OFFENCES AGAINST SOCIETY

 

"It`s only a domestic".  Most people with an interest in the law would fail to recognise that distinctive phrase as having, so the story goes,  its origin in supposed police speak after being called to a home where a female  occupant accused her male co-occupant or "friend" of having assaulted her.  TV crime shows of  the 1950s, 60s or even 70s or modern films depicting events of that era often set the scene with Morris Minor so called panda cars and police  in uniforms fashioned unlike the para combat outfits often seen today. The underlying theme was of male dominance over women; a dominance considered normal.  Indeed it was an attitude prevalent today amongst some religious non Christian minorities. It is not coincidental that the aptly named women`s liberation movement became a mass movement around the 1960s and not just a fringe cult with a penchant for liberating their breasts.  Legislation also followed and continues currently not only to protect women from violent partners but to ensure that any apparent inequalities in society  to the detriment of women are ironed out. In that regard the emphasis has been on rape and the difficulty in securing convictions notwithstanding statistical distortions often produced by those whose political intent outweighs the accuracy of their use of statistics.  Stalking, workplace harassment, indecent exposure, non contact assault and other transgressions have encouraged legislation that offers now a degree of protection to women that their mothers and grandmothers could only dream about. No doubt such direction of legislation will continue in the knowledge that serious violent crime against women is often predictable from lesser events which might be condoned or ignored.  Indeed perhaps we are reaching the region of "overkill" when some are considering even the old fashioned wolf whistle to be a criminal offence. Nevertheless there is a glaring inconsistency in how violence against women or the threat of such is considered by the courts.  

Here I must declare a prejudice. I am totally unsympathetic to sexual predators  and sceptical of the courts` treatment of them.  Firstly when my wife was seven years old walking with a friend one afternoon through a park, as young children were able to do in those long forgotten days of innocence, from about twenty yards distant a middle aged man exposed himself to her.  To this day she can picture exactly his face and would be able to pick him out in a police line up.  Apart from that I have never asked her how she feels now about that incident but it must have deeply traumatised her.  Secondly I am less than impressed with Sentencing Guidelines.  Every year, fewer magistrates and judges, as retirement takes it toll, will remember that sentencers used to use their own well honed constructive sentencing ladder to arrive at a just outcome for offenders.  A decade ago I likened the idea of the Guidelines as a prelude to computerised sentencing.  Most readers will be unaware that as a prelude to its publication in 2004 those of the "great and the good" variety so embedded in the "British way of doing things" studied the sentencing manuals of the State of Michigan USA which used simple algorithms for the sentencing process.  That state now has taken that principle forward so far that in my opinion it will not be long before the computer takes over leaving only refinement to a human being.  

It is approaching seven years since MP Jo Cox was murdered.  Since then in October 2021 David Amess MP was murdered in his constituency office.  Not since the IRA embarked on its murderous campaign against MPs have our parliamentary representatives been under such a real or perceived threat and female MPs most of all.  This week Raymond Batchelor was found guilty to a charge of harassment without violence against the Bishop Auckland MP and her chief of staff Jack Bell.  This pervert was sentenced to custody suspended with the usual ancillary activities and restraining order. Court report is here.  His victim, the youngest MP in this parliament, has announced she will not be standing again as a candidate.  Of course nobody but her immediate family and circle will know how much effect the offender`s actions had on her decision. However much Steven Hood (DJ magistrates court) pontificated it is hard to believe that suspending custody was just on the basis of the evidence.  It is hard to believe that there is no pressure on publicly paid officials to severely limit the numbers of offenders being sent to vastly overcrowded prisons. It is hard to believe that high profile cases are virtually always assigned to those paid judges who will obey dictats from on high rather than magistrates who should be free to follow their consciences and oath rather than their Justices` Clerks` "advice". 

At the Crown Court also the tendency to suspend cases of threatened violence to women seems to be against a true sense of justice. The proportion of suspended sentences in 2021 given for indictable offences increased to 18% from 15% in the previous year. In practice that means that this victim, like so many others threatened with violence by her co-habitee, is unlikely not to fear that actual grievous violence will be directed towards her irrespective of a judge`s order.  

The bench at Cardiff Magistrates Court sentenced an offender who assaulted two women  to five months custody.  Given that six months is the maximum for common assault that is a significant indication of the seriousness with which his offences were considered.  Why then was that sentence suspended?  

Stalking has been shown often to be a prelude to actual violent behaviour.  This stalker was revealed in an excellent newspaper report [but which failed to tell us the actual offence committed] to be a prime candidate to fulfil that statistical prediction by his repeated bizarre behaviour.  He was not even give a custody sentence suspended.  Once again a District Judge (MC), this time  DJ Nina Minhas,  declined an appropriate outcome which I most certainly would not have done.  The offence of stalking has a maximum sentence of six months custody.  The outcome in this case was an offence against society. 

These reports are but the tip of a statistical iceberg.  An aspiring prime minister with an impressive background has pledged  to reduce a public`s fear of violent crime.  If in power he could appoint a Justice Secretary who shares his thinking and makes good the rhetoric with action. 

I TOO HAVE BEEN CANCELLED

Writers of all kinds high and low, full of sense or nonsense and judicial office holders of all kinds appear to be high on the target list of those who operate and/or support what`s now commonly termed cancel culture.  Of the former the person with the highest profile is probably J. K. Rowling because she dared to say what others have feared to publicly admit that there are two sexes and that so called trans women have the potential in some cases to be an actual physical danger to women notwithstanding the fact that in essence they are in opposition to what she and others consider  the fruits of  the women`s liberation movement.  At the opposite end perhaps of this literary spectrum has been the recent announcement by Puffin, publishers of the works of Roald Dhal, a notorious antisemite and world famous author of children`s books, that some of his language is now unfit for young human consumption.  Cloud-Men have become Cloud-People in "James and the Giant Peach". In The Witches, there are no longer any old hags – only old crows. These are just two of the hundreds of changes that have been made to the author’s stories. To the criticism from many quarters the publisher replied by saying that  it had taken such actions so that  (Dahl) “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”.  An extreme result of similar perverted thinking was that the outstanding author Salmon Rushdie had his life almost cancelled by his fanatical Islamist assailant`s dogmatic beliefs. The common factor between Puffin and him was that authors` words must not be heard; they must be muted by killing the author or substituted by what a publisher considers "acceptable".  

