young, 66, of Ham Close, Worthing, was fined £186 after admitting drug-driving (118ug/l benzoylecgonine) in Clifton Road, Worthing, on January 1, 2021. He was also fined £186 and must pay £115 costs after admitting drug-driving (106ug/l benzoylecgonine) in Tarring Road, Worthing, on February 23, 2021. He was disqualified from driving for 24 months.

Andrew Brown, 44, of Ruskin Road, Worthing, was given a community order and must carry out 80 hours’ unpaid work after admitting drug-driving (5.5ug/l Delta-9-THC) in Penfold Road, Worthing, on January 16, 2021. He must pay £85 costs, £95 victim surcharge, and was disqualified from driving for 36 months.

Robert Walters, 19, of Monterey Gardens, Bognor Regis, was given a community order and must carry out 60 hours’ unpaid work after admitting two charges of drug-driving (85ug/l benozylecgonine, 5.6ug/l Delta-9-THC) in Crookthorn Lane, Climping, on January 1, 2021. He must pay £85 costs, £95 victim surcharge, and was disqualified from driving for 12 months. 

Aaron Pelling, 35, of Angola Road, Worthing, was fined £80 and must pay £34 victim surcharge after admitting drug-driving (300ug/l benzoylecgonine) in Findon Road, Worthing, on November 13, 2020. He was disqualified from driving for 12 months. 

For those convicted of drug driving in the magistrates court the penalties are:-

a minimum 1 year driving ban

an unlimited fine

up to 6 months in prison

Many high street solicitors make a handsome living for defending those accused of drug driving. A single and well reasoned example can be accessed here. 

The Sentencing Council`s latest guidance on drug driving is copied below:-

Driving or attempting to drive

Triable only summarily

Maximum: Unlimited fine and/or 6 months

Must endorse and disqualify for at least 12 months   Must disqualify for at least 2 years if offender has had two or more disqualifications for periods of 56 days or more in preceding 3 years – refer to disqualification guidance. Magistrates: consult your legal adviser for further guidance

Must disqualify for at least 3 years if offender has been convicted of a relevant offence in preceding 10 years – consult your legal adviser for further guidance

I would assume (hope?) that on the bench all magistrates (and of course DJs) would have that guidance before them. However since the concept of local justice by local magistrates has been effectively discarded it is even more important that the national guidelines and guidance is applied fairly across the board.  Raw annual statistics poured over by broadsheet newspapers and academics is no substitute for bringing home to the public the results of what is happening in the courts.  Indeed the secrecy of the Single Justice Procedure makes this increasingly necessary.  When the public loses interest in the law government smiles.  I have previously here argued for what is simply called Court TV.  It has long been available in USA and there is a TV channel of that title available on Sky.  Partial televising of a criminal court process has been undertaken in Scotland and the Supreme Court is available on line.  But make  no mistake; this government is withholding itself from scrutiny in many aspects.  It is being disingenuous on the supposed construction of new hospitals, on the numbers of "new" police officers; in the latter case attempting to replace the same number removed from the service since the Tories took over from Labour in 2010. Open justice being seen to be done is a pillar of any democracy. There is however apparently little interest from those supposedly looking after our liberties in seeking this objective.  Perhaps it`s because most of those people and groups are of a leftist persuasion and IMHO there is little doubt that the capitalist media would have to be the partner to government and that would not sit squarely with their politics. So once more I assume that the politics of the situation outweigh the interests of justice.     

