CROWN COURT BACKLOG/MAGISTRATE SHORTAGE// GOVERNMENT SELF CREATED PROBLEMS

The issues of anything to do with magistrates are usually not headline making nor worthy of headline making........until recently.  No judicial voices were heard in the last decade crying out against the two thirds reduction in the numbers of magistrates from 2010 a reduction that was entirely predictable considering the age profile of those in 2010 and a government policy of non recruitment thereafter.  Now there is a headlong drive by the Ministry of Justice to enlist no less than 4,000 new magistrates to join the current cohort of twelve and a half thousand. One doesn`t need to be a Nostradamus to appreciate that within a year or less a quarter of those on the bench will be novices. One unmentioned result of this inexperienced influx will be that legal advisors will hold sway to an unhealthy level of magistrates` decision making. The ability of benches to take an independent view of a situation will be funnelled into the mindset of paid civil servants who should have no business except that of ensuring that benches` processes fall within the law. Their opinions on fact are outwith their raison d`etre. Their opinions on sentencing should be confined to overseeing that a bench follows the lawful structure contained in Sentencing Guidelines.  From my own experiences there is certainly a number of advisors in every court who exceed those boundaries. It takes a strong minded presiding justice to impose the will of a bench when a legal advisor has a mind of his/her own to impose an alternative view.  With 4,000 newbies it is a certainty that the diminished number of old hands on a bench will face increasing pressure from their novice colleagues not to oppose legal advisors when opposition is exactly what is and will be needed from time to time in the future as it always has been in the past. One overlooked fact is certain: professional district judges are not selected on the basis of being  representatives of their area although they preside alone over about a quarter of cases. So there are and have been two forms of magistrates courts; a supposed court of "representatives"  and another of a government paid professional judge selected only for his/her abilities to do the job.  The propagating of "diversity" in the magistracy is a distraction. 

The other headline maker which has many in the legal world finding the discomfort when their knickers are in a twist is the extension enacted this week of magistrates courts` sentencing powers. Offenders agreeing to either way matters being tried at the lower court face the possibility of a twelve month maximum custodial sentence; double the previous limit which has held sway for many decades. The Ministry of Justice as usual with its overpaid coterie of a press and public relations department has been quick out of the blocks with its gung ho press releases the headline of which from its point of view seeks to alter the basis of argument to its own agenda; "Magistrates to help tackle backlog as sentencing powers doubled."  In short the MOJ seeks to imprint on our feeble minds that the backlog of crown court trials will be reduced.  That is rubbish.  In March the House of Commons Committee on Public Accounts reported, with recommendations to government. The Government had two months to respond.  In the Report amongst its conclusions was written, 

"The number of cases in the Crown Court waiting to be resolved has nearly doubled since March 2019, from an all-time low of 33,290 to 59,928 cases in September 2021. Since March 2020 alone, the number of cases waiting longer than a year has increased by more than 340%. The Department’s plan is to reduce the backlog by less than 7,000 cases, to 53,000 by March 2025. We remain unconvinced of the Department’s intentions to reduce waiting times in the Crown Court, given the slow pace of recovery. In January 2022, after we had taken evidence in December, the Department announced that magistrates will be able to hand out longer prison sentences. The Department expects this will reduce the number of cases that magistrates need to send to the Crown Court for sentencing."

Note that the Committee itself does not endorse the MOJ conclusion; it just repeats it. The prime reason for the delays at crown courts was the government`s own decision to reduce the number of judges` sitting days to reduce costs. In addition there has been a known reluctance to appoint the required number of new judges; again cutting costs having been the reason.  There are c120 full time District Judges sitting in magistrates courts and around 160 Deputies. It is estimated, although hard facts are difficult to obtain, that they sit on about a quarter of all the trials at magistrates courts. Thus they will be judge, jury and sentencer all in one; a situation which is likely to exacerbate the rancour of the more libertarian defence advocates. Currently about 4% of all offenders at magistrates courts receive an immediate custodial sentence. It is beyond any shadow of doubt that the numbers of appeals at crown court against sentence will multiply.  This will further take up time of judges and recorders away from their prime purpose. In addition many more defendants will take the opportunity to elect trial at crown court on those either way offences where their lower perceived risk of being found guilty is confirmed by statistics.  

To sum up; apart from some magisterial bigwigs crowing about their new status there is absolutely no requirement or argument to suggest that the increased sentencing powers will do anything to reduce the backlog at crown courts.  It is nothing less than a cynical effort to demonstrate that the "government is doing something" to fix a problem it itself created. 

THE CHOICE IS BINARY

On 12th January I wrote at length on the trial of the Colston 4.  Thus I was pleased to note that the Attorney General whose decisions since taking office have not been above criticism has taken an interest in this case and referred it to the Court of Appeal.  From recent divergences of opinion on the law most notably Boris Johnson`s remarks on the exporting of illegal immigrants to Rwanda that he expects opposition in the courts as to the legality of his proposals a political divide between "woke" lawyers and the rest is becoming apparent.  It is also  apparent that the political divisions opened by the 2016 Referendum, itself an expedient act by David Cameron to hold together the Tory Party, have widened the gulf between our previously held opinions of what we call the Left and Right.  Differences in matters eg sexual orientation and gender have now become standards by which extremists view their world.........not ours but theirs because such individuals apply their self defined formulae to almost any activity or opinion.  Their world is an ugly one in which the choice is binary. You are for me or against me.  

Now I am leaving for a short holiday and so I hope to return here refreshed and wide awake but not woke in a couple of weeks or so. 

LOCAL COUNCILS ENCOURAGE FLY TIPPING

According to the government whether we like it or not restrictions imposed over the last two years to minimise the transmission of Covid 19 have been lifted.  We can all go about our business as we wish taking any precautions we deem helpful (if any at all)  and trusting in our own common sense and vaccinations. Sounds simple but there are some areas of our lives where Covid restrictions have been used to make more inroads into the way we live.  

Magistrates will be well aware of the increase in the numbers appearing before them on charges of fly tipping as are local councils who provide the first line of defence against those despoilers of our highways and byways.   Councils are able to issue on-the-spot fines to fly-tippers of up to £400 and can stop, search and seize vehicles suspected of being used for fly-tipping. Local authorities and the Environment Agency are also able to issue penalties of up to £400 to householders who do not pass their waste to a licensed carrier and whose waste is then found fly-tipped. Fly-tippers can also be prosecuted and taken to court which can lead to a significant fine and/or up to 12 months imprisonment if convicted in a Magistrates' Court or an unlimited fine and/or up to 5 years imprisonment if convicted in a Crown Court. Fly-tipping prosecutions are highly successful with over 98% of prosecutions resulting in a conviction in 2019/20.  