The treatment of the judiciary of the words they utter in a professional or private manner, certainly in the case of magistrates, falls within that black to white spectrum where even that phrase itself is regarded by some as suspect.  I have recently commented on the remarks of District Judge (MC) Stephen Leake. We will probably never know if or what "advice" he has been given or if any at all by judicial authorities. This is a classic mirror image of cancel culture insofar as any comment is kept secret and out of the public domain.  Last week Just Stop Oil offenders were praised by District Judge (MC) Wilkinson as he sentenced them.  I, along with some other commentators, have questioned the appropriateness of these remarks.  Once more any official response is cancelled at least to us the public.  Instances as above have been reported in the press; often the local press but old fashioned press reporting is a dying occupation thus denying a wider  public of what they have a right to know. However much as judicial authorities mouth the slogan that magistrates are members of the judiciary their treatment by said authorities is far from equal with their seniors when they are thought to have transgressed.  Unlike their seniors such deviations whether in the courtroom or without are displayed in a public place albeit in an edited form such as has put  Dr Ian Haffenden JP in an unenviable position.  He was not cancelled but put in the spotlight: to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction to quote a rather clever fellow called Isaac Newton. 

To be cancelled has this week become for me something personal.  Yesterday Blogspot, the hosts of this site on which I have commented for 10 years, informed me that a post of 09/04/2019  "MEANS FORM MEANS NOTHING"  had been reported to them as it "was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and deleted the post."  I had been cancelled almost four years after publication of the supposedly offending material.  After I objected to this action the post was re-instated.  If any reader agrees with the objector perhaps he/she should delete this address from bookmarks.  

DIVERTING THE BLAME

It seems there is a concerted attempt for the government to put as much distance as possible between the MOJ and the furore created by the entry warrants scandal.  To keep this post short and sharp I have copied below some parliamentary answers to questions raised yesterday.  Please note in particular the link to Ofgem`s Gas and Electricity Codes of Practice for Domestic Suppliers in the first reply. 

Compare that very length document with the Best Practice Guide for magistrates which became standard practice at my court a decade ago. This relied on the magistrate(s) asking the right questions at the right time after the applicant had taken an oath. That Guide was to the point and covered virtually all the grounds to sniff out occasions and individuals where disconnection and PAYG meters were not advisable.  It is accessed in this post of  27/5/2015.   Note a common theme:-  B L A M E is diverted from where it originated.......deep in the bowels of Petty France. 

JUDGES: BACK UP OR BACK OFF ? (GOVERNMENT)

There have been observers from time to time who have opined that the law is or should be above political bickering; that it stands supreme.  A well known adage is worth a thought that there is sometimes  an occasion when  a choice has to be made by judges between the letter of the law or the spirit of the law the latter being an attempt to enact what the law makers intended but failed to make 100% explicit in their legislation as it was passed by an act of parliament.  The balance between lawmakers who create the legislation over which the judges must adjudicate and judges who must interpret and apply the legislation has always been a matter of controversy.  The American constitution whose writers are held by some as demi gods did their best to separate legislative and judicial functions.  Events of late in that country have demonstrated the difficulties involved.  Currently Israel, the only democratic country in the middle east, is having its own moment in the spotlight where a right of centre government is trying to extend its power by eating into what had been assumed since 1948 were powers reserved for the judiciary.  This country is far from immune from the executive`s attempt at similar actions when a private citizen went to the supreme court to overturn the actions by the then prime minister Boris Johnson to prorogue parliament in furtherance of his political objectives subsequent to the 2016 referendum majority decision to leave the European Union.  

In actual courts where most of the public obtain their legal information through the media, whether that is the mass or on line social variety, Sentencing Guidelines are held as an example of a government attempting to overcome judicial decision making by laying out national ground rules which are little short of a box ticking exercise that phrase now itself held in contempt as being an excuse for failure. However that has not been enough.   For over 30 years the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme has helped victims of crime get what some perceive as righteous justice.

The scheme was launched in 1989 following public outcry over a series of controversial sentencing decisions, including the 1986 ‘Ealing vicarage rape’ case where 21-year-old Jill Saward was raped by burglars at her father’s vicarage. The first ULS hearing took place in July 1989. In this case, a man who committed incest on his daughter had his sentence doubled from 3 to 6 years in prison. The scheme has since helped thousands of victims and their families get justice, and in an important hearing last year two of the UK’s most prolific rapists - Joseph McCann and Reynhard Sinaga - had their sentences increased by 10 years, meaning that both offenders should now serve at least 40 years in prison before they can be released. In 2019 alone, 63 offenders had their sentences increased under the scheme – 16 of those were given custodial sentences after avoiding prison time at their original sentencing. Since it launched, the scheme has been expanded 6 times and now includes a range of terror-related offences, all serious sexual offences, threats to kill, child cruelty, people trafficking and modern slavery, and many racially and religiously aggravated offences. Most recently, sexual offences involving an abuse of trust, indecent images offences and domestic abuse offences were added to the scheme.  Commenting on the anniversary, Attorney General, the Rt. Hon. Suella Braverman QC MP said:   For over 30 years, the ULS scheme has helped victims of crime and their loved ones get justice. The scheme includes many more offences now than it did when it was first launched, allowing us to look at more sentences which don’t appear to fit the crime.   In the vast majority of cases, judges get it right, but the scheme is important to ensure that certain cases can be reviewed where there may have been a gross error in the sentencing decision. The ULS scheme allows prosecutors, victims of crime and members of the public to ask for certain Crown Court sentences to be reviewed by the Law Officers if they think the sentence is far too low. Some cases referred to the Court of Appeal can also offer guidance for future sentencing decisions. Anyone can ask for a sentence to be reviewed if they think it is too low, and only one person needs to ask for it to be considered. Further requests do not lend any extra weight as the decision to refer a sentence as too low can only be based on the legal threshold. The Law Officers have 28 days from the date of sentencing to refer a case to the Court of Appeal, so it’s important for them to receive a referral as early as possible in order to properly consider a case.