TAXIS AND THE APPEAL COURT

All those with more than a passing interest in criminal law will be well aware that verdicts and sentences at the magistrates court can be appealed at the crown court where a crown court judge and two magistrates will re hear the case.  This is entirely logical and understandable insofar it is rightly expected that under a judge`s scrutiny any deviations in the correct application of the law which occurred in the original hearing will not be repeated. However the magistrates with that aforementioned proviso have equal input into the determination of facts and the logical thinking in the imposition of sentence if indeed the defendant is found guilty. The single most disturbing factor of such process is that many benches do not explain an offender`s right to such an appeal process. For the ever increasing numbers of unrepresented defendants this is an omission for which I have the utmost contempt for my former colleagues.  Indeed I can recollect after making this information clear to an offender that in the retiring room one of the wingers remarked that he had no knowledge of such a procedure as it had not been mentioned at any training session.  Rising up the scale of seriousness it seems quite appropriate that there is in practice a similar process for offenders convicted at crown court. As at 15 February 2021, there are 105 Justices of the High Court (16 Chancery Division, 20 Family Division, and 69 Queen's Bench Division judges), 74 male and 31 female.  Naturally one would expect that those individuals would possess greater intellectual powers than in those of the lower level to enable them to be more expert in the interpretation of the law.  That is not to say that there are no crown court judges who could fulfil the requirements of their senior colleagues. As of 14 June 2021 there are  26 Lord Justices of Appeal and 9 Lady Justices of Appeal. At the top of this legal pinnacle is the Supreme Court where there are currently 12 judges. For a layman it is simply impossible to be certain that each one of those dozen individuals is worthy of his/her position when measured against their colleagues in the tier below. And similarly when a High Court judge is measured in whatever manner is the format against a supposedly higher grade at the Appeal Court can we, the great British public, assume that all is hunky dory at the senior levels of our judiciary?  Thankfully there is a limited number of occasions where there is demonstrated the stark contrast in the reasoning between two levels of decision making.   From one such an extract from a very recent press report reads as follows:-

However, the Court of Appeal’s full decision, which has now been published, pulls her ruling apart, with the three judges saying that it was “extraordinary and not right” that the steps taken by TfL and the Mayor be described as “extreme or ill considered,” nor were there grounds to view them as “irrational.”

They said that Mrs Justice Lang “seems to have given no or almost no weight to the fact that the [decisions taken by TfL] were made on or by 15 May 2020 at a time when the duration and future course of the pandemic were wholly unpredictable.”

The above comments are from the case below a full transcript of which is available here.

This successful appeal should be a mindset check for those who are responsible for the appointment of our judiciary especially at this senior level. From cases where contrary to official guidance magistrates are publicly criticised by crown court judges to controversial decisions by a split Supreme Court a public must trust in the quality and integrity of the senior judiciary from the Lord Chancellor downwards. When that trust evaporates it is an early signal that similar is happening within our democracy.   

ILLEGAL MIGRATION AND PRISONER REPATRIATION; IS THERE A SOLUTION?

It seems we have become accustomed every week of every summer to reading of the increased number of  individuals being assisted ashore on the south coast from a variety of flimsy often unseaworthy inflatable craft more suitable for cruising down a rural river than crossing the 22 miles of rough sea from the French coast.  For the last decade the Home Office, an institution described by John Reid a previous Home Secretary as not fit for service, has been unable to institute viable policies to control this illegal immigration. Indeed it is arguable that this failure alone contributed to the success of the Leave campaign. How foolish was the public to believe that outside the EU we would have more power to halt this influx than inside but that is another story.  Recently the Home Secretary has produced yet more legislation to try to control the masses fleeing war in the Middle East and Africa. Short of ramming these craft there is little doubt that whilst there are migrants with cash and gangs with little fear of detection and retribution this latest attempt to stop the flow will prove as futile as the previous ones.  

Whilst the Home Office is wallowing in its own disfunction the result of the criminal activities of those  foreigners whether legally or illegally in this country is almost as chaotic as the Ministry of Justice then becomes involved.  Of its 77K workers the press office of that department of state must be among the largest in Whitehall. Rarely ten days pass without an announcement of further good intentions. The latest such offering is available here.  Is there anyone reading this who does not know that beginning 2010 with 23.8% sliced from its budget that the MOJ has been starved of enough funds so much so that law `n order by any interpretation has been financially butchered from the numbers of police to the failure of the prison system with courts, legal aid and probation falling by the wayside. That recent statement above from the Secretary of State refers mainly to the probation and prison services both of which were mangled beyond belief by the worst, most inept cabinet minister in post war history half a decade ago. When it comes to return of foreign prisoners to their countries of origin it seems the two departments of state collide.  The latest document i.e. the rule book from the National Offender Management Service is available here. Personally I recollect a single occasion when unusually an offender had in my opinion transgressed such that he was eligible to be deported.  The official channels through which we as a bench made the information as appropriate  blocked us at every turn. On 26th July with more fanfare from the MOJ a statement on the return of Albanian prisoners was released. It remains to be seen how effective is this agreement.  Current figures for Albanians and others returned from British prisons are below.

There is no doubt that there are considerable obstacles to be overcome when this task is to be considered however much the Daily Mail seeks to blow the MOJ trumpet.  Here is a brief summary.  Considering the government`s record I don`t think we should be too hopeful.  