One would think therefore that councils would do all they can to facilitate the needs of their residents by enhancing the efficiencies of their dump sites.  One would be wrong.  The regular 9 or 10 am to 4pm no appointment needed operating hours pre Covid are now history for most if not all councils.  As an example Barnet Council in north London has decreed that 24 hours notice must be given to its major public dump site and an appropriate appointment made in order to use the facility. In addition it`s insisting on Covid imposed rules for those attending. What utter nonsense is this.  The union members on site are all too ready to follow these instructions but what of the population of 330K who are its customers?  Fly tipping is a scourge on our society along with many others but it can be controlled with local councils doing their very best to be council tax payers orientated.  Barnet amongst many others is giving two fingers to those who pay their workers` wages.   

OYEZ, OYEZ, OYEZ

There are millions of court cases annually in this country; a very small number is reported in the national and/or local media and an even smaller number is commented upon in legal publications.  It is therefore hardly surprising that the great British public apart from the third of adult males who have a criminal record has little idea of what constitutes justice.  

The issue of subcontractors working under IR 35 has primarily been an issue for accountants and their clients of whom there are or were millions.  To be or not to be an employee had little effect on those members of the public who perhaps many times removed were beneficiaries of what ostensibly was an arrangement between employer and contractor.  But there was and is a major dividing line at the sharp end of that contractual relationship: what is the result of negligent and/or less than satisfactory working standards of the contractor and harm or loss befalls the customer?  Until recently that position at least as far as dentists was unresolved. Dental practice owners have for many years operated a payment by results system for supposed independent self employed fellow dentists  working on a piecemeal basis.  I suppose the modern term which best describes the situation is zero hour contracts.  If a dentist in such a situation faces a charge of negligence or similar the practice principal has been able to stand aloof from the proceedings and the accused must defend him/herself as well as possible whether or not s/he has appropriate insurance.  That iniquitous situation is no more.  Last week the Court of Appeal finally ruled that the previous legal position was unfit for purpose; a long awaited reform to the benefit of anybody unfortunate enough to be dissatisfied with the quality of care in the dentist`s chair.    

Capital punishment was abolished in 1965.  There has been a not insubstantial minority since then convinced that decision was hasty and the rope should be held in reserve for the most heinous of crimes and their perpetrators.  One such category is the double murderer.  However when a double murderer  is released on license and goes on to commit a third murder hackles rise and it was last week  Lawrence Bierton pleaded guilty and so placed himself in that vary rare club of demons; a triple murderer. He is yet to be sentenced but it is unlikely he will receive anything less than a whole of life custodial order with no possibility of parole.  Should he hang? Would society be better served if that sentence were available? 

This column has previously alluded to the inequality of sentencing seemingly structured into our legal system. In basic terms sentence can vary as a miscreant`s contribution to and place in society.  Some will agree and others not.  But should this pharmacist be sentenced to custody or even custody suspended or not?  Read this report and decide. 

In some many areas of our lives text messages and e mails are ubiquitous.  From notice of deliveries to our or a neighbour`s front door to a confirmation a bank deposit has been received or  payment due the text tells us all but not in court.  This is an anachronism which is years overdue in being brought into the 21st century.  I doubt there is a single magistrate reading these words who has not had the experience of being told by a defendant that s/he had not received a letter from the court.  Sometimes the court will believe such a statement and sometimes not: competent presiding justices doing their job must exercise their interrogative techniques in coming to a decision as happened recently at  Worcester Magistrates Court.

And finally to those amongst us who think the law does not apply to them.........and I am not discussing the goings on at a house in London SW1.  Rather that description is proudly exploited by a group of so called activists who believe that the ends justify the means and juries who cannot or do not see or are  unwilling to face the reality that fascism often begins with such attitudes and terminology. Extinction Rebellion and associated groups sometimes with antisemitic overtones amongst its members have been and are using the law to undermine our society.  When this route is embarked upon there is no knowing where it will end.  In Northern Ireland in 1968 it began with peaceful marches but within a couple of years it travelled the road of car bombs, murder and civil war in all but name.  It is a road to anarchy.  The perennial question for a democratic country like ours is how far do we go to defeat the fascist who will do everything and anything to undermine that democracy.  The paradox is if and when it becomes necessary to employ undemocratic means to save that democracy are these means employed and to what extent?  In Northern Ireland internment without trial became a useful though limited  tool as did a single judge no jury  courts system; the so called Diplock Courts. To prevent our current state being transduced our law makers must be ahead of the game.  I hope they are. As the town crier would call to announce happenings to the people of the village; oyez, oyez, oyez.

A ZOMBIE NATION STATE

Sometimes I ask myself what exactly is a legal system; is it a series of laws? are these laws built from the bottom up (of society)  or the top down (of government)?  Are they meant to lead us or to follow us? Many thinkers more able than I have written millions of words on similar topics.  However we are where we are.  It is in the apparent anomalies of the application or otherwise of our laws where lie more questions than answers. 

Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law". Thus, everyone must be treated equally under the law regardless of race, gender, colour, ethnicity, religion, disability, or other characteristics, without privilege, discrimination or bias.  What a wonderful sentiment but anyone with the most slender connection to the workings of our legal system knows full well that in practice it ain`t necessarily so.  Power has privilege. Power is the ability to influence and make decisions that impact others. Privilege is advantages and benefits that individuals receive because of social groups they are perceived to be a part of. Privilege can be  a result of systematic targeting and/or marginalisation of another social group. Nowhere is power and privilege more demonstrable than in circumstances surrounding the royal family.  The furore surrounding the cretinous second son of the sovereign over the last couple of years in particular has shown the outside world what power and privilege can effect in the real world. The latest example of the House of Windsor`s claim for privilege was made public earlier this month when Harry of that ilk from his American home threw his rattles out of his pram when denied publicly funded police protection should he visit this country and in particular a service held today to commemorate the life of his grandfather.  Such benevolence was denied and he  remains in the Los Angeles sunshine but court details of proceedings in his action against the Home Office are withheld from public view. I assume that the letter of the law allowed the judge to make a correct decision but was power and/or privilege a mainstay of that legal decision?  Would Joe Blogs of Hackney have had a similar request approved in a court of law?   The judge`s castigation of his QC does little to remove a stench over the whole business.  