What happens to the judges who get it wrong?  We do not know.  As with many aspects of the secrecy in the workings of the unwritten British constitution any sanctions are applied behind closed doors. Examples of late are District Judge Stephen Leake who told Medway magistrates court last month that he wanted to jail Fabian Greco for 18 weeks for a violent offence but couldn`t because the prisons were full.  He suspended the sentence for two years because, he said, the courts had been issued with guidance from the government to "relieve the pressure on the prison estates as much as possible" due to a lack of spare capacity. Government sources said his remarks were nonsense.  Whether DJ Leake has been chastised by his superiors we do not know; the cloak of secrecy surrounding such matters is tightly drawn.  However if lowly magistrates dare stray from an imposed straight and narrow path they are held up to public disgrace by the forum AKA the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. For recent examples  refer to statements  2522  2422   2222  2122   1922  2622

The omarta code of silence from the senior judiciary and His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service over the scandal of mass authorisation of entry warrants forced if necessary with the purpose of installing PAYG energy meters is but the latest proof that there is an almost conspiratorial protection surrounding the biggest of the bigwigs who must have had input into the original decision to approve such policy but the supposed face of local justice, itself now an anachronism, the lay magistrate, can be treated like a peasant subject to the whims of his/her medieval master.   There are, however, the odd occasions when the senior judicial mask slips or appears to slip.  The difficulty is knowing when government prodding and poking has enforced the slip.  Recently the Lord Chief Justice has complained that defendants pleading not guilty are holding up the reduction of the massive backlog in the crown courts itself blamed on Covid 19 but mush self inflicted by government imposed restrictions on the number of courts available to hear cases owing to  that self same government being unable to settle pay disputes with its own judges or self employed barristers, or pay for the courts to be legally complying places of employment.  Paradoxically magistrates have known about defendants offering an equivocal plea of  guilty just to expedite proceedings and reduce their possible financial losses since the introduction of the Criminal Courts Charge in 2015.  In November of that year the House of Commons’ Justice Committee stated, "In many cases it is grossly disproportionate, it fetters judicial discretion, and creates perverse incentives – not only for defendants to plead guilty but for sentencers to reduce awards of compensation and prosecution costs. It appears unlikely to raise the revenue which the Government predicts. It creates a range of serious problems and benefits no one."

Two questions:

Does (should) the judiciary back up government?

Does (should)  the judiciary back off from backing up government?

So the point is does the secrecy surrounding judges, their decisions, their errors, their disciplinary procedures, their relationship with government, their relationship with the public and their colleagues benefit us the man in the street, the person on the Clapham omnibus, Joe Public or Jo Bloggs?  I would venture to opine when marking the judicial report card, "Attempting by obfuscation  to avoid  answering the question as set by the examiners. Must try harder failing which examiners must question the candidates` future in their chosen career". 

A MESS OF JUDICIAL POTAGE

It seems that the entry warrants scandal still has some steam in it.  The Times today features an article on pp2 revealing a letter from Right Honourable Lord Justice Edis Senior Presiding Judge of England and Wales that instructs the granting of such warrants to cease.  See below.

Of course for any thinking reader as I assume my readers are the question that comes to mind is how did this scandal arise in the first place.  The answer to that must be considered in the light of the enormous numbers of cases documented here over the last few weeks posts.  These matters of entry warrants were concentrated over a specific number of magistrates courts as noted here on 17th January.  Only His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service would have this authority to instruct under the term of what I understood when active was THE Justices` Clerk who had delegated control of a number of courts where the on site boss was designated Deputy Justices` Clerk. As a new magistrate myself in 1998 after sitting as a winger a number of times on entry warrants I was horrified that very large bundles of warrants were passed for me to sign without examination. Subsequently I refused to participate in such a pastiche of justice.  My efforts, successful in the end, to change that atrocious practice ensured that all colleagues could participate in a systematic examination of all applicants` payment and social histories of those whose home they wished to enter to install PAYG meters.  Using the search box will open many posts over the last 10 years on this topic.

What dismays me most is the participation of magistrates whose compliance is an indictment of every single one of them.  They swore the judicial oath and when it mattered that it should take precedence over an in house instruction they behaved like sheep letting any conscience they might have had to be overruled by the fear of upsetting authority.  Perhaps now the reality of lay magistrates` subservience to HMCTS and their failure to confront that authority  will hasten the end of a system in which I was proud and honoured to be a participant.  Unknown to most observers in 2018 six magistrates were appointed by the powers that be to be leadership magistrates.  Their names were published here on 17th March 2020.   This is the official line: "There is 1 national leadership magistrate – Duncan Webster – and 6 regional leadership magistrates and 1 for Wales. All had to have been a Bench Chair in the previous 3 years, go through a selection process and have been appointed by the Lord Chief Justice for a period of time."  The names of the 7 magistrates subordinate to Webster are being withheld by the Ministry of Justice.  A Freedom of Information Request has been refused.  Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that with an impotent Magistrates Association held in contempt by many, these 7 appointees are acting as a fifth column on their benches and wider,  to influence policies and report on their colleagues,  taking such information high up the civil service and political ladders.  This insidious action is a danger to us all.  We think that justice (not policy) can be separated from the actions  of government.  That it can stand alone whatever the turmoil in Downing Street and Whitehall.  This seemingly insignificant policy ordered by government until its exposure, is a warning.  When those with judicial authority fail to be counted as defenders of that which they have sworn to uphold even at the lowest judicial level it will be only a matter of time before their senior colleagues are placed in the same or similar position. The problem for society is that unlike lay magistrates who have absolutely no excuses for their scurrilous actions except their own hubris judges have their salaries and future pensions to consider.  Be in no doubt there will always be those who would sell their (judicial) souls for a mess of potage. 