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-enforcement-data-august-2020 (Table FNO_09 in Transparency data Immigration Enforcement data: August 2020, provides the numbers of foreign nationals removed under the Early Removal Scheme every year since 2010 but that there is no published data that breaks down these numbers by nationality or offence type).

	FNOs repatriated under EUPTFD convicted of human trafficking or modern slavery offences	FNOs repatriated under CoE Convention convicted of human trafficking or modern slavery offences	FNOs repatriated under bilateral PTAs convicted of human trafficking or modern slavery offences
2016	2	0	0
2017	0	0	0
2018	1	0	0
2019	2	0	0

All five prisoners repatriated under the EUPTFD were EEA nationals.

Climate change and the millions of people being forcibly displaced by warring factions are certain to further increase the pressures on western societies from legal and illegal migrants seeking a peaceful and economically better life.  This country`s problems are the world`s in microcosm. From Arizona to Antalya the trouble is not going to go away.  The test for us is how to handle it. 

WELSH PARLIAMENT TO BAN PARENTS` RIGHTS TO ADMONISH CHILDREN

Most people are not knowledgeable of the law until it hits them full head on often as a result of breaching motoring law or encountering prohibitions enacted by a local authority.  Breaking the law within the confines of one`s own home with regard to speech which supposedly offends is a target for some of the more active promoters of a woke society.  It seems that to be a law abiding parent within that home for Welsh parents is now, or will soon, be under the all seeing eye of the Welsh government. From 21st March 2022 all physical chastisement of children will be illegal. No longer will a loving mother or father apply the slightest physical admonishment to a son or daughter without the risk of being a defendant in a court.  In the thousands of words to describe the forthcoming legal minefield nowhere is it made clear the actual legal process that would follow in a court of law. Where will all this madness end?  Is this right wing authoritarianism or left wing wokeness?  Is the mindset of those who have pushed through this disingenuous legislation of the same mindset as those who have politicised the continual  wearing of masks as the corona virus epidemic appears to be receding? From a personal point of view I remember the only time I smacked my son.  He was three years old and I caught him poking a fork into an electric point.  Having made clear to him it was a bad thing to do I spotted him a few minutes later repeating the forbidden action with a big smile on his face.  I smacked his leg hard enough to leave a red mark. A similar corrective action will in Cardiff or Ogmore or Swansea after 21st March next year if reported by eg a disgruntled neighbour lead to possible court proceedings. 

Assuming that I am not discussing alleged assault or currently recognised acts of abuse I have three objections to this unnecessary legislation; practical, legal and philosophical as it would apply to the action of a loving parent to an unruly child or a dangerously disobedient child like my son.  In practice there will have to be an incident reported. This would offer so many opportunities for an estranged intimate partner to cause mischief making and more.  In equally practical terms medical and health workers would be faced with the Solomon type decisions of where to place blame if any for the relatively mild admonishments this legal minefield seeks to impose and punish accordingly.  Court proceedings would be a nightmare for wholly innocent parents wishing to bring up their children in the best way possible being castigated by target driven fanatics seeking justification for their entrenched anti family politics where the state knows best.  Philosophically this century has seen the state interfering ever increasingly in our daily lives. Of course to some extent there is complete justification to protect us by persuasion from the over consumption of sugar or using nudge to dissuade anti vaxers of their mistaken beliefs but there is also the state which argues that the removal of a motorway`s hard shoulder is safer than its remaining or that a Prime Minister can lie to parliament with impunity.   

All I can say is that those voting at the election for the next Senedd should bear in mind the actions of the current members. 

EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION UNPREDICTABLE FOR DENTIST

There are millions of self employed people from artists to zoo keepers who legally claim self employed status.  Once the situation is approved by Her Majesty`s Revenue and Customs those individuals can access the tax benefits but occasionally rue their decision by losing out in other ways perhaps unforeseen at the time of making their decision.  The situation is similar for the company or individual to whom they sell their services. It or they have much reduced control over said individual but also much reduced liability if things are not as rosy as expected. However when a business, which had been run as one where all the workers were self employed, is sold one would have thought that all things being equal, liability in any form six years subsequently would well and truly not fall to that previous owner. WRONG!  It would appear that for dentist Mr Raj Rattan the High Court thought differently.  A reasonably comprehensive report explaining all this is available here. 