Meanwhile in Belfast a situation ignored by many in public life continues to poison the atmosphere and undermine the humanity illustrated in the film recently released of that name. Wrapped up in the blanket of jurisprudence the "will he stand trial or not" saga of an old age pensioner who was part of the British army in the period known as "the troubles"  continues. To any outside observer it is blindingly obvious that the law has little to do with the preceding decisions and the current reversal of the previous one.  The delicate balance between a government seeking to wash its hands of  its and our history at the same time as the fraught state of current relations with Ireland and the E.U. as a result of Brexit is more than just counting the angels on a pinhead but is within the no mans land of the legal tail wagging the political dog or perhaps the other way round depending on the observer`s viewpoint. 

Even with the input of supposedly wise men and women the law can seem to be not only an ass but an ass  having suffered a lobotomy. Illegal immigrants, usually working age males from north Africa or the middle east, have been having their phones confiscated upon arrival and those phones analysed for information.  Considering many of those landing on our shores deliberately or otherwise bring no documentation such investigation seems to be a sensible activity at a time of increased fears of terrorism.  But the law says otherwise.  There is an assumption that those who write our laws and those who sit in parliament to enact those laws do so having explored every detail from the opening word to the final full stop. We are fools to assume such.  The law is man made and man is not flawless. But surely there are better ways of applying resources than currently exist in such matters? 

It is a public conception and one with which I totally agree that police go after an easy collar.  It is one thing to be able to tell a cyclist that having no lights at night and perhaps wearing dark clothing without a high viz reflector is a highway to disaster and another to throw the hard fist of the law into a teenager`s face. And that is exactly what happened in Oldham recently to an 18 year old teenager. That he didn`t appear in court to plead is unsurprising; he is an 18 year old teenager.  Were those magistrates who sentenced him displaying wisdom?  I doubt it.  There was no compassion; they were following "the law".  I rest my case. 

Recent legislation will allow action to be taken by those who block our roads in the name of their "great cause", global warming.  They have used the permissiveness of legislation as weakness just as surely as democratic nations refuse to use undemocratic means to stifle those who would rid us of our democracy and impose fascism upon us.  That is a paradox that is lost to many and unfamiliar to most. But to Sherrilyn Speid it has meant she now has a criminal record and is disqualified from driving. Having personally experienced being held up on the M25 by these fascistic clowns I have nothing but sympathy for Ms Speid.  My first thought is whether or not she had legal representation and the second is whether she was offered a plea on the lesser charge of careless driving.  I hope she has considered the appeal process before it is out of time.  This is just another asinine example of British justice to consider.    

I cannot recollect an occasion when I was faced with a drink driver whose lawyer successfully argued "special reasons" why a mandatory disqualification should not be imposed.  I doubt I am alone.  The bar is exceptionally high. For Jonathan Griffiths at Llanelli Magistrates Court last week it was celebration time; his legal representative  had persuaded the bench that his client had jumped that bar.  Such a decision makes a mockery of the law.  It so clearly demonstrates that all are far from equal in its eyes.  That bench also should be ashamed.

Those who visit this site with some regularity will be aware that there is an organisation, the JCIO, which regulates judicial office holders who are thought to have erred in some way either personally or professionally.  What we don`t have known publicly is what happens when judges sentence so outrageously out of step with Guidelines that an appeal court virtually doubles the existing sentence.   If a surgeon amputates a right leg instead of the left he is likely to have his scalpel locked away for some long time.  Of this judge we can only hope that behind the scenes he is advised to leave his wig in its box until he has satisfied his peers he is fit for duty. 

Whilst we in UK have our legal anomalies in Texas everything is bigger.  They kill each other with increasing ferocity, they divorce so often as only God fearing Christians in the bible belt can do and they execute their murderers with some style.  And now those about to be given the ultimate sanction can have a pastor pray out loud as the needle pierces the skin of the convicted`s arm and touch him in his final moments. Such is the American idea of compassion; so much more endearing now that it has legal oversight. 

And finally in this diatribe over the manner of how the law works to the subject of the mass recruitment drive for more magistrates; a subject broached here more than once.  One would expect that those sitting in judgement over their fellow citizens would be cognisant of the effects of their judgements would have on the individual before them.  That they would have accumulated the wisdom to understand motives, fears, desires, etc that make people behave as they do. One would expect that those judges would be fully rounded experienced people and particularly that their brains would be fully developed.  One might expect those considerations to be uppermost in the fertile minds of those who formulate policies at the Ministry of Justice. One would be disappointed.  Notwithstanding that those inept minds lowered the minimum age for magistrates in 2004 their diversity infected co conspirators at  The University of Manchester are targeting students to apply for the bench.  Why not?  Diversity with a capital D is our driving force.  A country where so many children are virtually illiterate at age 11 that the education budget is still at 2010 levels. Not to worry; Eton, Oxford and Cambridge can still offer some leadership. This is the state we are in: a state where the NHS in some areas are asking men if they are pregnant before the application of certain procedures; where a person with male genitalia can decide that s/he should be known as a woman in all circumstances, where politicians lie to their interviewers caring little that we all know they are lying and that they couldn`t care less, where the law in so many areas is shown to be deficient, where guns have been sacrificed for butter and now we are being offered margarine at just the time we need more guns. The British Empire began bleeding to death in 1947: it is now rotting in its grave prior to its resurrection as a zombie nation state.  

 

UKRAINE SHOWS BRITAIN HAS NO DIRECTION

There comes a time when a retrospective of every nation will show a fundamental change in society, government and other bellwethers.  Historians will offer their own analyses a generation or two subsequently but these observations are of use only as signposts for the future; unfortunately for many reasons they are just an exercise for the authors.  The true indicators of how we conduct ourselves as a nation and where that conduct is leading us are often shrouded in  an  etymological fog. Perhaps the most famous seer through that fog was a master of etymology; Winston Churchill who, for all his faults, realised the folly of British  foreign policy in the 1930s.  In our own time perhaps the most (in)famous speech on society was by Enoch Powell in 1968. He was Member of Parliament (1950–1974), then Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) MP (1974–1987), and was Minister of Health (1960–1963).  His speech was undoubtedly racist but his target was misplaced: god fearing black immigrants from British Caribbean colonies have been a blessing to us all.  What he was unable to predict was the mass inflow of Pakistanis whose societal origins were firmly fixed in the middle ages where what we now term Islamism was a way of  life. Their co-religionists expelled from East Africa who arrived here in 1972 and later and who have given so much benefit to Britain and the British are equally disturbed by what is now a 3 million minority rapidly expanding to such an extent that far Left political trouble makers are in thrall to their demands.   