THE INIQUITY OF GRANTING WARRANTS OF ENTRY

Well!  The cat is now out of the bag.  The years old scandal of magistrates granting warrants of entry to the representatives of utility companies to install pay as you go energy meters willy nilly has now become front page news.  Any regular reader on this site will be aware that this carbuncle on the face of justice has been knowingly  ignored by HMCTS, the Magistrates Association and individual magistrates who have complied with a directive either through ignorance, in which case they are unfit for the post, or fear of being counted as rebellious.  Either way they disgrace the ancient title of Justice of the Peace. 

JCIO IS A SECRET CLOAKING DEVICE

Almost daily it seems but in reality probably monthly a supervisory body is found to have allowed bad things to happen in an organisation supposedly under its jurisdiction.  Police, hospitals, children`s services, building authorities and many others whose oversight has been found wonting generally issue a statement of self serving apology and assuring a sceptical public and their political overlords behind the bushes that steps are being taken to ensure that failures will be rectified.  Very occasionally people are removed from their jobs many to resurface months later with a new position and title often with an enhanced salary.  But what of those who appointed the supervisory or disciplinary body which failed in its sole purpose of supervising or disciplining? We, the great British public, just do not know who appoints the appointees.  Insofar as that most secretive of bodies, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, is concerned its members are approved by the Lord Chancellor but its workhorses who decide on any case are civil servants.  I posted the organisational chart that shows the staff involved on 18th October 2022  .  By typing in the search box JCIO previous posts on this topic may be read. 

However my reason today for re-visiting this subject is three fold; 
1. The identities of those who decide on the evidence presented by the JCIO whether or not to sanction the judicial office holder under investigation are not available to the public and 
2. Despite apparent clarity on its website the JCIO accepts or rejects without appeal in an arbitrary fashion. 
3. Secrecy is the fallback position of all inquiry.  The statement below from the JCIO website requires no interpretation

Please note: In accordance with Section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, information about judicial disciplinary cases which relates to an identified or identifiable individual is confidential and must not be disclosed without lawful authority. This does not apply to formal action taken at the conclusion of the disciplinary process, which is published on the JCIO’s website as per the Lord Chief Justices and Lord Chancellors’ publication policy. Personal data is protected under the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018

The JCIO is open to complaints including:-

Any action that amounts to misconduct. Some examples include:
    Bullying or harassment, for example of staff, colleagues, litigants, or legal representatives
    Using racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive language
    Loss of temper/rudeness/aggression, for example shouting   
    Misusing judicial status, for example to try to influence another person or organisation for personal     gain
    Misusing social media, for example posting offensive content, or content which could damage public     confidence in judicial impartiality such as remarks about government policy
    Failure to report personal involvement in civil, criminal, or professional disciplinary proceedings
    Delay in issuing a judgment or order (usually considered to be a delay, without a reasonable excuse, of more than three months)
    Falling asleep in court

It is not involved in any of the following:-
    

A judge’s decision or order
    Bias in a judge’s decision-making
    A judge allowing one party to speak for longer than another
    A judge refusing to allow a witness to give evidence or admit certain documents
    A judge appearing to react more favourably to one person’s evidence than another’s
    A judge saying that he or she does not believe a person’s evidence, questioning a person’s credibility  or criticising a person’s actions
    A judge making an error of law or procedure
    A judge expressing opinions about issues related to a case they are hearing
    The amount of costs or damages awarded by a judge
    A judge not reading documents before a hearing
    A judge refusing to transfer a case to a different judge or court
    A judge reserving a case to themselves
    A judge refusing to correspond with a party about a case
    Fraud or any other criminal offence
    Court staff, court bailiffs or the facilities and services provided by courts
    Other bodies such as the Police or Crown Prosecution Service
    Solicitors and Barristers

From the above it is very obvious that any matter in the first group is subjective.  At what stage and by how senior an operative is a decision to proceed with regulatory action is not for public consumption.  Indeed whether or not there has been a complaint about a judicial office holder is itself a closely guarded secret.  An example of late is that of District Judge (MC) Stephen Leake. Rumour mongering and whispers are possibly more rife in the legal fraternity as any other.  This is a natural consequence of a secrecy going back centuries which has still to come to terms with the openness expected from kings downwards.  I posted about DJ Leake 27th December 2022.  Gossip since then in the coffee houses of Chancery Lane tells of a complaint against the judge who has had a meteoric  rise in status being appointed Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ courts) in 2019, District Judge based at Medway Magistrates’ Court with effect from 1 November 2021and a member of the Sentencing Council since Monday 23 May 2022.  The alleged complaint centred around that widely reported case as above.  Since then further activity in the media reported that the judge`s remarks about being unable to sentence an offender to immediate custody because the prisons were full were refuted by MOJ spokesperson as being in error. Whether or not those remarks constitute reason for complaint we will never know.  Perhaps DJ Leake`s future as a judge of the crown court, high court and supreme court is already written in the stars or anticipated by some unknown propellant which has fired him above his peers with such rapidity. Time will tell all. 

Justice is not justice if it is not seen to be done.  That applies to the judges as much or more than it applies to the judged.  Senior judiciary is afraid to speak out until in receipt of a gold plated pension.  That is understandable or at least was understandable in  previous centuries.  But we are now in an era of instant world wide communication.  The mores of 1953 are unsustainable in 2023 as even King Charles has noted.  The current situation, where at the base of the judicial pyramid lay magistrates sit as a bench of one in secret and the pinnacle where their senior colleagues are subject to a secret protective layer of the invisible cloaking device of the JCIO, the future is not rosy.  We should all be concerned. 