THE INVISIBLE CLOUD OF AUTHORITARIANISM IN COURTS

During my active life as a Justice of the Peace I spent over a decade in the middle chair.  Apart from the preceding years as a winger and having satisfied HMCTS as to my suitability to conduct the court`s business as specified there were many occasions where spontaneity and initiative were essential to ensure that justice was not just done but seen to be done. For that reason alone it is my opinion that successful box ticking for applicants seeking that role will fail to highlight those who are just not suited or capable.  Indeed with HMCTS desperately seeking  not "Susan" but new magistrates it is inevitable that the quality of presiding magistrates will fall insofar as they will be reliant increasingly on "rules" and "advice" from their legal advisors. As a winger I rarely if ever heard the bench chairman explain to defendants found guilty that they had a right of appeal to the crown court at their own expense on verdict or sentence. If I remember correctly that pronouncement was never in the list of pronouncements supplied to every magistrate in hard copy as was the only method of supply in those days. Giving that information was ever most important after trial of  litigants in person [LIP] whose numbers are now increasing annually owing to the reduction in Legal Aid rates and the consequent dearth of duty solicitors. In the current situation exacerbated by Covid-19 and especially with hundreds of thousands of cases being heard in secret under the Single Justice procedure [SJP] (my post July 6th) where we have Great British Justice being rubber stamped as if we were in Republic of China information on appeal is not just essential it is imperative. I therefore find it astonishing that in all the rhubarb emanating from the Ministry of Justice recently [as is their wont] there is an unheralded statement that time limits on appeal are changing. Below is the appropriate extract recently published...{my bold}

Time limit for appeal from a magistrates’ court to the Crown Court Under section 108 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980a defendant may appeal to the Crown Court against conviction or sentence in a magistrates’ court. On an appeal against conviction the Crown Court tries the defendant again and may acquit or convict. On an appeal against sentence the Crown  Court  passes  a fresh sentence,  which may be  less  or more severe.  At present  the time  limit  for  an  appeal against conviction  is  15  business  days  from  the  date  of sentence  or  from  the  date  on  which  sentence  is  deferred (if  it  is) under  sections  4 and  5  of the Sentencing Act2020,whichever is earlier. Under sections 14 to 17 of the Sentencing Act 2020a  magistrates’  court  can  commit  a  convicted  defendant  to  the  Crown  Court  for sentencing instead of passing or deferring sentence itself.Under rule 34.2of the Criminal Procedure Rules if a defendant is convicted by a magistrates’ court and committed for sentence to the Crown Court then at present the time limit for appeal against  the  conviction  does  not start until the  defendant  has  been  sentenced  in  the  Crown Court. That may postpone the appeal unnecessarily.It may result in what turns out to be an unnecessary  sentencing  in  the  Crown  Court(because  the  defendant  then  is  acquitted  on appeal). In some circumstances it may affect the sentencing powers of the Crown Court on the appeal if the appeal fails.In practice, the Crown Court usually can avoid these potential difficulties  by  postponing  its  decision  on  the  committal  for  sentence  until  after  the  appeal against  conviction,but  only  if  the  defendant  decides  not  to  wait  until  after  the  sentencing before starting the appeal. The Rule Committee heard from Crown Court judges that it would be  more  efficient,  and  fairer  both  to  defendants  and witnesses,  if  the  time  limit  for  appeal against  conviction  were  to  run  from  the  date  of  committal for  sentence  to  the  Crown  Court, where that happens. The Committee agreed and has changed the time limit in the rule.

I will not be surprised if the current three calendar weeks time limit on appeals direct from magistrates to crown court is reduced by a third.  The whole underlying philosophy of the MOJ over the last decade is to salami slice an individual`s ability to be able to oppose the state`s decisions and requirements from magistrates courts to the Supreme Court; i.e. from those who interpret the law to those who make the law. With regard to the second proposed change above I do not think that all criminal defence lawyers will be happy and for LIPs it will be just another area where they will be floundering in a sea of uncertainty.  The full GUIDE TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) RULES 2021 is available here. 

Rarely if ever do authoritarian governments appear like a bolt of lightening from above; they appear with stealth and cunning almost like an invisible cloud with only occasional flashes of intent  in obscure areas of our society to predict their approach. I fear we are enveloped within that invisible cloud.