There is no doubt that capitalism is the best method yet devised to promote the greatest wealth for the greatest number and underlies the democracy we enjoy today. In 2008 the world`s economic system came close to collapse  but not a single banker, and the banks were entirely culpable, has been tried in a court of justice and convicted for mass fraud.  The capitalist system in this country has been allowed to rampage across all aspects of our lives because as the scorpion said to the frog when the latter asked why he had stung him as he was being carried on its back across the river, that is my nature.  Failure to control this behemoth is a current blot on the economic landscape.  P & O is but the latest example. Russian oligarchs and their Chancery Lane enablers have flourished with the assistance of a decade of Tory connivance.  We thankfully escaped having a Marxist antisemite as prime  minister who had the support of so many Labour MPs now demonstrating their enlightenment. Where was their ability to see the folly of their conduct?  

And now perhaps belatedly to what is most concerning; the rise of the Woke. The single essential pillar without which the temple of a democratic society cannot stand is the pillar of Justice. Since 2010 that pillar has been eroded by demands of so called identity politics.  Diversity, transphobia with many manifestations and a failure to appreciate history have infected not just our rulers but those who are supposedly paid to teach and inform those born in this millennium.   Having presided over the halving of the numbers of magistrates courts and the magistrates who serve within them the government is embarked in what can only be described as a crash programme to recruit 4,000 J.P.s  ASAP.  The process of appointment is secret but a second hand way of discovering the bases of what the advisory committees are seeking in this new cohort is best uncovered by  magistrates themselves.  I have chosen some quotes from an article in the Eastern Daily Press.

"Samantha Tisshaw, 46, a company director who became a magistrate in 2017, developed her interest in the law in childhood as her father was a police officer, while her mother was also a Norfolk magistrate. “It would be really nice to see a more diverse bench, particularly younger people,” she said. “What we want is lots of people from lots of walks of life with loads of experiences they can bring.” [my bold]
This lady doesn`t realise the contradiction in what she says. She wants younger people (minimum age of magistrate is 18) with loads of experience. 
She continues "“Most of us sadly will have either experienced crime or have known someone who has been a victim" .  Really?  On what authority is she making that statement? Does this opinion not affect her attitude on the bench?
 "We do see the worst of society but we do see the best too because we get people who come back and say thank you because they’ve been offered the help to turn their life around". [my bold]  Magistrates are not social workers or probation officers. Magistrates are there to apply the law, to determine guilt and if so determined to administer retribution according to law and guidelines. 

A disabled JP:- “Because I’m disabled I bring to it certain experiences of my own. It’s all about having a good mixture." I sat with many disabled colleagues. Not one at any time ever remarked that his/her disability had any effect on doing the job.  It was as indicative of performance as was the colour of a tie or skirt. But it seems that contradictory opinions on "diversity" in any form is the thinking of a dinosaur.  What is forgotten is that the dinosaurs roamed the Earth for hundreds of millions of years. 

Finally from this article a J.P. with many years experience also fails to understand that the bench is not a helper or guide or good Samaritan; " Some people don’t need to be punished, they need to be helped".  It is the form in which justice is administered in this country to over 90% of all offenders. 

These are some quotes from that article in the Eastern Daily Press. 

As a former magistrate I have taken an obvious interest in that aspect of the judicial system but the blatant disinformation in "justice"  is much more widespread.  Gloucester Constabulary and its PR dept. makes much of its intention to recruit more police but failure by the government to readily admit that it was they who chopped over 20K active police officers  nationally since 2010 is as clear a sign that misinformation is not exclusive to points east.  The same can be said of the NHS and failures at every angle of the compass in recruitment. As a point of information it was the aforesaid Enoch Powell as Minister of Health who actively encouraged the immigration of nurses from the British Caribbean colonies to work in NHS hospitals. His name is a beacon to the hypocrisy which is endemic in British political life. 

A statement was published on February 24th  from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office:-
"The Lord Chief Justice has, with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, issued His Honour Judge Keith Raynor with formal advice for misconduct. In September 2020, Judge Raynor emailed several people, including a journalist, to allege that he had been subjected to improper pressure by his senior judge over his handling of applications to extend Custody Time Limits. A thorough investigation found no evidence to support this allegation. In deciding on an appropriate sanction, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice took into account Judge Raynor’s long and previously unblemished conduct record."   
Although a JP would not be in such a position if that member of the judiciary were a magistrate he would have been sacked for anything approaching a similar action. 

A statement from the JCIO on March 16th is another example of how the legal disciplinary system is literally a law unto itself. 
"The Lord Chief Justice, with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Deputy District Judge Christopher McMurtrie with a formal warning for misconduct. Judge McMurtrie conducted a hearing in his car, partly while driving and using his phone in hands-free mode. The judge failed to meet the expectation to avoid conduct which might reduce respect for judicial office. In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that Judge McMurtrie accepted that his decision to proceed with the hearing, after he had to travel unexpectedly for personal reasons, was misguided and he gave assurances as to his future conduct."

Secret disciplinary processes are still the norm in so many aspects of our civil society.  Think of police misconduct, the current  Post Office scandal, Grenville Tower, retirement homes and Covid scandal, hospital baby deaths, children`s protection and many more instances where secrecy in covering up supervisory failure was and is paramount. 

The sheer futility of some matters in the legal system is no better observed than in so called criminal behaviour orders although since the advent over a decade ago of ASBOs such orders on various matters have seriously proliferated as if they had a life of their own. Displacement of offenders is a complete waste of time but it`s an example of simple incompetence of the lawmakers in SW1.  

When a nation has lost confidence in the organisations in which we have placed our belief that wrongs will be righted and errors admitted: when a nation has lost its reason, when up is down and right is left and there is no fixed sight upon which a direction can be travelled that suits the people, these people will disintegrate. And thus underlying so much of our country is identity politics: a creed which is now threatening the very foundations on which we live our lives.  When the opposite is the case; a people who have had democracy and good judgement thrust upon them a national will and cohesion prevail.  Look east at Ukraine and its heroic population as an example where those benefits have arisen from the detachment from the tyranny of the Soviet Union.  

THE INDEPENDENT MAGISTRACY IS A HISTORIC JOKE

"A day in the life: Magistrates reveal what it's like to work in North East courts".  That is the headline in the current edition of "Chronicle Live"; an on line news medium in the North East of England.  The  Ministry of Justice is spending one million pounds over the next few months to seek out and appoint 4,000 new members to the magistracy.  Of course those wise folk in Petty France are loath to concede that they are the very same folk who have been sitting around since 2010 at the very same desks whilst they looked on benignly as their political Tory bosses emasculated the magistracy by failing to appoint a thousand new JPs annually to back fill the age related rapid decline in numbers taking place in front of them.  It seems that there are few news outlets not unhappy about an unexpected source of additional income. 