MORE ON THE SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE//A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

Try as I might it is impossible for me to ignore the ramifications of the Single Justice Procedure.  Indeed after seven years of operation the iniquity of this secret justice process has finally landed on the desks of respected members of the press.  I wonder if they are also considering whether what happens today in the lower court  will happen tomorrow in the crown court.  In addition to this fly in the face of open justice the sheer itimidatory tactics  of utility companies in applying for warrants of entry is beginning to be noticed by an extended audience.  The written answer from the Minister  copied below is revealing.

It is unlikely that the SJP has been extended to these cases but I would not bet against their being added to the portfolio currently under that umbrella. It is interesting to note that if in its wisdom HMCTS and the local justices clerk decide that a magistrate is required to sit as a SJP that individual has no ability to refuse even if s/he considers the process anything from unfair to reprehensible.  A Freedom of Information request elicited the following statement from the MOJ. "All justices authorised by the Lord Chief Justice to act in the criminal jurisdiction are authorised to act irrespective of the procedure used.  None is entitled to opt out of cases on the basis of procedure."  The question to be asked is just how authoritarian can the MOJ be in relation to the activities in magistrates courts and the corollary is just how many magistrates will allow themselves to be placed in a position to comply or resign.  And of course the so called "representative" of magistrates; the Magistrates Association remains silent that there is compulsion for its unknown number of active members to participate in the SJP.  

In practical terms speeding charges are a major proportion of the cases under SJP.  The table below gives the latest numbers available. 

LAST CHANCE SALOON FOR MAGISTRATES

Regular readers might have noticed that there are two topics which appear to have more than their fair share of space of late in my weekly outpourings: the Single Justice Procedure and warrants of entry for utility companies.  The latter particularly is of personal interest because the criticisms beginning to arise to a wider audience inside and outside parliament have been apparent since I first sat as a winger in 1998.  The arrogance of various chairmen now known as presiding justices in passing a heavy bundle of documents towards me with instructions to sign and the encouragement of clerks now known as legal advisors to "press on" was against my very nature of inquiry and fair play.  However after some years research and persuasion with the assistance of a legal advisor whose ideas of justice were akin to my own my bench adopted the Best Practice Guidance as posted here 27th May 2015.   It appears that this example was not followed elsewhere.  Indeed like so many cover ups by supervisory authorities in this country, whether of errant police officers, bullying health authorities or childcare organisations to name but a few, the MOJ tolerated and in fact encouraged this practice of nodding through warrants of entry to cut power or installing of PAYG meters to those who could least afford the extortionate charges to feed those meters. The iniquity of this policy can be seen in the table below. The anomaly of the numbers refused in 2019 cf 2020  and beyond certainly points to a directive from on high to change whatever policy was previously operating.  In all probability from my own experiences this was likely to have been pressure from the gas and electricity supply industries and their bailiffs. 

YEAR        GRANTED        REFUSED        TOTAL

2019        277,142                1,824                278,966

2020        221,494                43                     221,537

2021        332,277                36                     332,313

2022        367,084                56                     367,140

In the period between July 2021 and December 2022 a total of 536,214 warrants was applied for by energy suppliers.  Of these the vast majority (536,139) were granted while 75 were refused. Assuming that such applications in my experience were held about once a month  simple arithmetic shows that each magistrates court in England and Wales on average processed almost 200 cases each month in that period. If my experience is a guide such courts were held either just prior to the main business of the court for that session or as first business at 10.00am.  In any event to facilitate the inspection of 200 warrants and to question the operatives sent to court in their applications to ensure their compliance with the aforesaid Guide would take a complete session of a court and that would add to the costs.  So once again His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service sacrificed justice for cutting costs. This disgraceful state of affairs might not consume the debating time of our politicians as much as rape prosecutions or barristers` fees but  it has arguably a much greater effect on the poorest members of our society.  The government response is that in order to grant an application to enforce a right of entry a JP must be satisfied that there is a right of entry, admission is reasonably required and the requirements of the Gas Act or Electricity Act have been complied with.  The legislation [according to the government`s interpretation] does not require the energy supplier to demonstrate they are acting as a last resort in seeking a warrant to install a prepayment meter to avoid disconnecting supply. 

Assuming my comments on time involved dealing with the volumes as above it is fair to say that individual magistrates must be held responsible for failing in their duty as per their oath of office:  “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third 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.”  They truly have lost what little independence they have been left with since the turn of the millennium.  They have no body around which they can unite and offer their views on matters affecting them.  Instead they are considered as unpaid employees and when HMCTS says "jump" they not only jump but they offer to jump higher.  Their so called "leadership magistrates" are so enveloped in their abilities in using their tongues to lick unpleasant places that the MOJ keeps their identities secret from their colleagues so that they can act like stooges on any council in Hong Kong, Beijing or Shanghai.  Truly those who connive in this aberration of so called justice are nothing less than  MOJ toadies and the sooner this facade of diversity of local citizens for diversity in local justice is replaced by others with a true sense of duty the better.  This means that advisory committees must be instructed by a new cadre of civil servants who realise that unless changes are made the clamour of the legal profession for lay magistrates` replacement by District Judges (MC) will be unstoppable.  Indeed the magistracy as it has been known since WW2 is now in the last chance saloon. 

ADDENDUM  19th January 2023

On 17th January Mike Freer at the MOJ wrote to Sir Bob Neil re warrants of entry sought by utility companies.  This included the chart below.  The numbers of warrants granted and refused by magistrates courts is very revealing. Those requested at Portsmouth MC numbered 193,394 of which only 10 were refused. The next highest was at Basildon MC where of 61,117 applied for not a single one was refused.  However it must be borne in mind that HMCTS concentrates such activities at specific courts.  That does not explain the enormous differences in the numbers. 