It is old news that many (most?) criminal lawyers are not supportive of the lay magistracy.  Whether they personally resent being directed in court by a non lawyer or genuinely believe the quality of justice is harmed is an exercise that hasn`t been undertaken. In all the statistics published on the functioning of magistrates courts no analysis has ever been made or attempted to separate the workings of the courts under professional district judges vis a vis JPs.  I doubt that any government would dare to go down that road; whatever the result it would be dynamite for our judicial system.  

And so to the mad race to appoint new magistrates.  Below are some quotes from the article referred to at the beginning of this post.

"She applied with very little understanding of the judiciary system but with training and experience she soon started to pick things up"

"But what you're doing is deciding on the facts of a case and making the decisions. It's a lot like being a member of the jury and anyone can be called up to do that."

"Anyone can do it and they give you full training. Once I did the training I understood why you don't need any qualifications because what you're doing as a magistrate is making a decision and anyone can make a decision, you don't need a qualification for that."

"We do have legal advisors who sit with us. So if there is anything about the law that we don't understand or is particularly complicated, they can break it down for us in a way that is easy to understand."

"The whole judiciary system - the courts, the police and the prison service - aim to have no crime. You have to try and figure out how every individual would be stopped from committing another crime" "You have to look at what the reason is that they commit crime. A lot of crimes are caused because of addiction and you can't condemn addiction, it's a medical thing. If you have people who think they are hopelessly addicted, you can help them."

"After receiving documents about the case she soon realised that she had appeared in court four years earlier for the same offence. Anita said: "I had asked the solicitor back then if I could speak to her and I said to her 'have you looked at yourself in the mirror lately, you're a good looking woman, you've got children, what are you doing with the drugs? I said: 'It is very difficult, but you can get off them and lead a normal life like everyone else.'"When I said that she started to cry. She had her bag with her and she was ready to go to prison again, it was like a revolving door. "When she appeared four years later, it was the same story, she had stolen from a shop to feed a habit. When I asked the solicitor if I could speak to her again I asked her what had happened and if she remembered me. "She said she did and when I asked her what had happened she said she'd done what I said and it wasn't easy. She said 'it was the most difficult thing I've ever done in my life, but I did it'."  "But what had happened is she'd had a baby and she'd suffered postnatal depression and went back to the only thing she knew that made her feel good. We didn't send her to prison, we gave her another chance because she's proved that she could do it. "She promised me then that she would try again and she wouldn't be back, and she hasn't been back. That's just one example of why you've got to think through the individual and see what helps them and therefore helps the community."

Throughout my 17 years on the bench many a time at training sessions or in private discussion I and my colleagues were told that we were not social workers.  We did liaise with the probation service (although that facility declined in my last few years) so that all involved were aware of the level of success or otherwise of the non custodial community sentences imposed on offenders.  It would be interesting to know whether or not that direction, formal or informal, is imparted to new appointees. 

By government fiat in practice if not in terminology magistrates are no longer independent junior members of the judiciary as they once were.  They are now corralled to do the bidding of their government overlords just as the salaried judiciary of district and crown court judges.  In my very humble opinion that is a loss for the democratic functioning of this the very bedrock of justice for the vast majority of offenders.  The imposition of the Single Justice Procedure in 2015 was a stark example: a system of behind closed doors secret justice dispensed to almost half a million offenders annually where even the simplest request under Freedom of Information Act is refused;  "Since its inception what is the annual number of convictions by SJP and what do those convictions represent as percentage of cases presented annually?"

It is not overnight that the justice system in a democratic country suddenly resembles that of Putin`s Russia.  It is a slow salami slicing process with almost imperceptible impediments to what has gone before.  To have compliant individuals on the bench whether in Hong Kong Court of Appeal or in the 160 remaining magistrates courts in awe of those in authority over them is just a short step on the road to government by decree.  The so called independent magistracy is now but a historic joke.....on us the people of England and Wales.  

767 LAYABOUT LORDS

The House of Commons is arguably overloaded with MPs.  Such a statement will have many antagonists who might just have a case to answer.  However there is no doubt that the House of Lords is an anachronism where in the main almost 900 self satisfied has beens are paid £323 to turn up, sign the register and f*** off to their favourite drinking haunts. From time to time they might waste £410 of our tax money to ask pointless questions in their chamber.  It doesn`t occurr to many that perhaps five minutes or less with Mr Google or reference to the appropriate Lords library will elicit their  required information which is generally already in the public domain.  

Step forward Lord Jones; aka Baron Jones whose greatest political achievement was as a parliamentary under-secretary of state for Wales from 1974 to 1979.  He was the Member of Parliament (MP) for East Flintshire from 1970 to 1983. In 1994, Jones was appointed by the Prime Minister as a member of the then new Intelligence and Security Committee, on which he served until 2001 when the Committee was dissolved at that year's general election. Jones retired from the House of Commons and was made a life peer with the title Baron Jones, of Deeside in the County of Clwyd. Such an outstanding career to be appointed to the sinecure he now occupies.  Having become used to spending our tax money yesterday March 10th he asked a written question in the House at a cost of £149 the answer to which any political aware person would have known immediately; 

" To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to support the recruitment of more magistrates to the bench?" to which the answer was:-

"Lord Wolfson of Tredegar The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice
The recruitment of more magistrates is the Government’s top priority for the magistracy. The MoJ is investing £1 million this financial year into a programme of work to improve magistrates’ recruitment. A digitised and more inclusive recruitment process which will improve data collation was launched in January, alongside an inclusive marketing strategy which aims to targets a wider, more diverse audience, attract more applicants and recruit more from under-represented groups. Additionally, we are legislating to increasing the judicial mandatory retirement age to 75. This will retain around 400 judges and 2,000 magistrates more annually, when compared to retaining the current age of 70."

Abolish this talking shop NOW! These has been layabouts have had their day. 

BLAME IS ON OUR OWN DOORSTEPS

There are some very rare occasions when any thinking person, and I include of course all those who give a few minutes of their valuable time to read my jottings, must refuse to sit on the philosophical fence and  declare an opinion on a subject of the utmost gravity.  We are living through such times. I am  not referring solely to the tragedy in Ukraine but to legal circumstances surrounding its ancillary personalities and principles who and which are arguably at the top of the legal tree and the application of justice in what still remains of a society where everyone is equal before the law.  Two examples of the muddled thinking of the senior judiciary and at the top of the Bar have presented themselves in the last six months that prove to me at least that the letter of the law has been positioned as the arbiter of justice as opposed to its spirit. These are the situations recently at the Hong Court of Final Appeal and the Royal Courts of Justice over the last few years where routinely Russian oligarchs and their bottomless treasure chests have been stifling criticism by throwing some of their ill gotten gains at those who represent them.. 