Unfortunately resolution could not be increased

LAWYERS DO NOT BITE THE HANDS OF THOSE THEY HOPE WILL FEED THEM

Type Single Justice Procedure into the search box and there will appear several posts of varying vintage of my thoughts on this topic. Last week the procedure was extended to companies.  In addition some wording accompanying this press release reveals, albeit subtly and unintended I`m certain, that the facade of this secret justice procedure is revealed as not being a court in the accepted sense of the word.  But more of that later. 

The traditional bench of three, but all too often two, lay magistrates has developed from being selected by and comprising  the supposed "great and the good" of a borough or county into a supposedly diverse and representative slice of a local society although for almost a decade the terms of service of JPs have been changed to allow them, in theory at least, to sit anywhere in England or Wales.  They have been constituted as finders of fact and sentencers with a legal advisor to ensure that their words and actions are lawful or perhaps not unlawful.  Such a composition continuously variable (consider how many combinations of three per a bench of eg  200) allowed a wide expertise to be exercised.  That has been the rallying call for at least twenty + years by the supporters of the process when attacked by the many legal proponents of employing only legally qualified District Judges for the lower courts.

The non imprisonable offences charged against companies can be a good deal more complex than similar against named individuals.  In addition some offences can be those in which company law is involved. * Annex A: Companies Act 2006, Schedule of Company Offences (SEE  FULL DOCUMENT BELOW)  shows the dozens of offences which the CPS could decide are suitable for presenting through the SJP.  Having sat and presided over a number of these during my tenure I am more than convinced that having another or two colleagues to discuss the details was essential to have complete confidence in a final decision.  The MOJ has until now presented the SJP as just an alternative form of court when in reality in most cases the magistrate and legal advisor are not even sitting in the same room within the court building. Either or possibly both would be working from home.  

This facade is now blown out of the water in the document referred to above.   Under the heading "SJP for companies"  is written; "As with all SJP cases, defendants can still choose to have their case heard in a court."  If ever there was an admission that even the MOJ itself does not consider the SJP a court in the accepted sense this is it.  A court can be defined as follows; take your choice...........

A place where trials and legal cases are decided, or the group of people who deal with legal cases there

A place where trials and other legal cases happen, or the people present in such a place, especially the officials and those deciding if someone is guilty

A place where legal matters are decided by a judge and jury or by a magistrate.

An official group of people (such as a judge and jury) who listen to evidence and make decisions about legal cases.

So there we have it. The SJP cannot be considered a court by the actual words of the MOJ.  So what is it?  It is a device to save money initiated in 2015 but conceived years earlier  by a branch of Tory government that was all too eager to demonstrate that its Secretary of State  Kenneth Clarke was up front in demonstrating his support for austerity by cutting 23.8% from his budget weeks ahead of his fellow cabinet members` declarations. It is difficult not to believe that the secret so called justice of the SJP is but a forerunner of what the Tories have in mind if they are still governing us in 2025.  However there are and will be no comments from His Majesty`s Loyal Opposition.  They too will be amassing their own stealth plans for 2025 when Justice as a pillar of a democratic society can be further whittled away.  As a nation we are not exempt for an authoritarian regime being installed at Westminster by a combination of public lethargy and corporate greed.  It is to the legal professions at all levels that in decades past I would have looked for reasoned argument to ensure our courts remain free and open.  I fear that along with their concerns over personal emoluments they will not wish to bite the hands they are hoping will feed them.  

*Annex A: Companies Act 2006, Schedule of Company

Offences

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

Part 3 A company’s

constitution

26(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to send

registrar copy of

amended articles

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s183

30(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to forward

resolutions or

agreements affecting

company’s

constitution to

registrar

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s380(5)

34(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give

registrar notice of

changes made to

company constitution

by court order

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s18(3)

45(3) Company with a

common seal, and

every officer in

default, failing to

have company name

engraved on seal

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s350(1)

63(2) Company and every

officer in default,

amending its articles

so that it ceases to

be exempt from

requirement to have

‘limited’ in its title.

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s31(5)

64(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to change

name on Secretary of

State’s direction so

that it has ‘limited’ at

the end

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s 31(6)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

68(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to change

name on Secretary of

State’s direction in

case of similarity to

existing name

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1984, s28(2),

(5)

75(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to change

name on Secretary of

State’s direction

following provision of

misleading

information etc

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985, s28(3),

(5)

76(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to change

name on Secretary of

State’s direction on

grounds that is

misleading as to its

activities.

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985 s32(4)

99(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give

registrar notice of

application to court to

cancel resolution to

re-list public

company as private

company, or failing to

give notice court’s

order on such

application

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985 s54(10)

108(4) Company, and every

officer in default reregistered

as limited

company and failing

to deliver statement

of capital to registrar

of companies

Summary only/Level 3

fine

New Offence

113(7) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to keep

registrar of members

and their particulars

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985 s352(5)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

114(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of place

where register of

members is kept

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA s353(4)

115(5) Company having

more than 50

members and every

officer in default,

failing to keep index

of members and

have it available for

inspection

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA s354

118(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

refusing to allow

person to inspect its

register or index of

members’ names or

making default in

providing copy of

register

Summary only/Level 3

fine

New Offence

120(3) Company failing to

provide person

inspecting register or

index of members’

names with details of

amendments

Summary only/Level 3

fine

New Offence

123(4) Single member

company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirement as to

register of members

containing a

statement that

company has only

one member

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985 s352A(3)

130(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of

location of overseas

branch register, etc

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985, s365 and

Sche.14, Pt II,

para. 1(3)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

132(3) Company, every

officer in default,

failing to keep

overseas branch

register, or a copy,

available for

inspection at place in

United Kingdom

where main register

kept

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985, s362 and

Sched. 14, Pt UU,

para.4(2)