It became apparent to any observer with an ounce of common sense and/or an insight into Chinese  political obfuscation that the agreement on the transfer of Hong Kong to China would last only as long as it suited the Chinese. The changes in China since the 1997 transfer have been apparent to all. The regime under the current dictator has shown that nothing will stand in his way of his securing what he believes to be China`s future as the world`s unassailable military power and that includes the futures of Hong Kong and Taiwan.  The United Kingdom has provided him with the legal fig leaf of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal where the most senior British judiciary have presided.  Serving judiciary who function on the Court have their fees paid to the UK Treasury.  Retired senior judiciary presumably negotiate their own fee for services rendered because it seems such information is unknown to Mr Google.  The mealy mouthed kowtowing of the UK to the supine head of government in Hong Kong was published on 27th August last year by the Supreme Court.  This head in sand position so beloved by senior legal minds has been endorsed by a retired member of the Supreme Court on the basis to quote Lyndon Johnson, late US President, "better to have your enemies in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in".  The underlying thinking processes behind such actions, in my humble opinion, seem to be that that they are above government intervention in their opinion of the application of the law.  But if the existing law is untenable, undemocratic, or perhaps badly drafted do those who sit in judgement not consider that they are enablers of anything from injustice to dictatorship?  It would appear not. Supreme rulers of all shades throughout history have always found that the law can be tailored to their requirements and compliant judges can be persuaded to do their bidding brushing aside all valid objections but the converse equally applies: by counting the numbers of angels on a pinhead lawyers can invoke law to suit their sometimes nefarious purposes even when justice is the victim. 

The current situation in Ukraine has opened a nest of previously hidden vipers around Russian oligarchs and their fortunes beckoned here by the curled forefinger of unscrupulous simple minded governments from Tony Blair via David Cameron  to Boris Johnson.  It appears that the last named is striving to avoid for as long as possible the imposition of legislation that would open to public scrutiny the truly obnoxious lengths he has gone to utilise benefit from the laxity with which Russian money was able to ingratiate itself and thus its owners within the innards of the Conservative Party.  And now enter the lawyers.  Following perhaps the example of Lord Pannick QC legal arguments have been loudly voiced at any suggestion that the current legal rights of defence by Russian enablers of Putin be, in their opinion, curtailed insofar as their previous attempts, some successful, in curbing free speech have demonstrated, are anathema to the rule of law.  So conversely to the situation in Hong Kong it is the legal profession (in part) which is opposing government. However to this outsider the enormous financial milch cow of representing these thieves of Russian state assets during and after the time of Boris Yeltsin seems to be the driving force of their supposed shoring up of the legal system against arbitrary government decree.    

It seems that for many lawyers, to quote Dickens, "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness."  I would sum up by saying that in some of the upper reaches of the legal fraternity  the rule of the law entrenched becomes secondary to the tool of the claw outstretched.   The law can give and the law can take away. The law is in the end what we make it and the lawmakers sit in London SW1.  If our legal system is becoming but a shadow of its former regal self the blame is on our own doorsteps. 

EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP//A LEGAL LOOPHOLE

The term "exceptional hardship" might be thought to have a simple meaning:-

a legal argument that can be submitted to the court to avoid a disqualification from driving when a driver accumulates 12 or more penalty points

is what can be submitted by the defendant as part of a plea in court to retain driving licence after totting up 12 penalty points or more .

the hardship that must be demonstrated must be beyond that endured by a normal person losing their driving licence

exceptional hardship refers to what can be submitted by the driver or defendant as an appeal in court

I remember that when my bench disallowed such a plea it caused more raised eyebrows from legal advisors than almost any other decision.  I often wondered why this was so.  And even now at seven years distant from my last sitting I have no answer.  Is it that unlike when I started driving nearly sixty years ago using a vehicle has now become almost as common as having hot and cold running water or indoor lavatories both of which facilities were not available to many families of that era?  It is such a common offence to come before magistrates courts that I have posted here upon it and the anomalies of such outcomes more than a few times. Some 142,275 drivers between 2017-2021 were banned for exceeding 12 points but 35,569 successfully argued exceptional hardship. Indeed dozens of law firms make their living by advertising their successes in arguing such cases.  It has become a national disgrace with so  much anti motor and anti motoring legislation in being and proposed that this hurdle has been reduced to nothing more than inconvenience for those with eloquence or the means to hire such eloquence that pulls at the presumed heartstrings of a bench which has lost sight of its purpose. Perhaps like central heating and low cost groceries holding a driving license to so many benches is akin to a human right; a right not to be removed under all but the most dire circumstances. From another point of view the actions of benches in accepting so many pleas of exceptional circumstances many of which are undeserved  have brought the whole idea of lay benches into disrepute when seized upon by some of the popular mainstream media. 

Read the short report of a typical case here and ask yourself if this driver truly fell into the category of those with exceptional circumstances when so many senior judges have pronounced that loss of employment does not constitute a valid defence against a banning order as a totter. In reality someone who drives for a living surely has an obligation to drive in the most careful manner to retain that license.  I have no doubt that this scandal has had the eyes of government inspection upon it.  When time and circumstances permit there will certainly be legislation to tighten up what has become an obvious legal loophole.  

MAGISTRATES` COMPLAINTS//A SIMPLE BINARY PROCESS

 

Date: 25 January 2022

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

Lindsay Dalby JP

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

"Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, has issued Lindsay Dalby JP of the Coventry and Warwickshire Bench with formal advice after she was issued a fixed penalty notice for breaching coronavirus restrictions. In making their decision, they took into consideration that the breach while dining in a restaurant was accidental, that she had reported the matter to her bench chair promptly and that she had apologised for her actions."

ENDS

Fact

Following on from my post of February 15th the above named magistrate was just one of those this year who has fallen foul of the scandalous inquisition of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. 

Fact

The Ministry of Justice has recently announced that it is inviting recently retired magistrates aged 70-75 who may wish re-apply to the active list of serving magistrates.

Fact 

Retired magistrates are usually by default placed on the Supplemental List of Magistrates upon retirement.

Fact 

Magistrates on the above list are subject to the same disciplinary processes as are applied to those in office. 

Fact

Official guidance on supplemental list is copied below:-

Most magistrates will join the supplemental list when they retire or leave the service before the

age of 70. There is sometimes confusion around what this entails and the powers it allows.

This guide explains the key features.

February 2012

The Magistrates’ Association Guide to The Supplemental List 

Returning to the active list

Being on the supplemental list (and under the age of 70) gives no automatic right to return to the active list. However, depending on the time away from the magistracy and any exceptional

circumstances, an individual could return to sitting without going through the full application and recruitment process. He/she will be interviewed informally by the advisory committee

to assess any training needs and other circumstances. Providing there are no exceptional factors the magistrate could return to sittings.The individual will not need to provide external referees but the magistrate’s previous bench advisory committee will need to provide a reference from the bench chairman.In the end, the decision whether to allow the magistrate back to the active list remains with the advisory committee to which he/she is applying. Obviously this may depend on vacancies on the particular bench.

Retiring magistrates

On reaching the age of 70 a magistrate will normally have their name entered in the supplemental list automatically or be written to and invited to apply. They will usually be

informed in writing and sent details of the rights and duties of being a supplemental list magistrate.

Applying to join the supplemental

list before the age of 70

A magistrate may also apply to move from the active to the supplemental list at any time.This may be for a number of reasons, for instance when personal commitments mean they must take a sabbatical from sittings likely to last longer than leave of absence rules allow (about 18 months depending on circumstances). There is no minimum length of service to be entered in the supplemental list. As a general rule however, the magistrate will have been appraised as competent in the adult court; they should have met the minimum sittings requirement of 13 sitting-days within the past 12 months (except where good reasons apply); and they should not have been subject to disciplinary action for misconduct within the past five years.

All advisory committees have to consider such applications.In the unlikely event that a committee recommends to the Lord Chancellor not to enter a magistrate onto the supplemental list, they must write to the individual giving reasons for their

decision.

The purpose of the supplemental list is 

■

to commend magistrates for good service upon resignation from the active list or retirement; and 

■

to ease the process of return to the active list in situations where magistrates have had to leave the magistracy but wish to return at a later date

What you can do whilst on the supplemental list

If you are on the supplemental list you can still use the suffix JP under the same guidance for sitting magistrates. Essentially this is that the initials may be used on private and business letterheads etc in a similar way to academic or professional qualifications.You should always be alert, however, to how references to your status might reasonably be perceived by other people. Any attempt to misuse the status to gain personal benefit could be regarded 

as misconduct. Magistrates can still witness documents or sign passports, but only

in the same capacity as other members of the public.

What you may not do whilst on the supplemental list

■

sit in a magistrates’ court to adjudicate;

■

sit in a Crown Court on appeals cases;

■

be a member of any committee or any other body as a

magistrate;

■

take part in the election of chair or deputy chair of a bench;

■

attend any formal or business meeting of their former bench;

■

sign any documents in the capacity of JP – ie using the JP suffix.

This will include:

– summonses 

– warrants, including search warrants 

– shotgun licence applications (as a JP) 

– being referee for a rifle licence application (as a JP).

Duties on the supplemental list

Magistrates on the supplemental list must inform the advisory committee secretary for their existing area if they change address. Similarly, advisory committees are encouraged to keep in touch with magistrates on the list.

Complaints 

Supplemental list magistrates are still subject to complaints procedures. (my  bold underline) If a complaint is received about their conduct or behaviour, if appropriate, the advisory committee will investigate it in line with standard complaints rules.

When magistrates are considered to have erred they are subject to a complaints process outlined in perfect detail in a document twenty pages long with apparently every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed. If the matter is concluded that this process has indicated that the magistrate has indeed crossed the threshold of guilt s/he can apply to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman  who will investigate only the actual procedures undertaken.  Thus all the labyrinthine detail of a trade union rule book is applied; with nobody in earshot all the trees in the legal forest which are felled fall in silence. Finally the verdict is subject to the decision of the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office whether or not a sanction is applied such sanction ranging from "advice" to removal from the bench.  There are no published statistics or information on most of this whole process.  Indeed names of members of these organisations are secret.  To add grist to this metaphysical mill there are strict regulations on making public any comments from a local advisory committee.  Suppose a complaint is made to said committee re the behaviour or action of a magistrate: Nobody can make unauthorised disclosure of said complaint under pain of being pursued in the courts under s.139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. 

The MOJ is currently undertaking a country wide advertising programme to persuade 4,000 citizens to become magistrates.  This previously unheard of action is a direct result of the self same MOJ under Tory Party governance since 2010 in failing to recruit annually from that year the appropriate number of magistrates required as the predicted retirement of an ageing cohort was well known to all in authority.  The judgement dealt out to the magistrate at the beginning of this post might or might not have been deserved. The lady in question might feel relieved at being able to continue in post or furious that her actions brought such ignominy.  She might or might not have freely admitted her remorse.  She might or might not have employed legal counsel to assist her.  We will never know. This is just a microcosm of what I term "secret Britain"; a country which loudly proclaims to the world and all who listen that it is a beacon of freedom.  Perhaps in some departments it is but in so many it certainly is not.  The line by line, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph,  clause by clause to investigate the perceived wrong doing of a magistrate makes a trade union`s rule book for a member`s expulsion seem like a simple binary process. 

JUSTICE HENRY VIII STYLE

Justice should not only be done; it should be seen to be done.  One might conclude that in a democratic society that was axiomatic.  One would be wrong. Justice in the courts is not seen to be done if that "justice" is dispensed under the Single Justice Procedure as it has been for over five years for TV license evasion, low level non custodial  traffic offences and other "minor" infringements of the law.  Indeed a public right to know of the sentencing statistics imposed at those secret courts has been refused publication.  This curtain over these processes is in contrast to the situation when most professional and/or disciplinary bodies have opened their  hearings to the public by full publication thus allowing any citizen to inspect the evidence presented and the consequent judgements. Even the police, whilst still not completely open in this regard,  are gradually accepting that misconduct hearings should be no longer held in camera. However when we come to those occasions when members of the full time paid judiciary are thought to be acting "injudicially" inside the courtroom or out there is a tendency for a veil to be drawn over the proceedings unless the behaviour is so atrocious that it cannot be kept from the public eye. But when the volunteer junior judiciary i.e. magistrates are involved in apparent breaches of law, rules or acceptable behaviour we are witnessing a form of justice which would have been consistent with that applied by Henry VIII.   The process is laid out in a document 22 pages long full of detail on when why who where sub clauses but all the public can ascertain is perhaps ten lines or fewer of judgement published by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. 

Since the beginning of last year 24 JPs have faced investigation.   (The number investigated and consequently cleared of any wrong doing is unknown and unpublished).  20 of the 24 were charged with failing to meet the minimum number of sittings required; i.e. 26 half days annually. That requirement is emphasised or should be emphasised to every applicant for the magistracy. In this period 15 of the 20 were given a strict warning and the other 5 were removed from office. It is my humble opinion that in the current frantic race to appoint 4,000 new magistrates standards are going not only to slip but be irrevocably reduced in the unseemly rush to secure the placement of ethnic minority  candidates who will, in all probability although officially denied, be  subject to an unwritten policy of positive discrimination. 