135(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of

discontinuance

notice of overseas

branch register

Summary only/Level 3

fine

New Offence

156(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

Secretary of State’s

direction to comply

with requirements as

to appointment of

directors

Summary/Level 5 fine New Offence

162(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to properly

keep register of

directors containing

requisite information,

failing to keep it

available and open

for inspection, or

failing to give notice

to registrar of place

where kept

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)

165(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to keep

separate register of

directors’ residential

addresses

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

167(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

of change of

directors or change

of registered

particulars

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)

246(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirements to

putting director’s

residential address

on its register

Summary/Level 5 fine New Offence

272(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

Secretary of State’s

direction to appoint

company secretary

Summary/Level 5 fine New Offence

275(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to keep

register of

secretaries and make

it available for

inspection

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)

410(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to annex

information about

related undertakings

to annual return

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s231(6)

425(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to send out

copies of reports to

those entitled to

receive them

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s238(5)

429(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirements as to

summary financial

statements

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s251(6)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

431(3) Unquoted company,

and every officer in

default, failing to

make copies of

accounts and reports

available to members

or debenture holders

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s239(3)

432(3) Quoted company,

and every officer in

default, failing to

make copies of

accounts and reports

available to members

or debenture holders

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 ss239(3)

433(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to state name

of signatory in

published copies of

reports or accounts

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s 233(6)

and 234A(4)s

434(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirements as to

publication of nonstatutory

accounts

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s240(6)

435(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply

requirements as to

publication of nonstatutory

accounts

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s240(6)

486(3) Private company,

and every officer in

default, failing to give

Secretary of State

notice of notice of

non-appointment of

auditors

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s387(2)

490(3) Public company, and

every officer in

default, failing to give

Secretary of State

notice of nonappointment

of

auditors

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s387(2)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

501(4) Parent company, and

every officer in

default, failing to

obtain from overseas

subsidiary

undertaking

information for the

purposes of audit

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s389B(4)

505(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

laying circulating or

delivering auditor’s

report without stating

name of auditor

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s236(4)

512(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of

resolution removing

auditor from office

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s391(2)

517(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to send

auditor’s notice of

resignation to

registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s392(3)

523(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to notify and

give reasons to audit

authority of auditor

ceasing to hold office

Either Way/Fine New Offence

554(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to register

allotment of shares

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

590(1) Company, an every

officer in default,

contravening

prohibitions (in Pt 17,

Chap. 5) as to

payment of shares

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s114

602(2) Company, and every

officer in default

failing to deliver copy

of resolution under

s601 and valuer

report to registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s111(4)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

607(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

contravening s593

(public allotting

shares for non-cash

consideration) or

s598 (public

company entering

into agreement for

transfer of non-cash

asset)

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s114

619(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

exercising power

under s618 (subdivision

or

consolidation of

shares) but failing

properly or all to give

notice to registrar of

shares affected

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s122(2)

621(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

exercising s620

(reconversion of

stock into shares) but

failing properly or at

all to give notice to

registrar of stock

affected

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s122(2)

625(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to give notice to

registrar specifying

redenominated share

capital

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s122(2)

627(7) Company, and every

officer in default,

passing resolution

under s626

(reduction of capital

in connection with

redomination) but

failing properly or at

all to give notice

registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s122(2)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

635(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to forward to

registrar copy of

court order upon an

application under

s633 or 634

(objection to variation

of class rights)

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s127(5)

636(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

assigning name or

other designation (or

new name or

designation) of class

of shares and failing

to give notice to

registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s128(5)

637(2) Company and every

officer in default,

varying rights

attached to shares

and failing to give

notice to registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s128(5)

638(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

creating new class of

members and failing

to give notice to

registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 129(4)

639(2) Company, and every

officer in default ,

assigning name or

other designation(or

new name or

designation) to class

of members and

failing to give notice

to registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 129(4)

640(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

varying rights

attached to class of

members of

company not having

a share capital and

failing to give notice

to registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s129(4)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

644(8) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to deliver to

registrar solvency

statement and

statement of capital

and directors’

statement as to the

timing of the

solvency statement

and its provision to

members

Either Way/Fine New Offence

658(2) Company and every

officer in default,

contravening general

rule against

acquisition of its own

shares

Either Way: Indictment:

2 years’ imprisonment,

fine or both; Summary

(12 months’

imprisonment, or a fine

or both)

CA 1985 s143(2)

663(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to give notice (and

accompanying

statement of capital)

when cancelling

shares in order to

comply with s622

(duty to cancel

shares in public

company held by or

for the company)

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

667(2) Public company, and

every officer in

default, failing to

comply with duty

under s662 to cancel

shares in company

held by or for the

company, or to apply

for re-registration as

a private company

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s149(2)

680(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

contravening

prohibitions in s678

or s679 as to

financial assistance

Either Way: Indictment:

2 years’ imprisonment,

fine or both; Summary:

12 months’

imprisonment, fine or

both

CA 1985 s151(3)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

689(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to give notice to

registrar of redeemed

shares

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

708(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of

cancellation of

purchase of its own

shares in accordance

with s724 or s 729

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 169A

720(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar as to

place where

directors’ statement

and auditors’ report

kept, or failing to

allow inspection by

member of company

or creditor

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s175(7)

722(4) Company and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of making

of application under

s721 (application to

court to cancel

resolution), or failing

to forward copy of

order of court to the

registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s176(4)

732(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

general requirements

under Pt 18, Chap.6

as to treasury shares

Either Way/Fine

741(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to register

allotment of

debentures

Summary/Fine Level 3 CA 1985 s399(3)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

743(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of place

where register of

debenture holders

kept

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

746(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

refusing to allow

inspection of register

of debentures or

failing to provide a

copy

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s191(4)