There is no doubt in my mind that magistrates are strongly in need of a protective body to protect themselves should they in some manner large or small fall foul of the judicial authorities.  By its very charter the Magistrates Association is unable to fulfil that purpose.  It seems that JPs who might have the drive and ability to pursue such an agenda are more interested in climbing the hierarchical ladder of public recognition so that in later years they might have some more suffixes after their name.   

FROM GIN LANE BY HOGARTH TO PRITI PATEL AT HOME OFFICE

Alcohol has been around almost as long as human civilisation.  Humans invented alcohol many times independently. The oldest booze dates to 7,000 BC in China. Wine was fermented in the Caucasus in 6,000 BC; Sumerians brewed beer in 3,000 BC.  For most people it has been an easy but increasingly expensive method of inducing conviviality and relaxation when partaken in company of others.  It has also been a source of being able to escape the stresses of life ancient and modern.  Hogarth`s cartoon of "Gin Lane" 1751  is still relevant insofar as the wealthy in a population can do their binge drinking often behind closed or private doors and be sent to rehab clinics when their colleagues and/or families consider that their excesses are a danger to themselves and their finances in one form or another. Just as it is the rich wot gets the pleasure and the poor wot gets the blame  it is those low down in the social pecking order who are often before the courts and for them the term rehabilitation is more often than not merely a literary term in a probation report. I have long argued here that addicted habitual offenders should enter a medical pathway and not a legal one unless the level of criminality is such that other factors must be jointly considered.  I have used the term "workhouse" a search of which in the search box will explain for those interested my opinion in detail.  For the record it is widely assessed that alcohol is involved in around 40% of all violent crime.  

However we all know that there is considerable social disturbance which is related to excessive alcohol consumption and that that disturbance often is unrecorded officially but a blot on the lives of all those involved.  Our justice system is not just ill equipped to deal with addicts` criminality; it is demonstrated at almost every magistrates court every day.  This example at a crown court is typical.  Police, probation and prison have been, are and will be expected to "do something" for this person but  know full well all that will be done is to contain her.  It is indeed a disgrace that government allows this legal carbuncle to fester. 

Human beings are imperfect creatures and judges are human beings.  When doctors make decisions which are detrimental to a patient there are avenues of redress often officially impeded for those who survive the unfortunate episode.  For judges there is the shadow of much reduced local court reporting for their sentencing eccentricities to be overlooked but alas for  Judge Timothy Spencer the outcome of this case proved disastrous.  Referred by the Attorney General to the appeal court the offender received a sentence more consistent with his crime. In the hush hush world of judicial investigations it is unlikely we will hear what if any sanction was applied to his honour.  

When a magistrates court disqualifies a driver it is incumbent upon it to make reasonable effort in advance to advise the miscreant of that intended action the reason being obvious; to prevent that offender unknowingly re-offending.  In the matter of stripping a person of his/her citizenship it is obvious to all but the deaf, dumb and blind that that intention be brought to the attention of the intended recipient of being stateless.To that list of exempt parties  should have been added the Home Office the actions of which have been ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal in the case of a woman known as D4 living in a camp in Syria. Truly this department of government is itself becoming even more of a law unto itself since a previous Home Secretary, Lord Reid, described it in 2006 as "not fit for purpose". 

On the face of it an uninsured driver with 17 penalty points convicted of death by careless driving deserves an immediate custodial sentence even if only for four months. With very limited reporting of this case reasoned criticism is limited but an understanding of the deceased`s family`s incomprehension at apparent leniency is not difficult. 

Sending racist messages over the airwaves is covered by various communication acts but along with readers I have seen much worse on social media.  Work is in progress at the aforementioned Home Office to attend to this discrepancy.  A difficult line between free speech and hate speech needs a King Solomon to adjudicate.  We have Priti Patel. 

THE RICH WOT GETS THE PLEASURE................

Everyone is equal before the law. Sentencing guidelines introduced 2010. Suspended sentences were first introduced in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1967 but their availability to courts was greatly restricted by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which required the court to exercise its power to suspend a sentence only where it could be justified by the "exceptional circumstances".  The Criminal Justice Act 2000 saw the introduction of a new Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) overturning the previous restrictions.  All those proceeding statements are  (supposedly) in operation today.  That might be the theory but the practice has long since deviated from the ideals behind the original planners` intentions. Nowhere have those intentions been more abused or fallen into place depending on one`s political and/or social attitudes than in the used of "custody suspended".  I use the term advisedly because that was the manner in which the sentence was devised.  The custody level set by the appropriate guidelines for the offence must have had to be breached and then and only then should the determination be made if  the interests of justice justice could be served by suspending that custodial period.  The sanction provided in law is that breach of the accompanying community service order would allow the custodial sentence to be activated.  In 2019 just under 40,000 suspended sentence orders were made.  In the eyes of many of the public such orders are regarded as a get out of jail free card. In September 2021 a very interesting examination of this subject was published.  My point today is that similar to the explosion in exceptional hardship orders being allowed by magistrates when a driver faces disqualification the SSO has become a tool that the Ministry of Justice hoped and hopes will stabilise or reduce the number of low level offenders in jail.  Clearly there are occasions where its use fulfils that ideal but its almost indiscriminate effect is to provide inequality before the law. I have posted here more than once as to why for example a doctor with 12 penalty points avoids a driving ban and a carpenter doesn`t.  Prior to the introduction of Sentencing Guidelines magistrates were rigorously instructed in structural decision making when deciding sentence.  It allowed free thinking by the bench members to be justified by reason and logic and took offenders` personal and other circumstances into account. If that exercise concluded in a custodial period being appropriate every effort was made to determine whether or not suspension was a suitable option.  The statistics seem to indicate that that ladder of progression has in many cases been overlooked. 

Recently at Workington magistrates court a previous offender was convicted of a  ""serious" public order offence involving threatening behaviour."  By all accounts in the short newspaper report he escaped immediate custody because the court believed his mitigation that his employees` livelihoods would be at risk if he were incarcerated.  Consider the situation if it were one of those employees in the dock under similar circumstances.  We are entitled to assume that s/he would have been subject to immediate imprisonment. Where is equality before the law in this example and countless others of similar nature? The old adage slightly modified perhaps that it`s the rich wot gets the pleasure and the poor wot gets the blame is still around in 2022 England.