761(1) Company doing

business or

exercising borrowing

power in

contravention of s761

(public company:

requirement as to

minimum share

capital)

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s117(7)

771(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to register

transfer of shares or

debentures or give

transferee notice of

refusal to do s and

reasons why

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s183(5)

798(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

issuing shares in

contravention of

restrictions imposed

under s794

Either Way/Fine

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

806(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

s805(5) (notice to

registrar of place at

which report to

members on

outcome of

investigation into

interests in shares

under s803 available

for inspection)

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

807(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

refusing to allow

inspection of report

prepared under

section 805

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 219(3)

808(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to keep register of

information received

in pursuance of

requirement under

s793

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)

809(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to keep

register of interests

disclosed available

for inspection

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)

810(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to keep

associated index of

names entered in

register of interests

disclosed

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)

813(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

refusing to allow

inspection of register

of interests disclosed

and associated index

or making default in

providing a copy

Summary/Level 3 Fine New offence

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

815(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

improperly removing

entry in register of

interests disclosed or

failing to restore

improperly removed

entry

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s218(3)

819(2) Company ceasing to

be public company

but failing to keep

register of interests

disclosed and

associated index for

six further years

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)

858(1) Company, its

directors and

secretaries, any

other officer in

default, failing to

deliver annual return

within 28 days of

return date

Summary/Level 5 Fine CA 1985 s363(3)

860(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

creating charge but

failing properly or at

all to deliver

particulars and

instrument to

registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s399(3)

862(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

acquiring property

subject to registrable

charge and failing to

deliver particulars

and certified copy of

instrument to

registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s400(4)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

877(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of place

at which documents

creating charges and

register of charges

are kept available for

inspection or refusing

to allow inspection

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s408(3)

897(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to make

explanatory

statement to

creditors when giving

notice summoning

meeting of creditors

for proposed

compromise or

arrangement

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s426(6)

900(7) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to deliver copy of

order under s899

(court sanction for

compromise or

agreement to

registrar)

Summary/Fine Level 3 CA 1985 s247(5)

901(5) Where a court order

under s899 (order

sanctioning

compromise or

arrangement) or 900

(order facilitating

reconstruction or

amalgamation) alters

company’s

constitution,

company, and every

copy of articles

accompanied by

court order

Summary/Fine Level 3 CA 1985 s425(4)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

970(3) Company passing

opting-in or an

opting-out resolution

and failing to notify

Takeovers Panel of

that fact

Summary/Fine Level 3 SI 2006 No 1183

(CLW061818),

Sched. 2

993(1) Fraudulent trading Either Way:

Indictment: 10 years’

imprisonment, fine or

both;

Summary: 12 months’

imprisonment, fine or

both

CA 1985: s458

998(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to deliver copy

of amended articles

to registrar following

order of court on

complaint by member

that affairs of

company being

conducted in unfairly

prejudicial manner

Summary/ Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s461(5)

999(4) Company, and every

office in default,

failing to annex to

articles order of court

on complaint by

member that affairs

of company being

conducted in unfairly

prejudicial manner

Summary/Fine Level 3 New Offence

1033(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirements as to its

name upon

restoration to the

register

Summary/ Level 5 Fine New Offence

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

1093(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to deliver

documents to

registrar in

connection with

request for

replacement

document where

information

inconsistent with

register

Summary/ Level 5 Fine New Offence

1135(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirements as to

form in which

company records

must be kept

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s722(3)

1145(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to send

document or

information in hard

copy form to member

or debenture holder

on request

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

1248(5) Company failing to

retain person to carry

out second audit or

review accounts

when directed to do

so by Secretary of

State

Summary/Level 5 Fine CA 1989 s29

1248(7) Company failing to

send report prepared

by appropriate

person as to whether

second audit

required to registrar,

or failing

to take steps referred

to in report as to

carrying out of

second audit.

Summary/Level 5 Fine CA 1989 s29

AND NOT ENOUGH SERGEANTS

 "Lions led by donkeys" is a phrase popularly used to describe the British infantry of the First World War and to blame the generals who led them.  That short description  by Alan Clark in his 1961 book The Donkeys served to elevate the common soldier while denigrating the officer class.  Of course a century ago there was no department of human resources in the British army of 1914-1918.  Now people are paid enormous salaries to determine inter alia the "who, why and what"  a company or organisation demands of its workforce.  In many ways the ranked order of a workforce is no longer achieved by the rule of thumb instinct of an entrepreneur but by supposedly expert functionaries themselves subsumed into grades. It was perhaps in the Roman army where defined units were perfected.  Indeed modern military formations are largely based on the efficiency of such units.  These were refined as:-

    Contubernium. A squad of eight men, led by a decanus.
    Centuria. A group of 10 contubernium, led by a centurion.
    Cohorts. A group of six centuria, totalling out to 480 men.
    Legio. A legion of 10 cohorts, roughly 5,000 men.
    Eques Legionis. The cavalry unit of a legio consisting of 120     men.

It is common knowledge that since 2010 20,000 police officers have been made redundant or retired and it is also common knowledge that notwithstanding Boris Johnson`s pledge to recruit 20,00 replacements all has not gone well with many of these new recruits resigning before becoming truly effective. 

On 2nd June 2010 I blogged some statistics on police numbers and ranks.  This is copied below. 

There is 1 sergeant for every 4.8 constables
There is 1 inspector for every 3.04 sergeants
There is 1 chief inspector for every 3.85 inspectors
There is 1 superintendent for every 1.89 chief inspectors
There is 1 chief superintendent for every 2.1 superintendents

Latest figures available today are as follows:-

There is 1 sergeant for every 5.41 constables
There is 1 inspector for every 3.26 sergeants
There is 1 chief inspector for every 3.11 inspectors
There is one chief or superintendent for every 1.49 chief inspectors
There is 1 chief officer* for every 5.56 chief or superintendents

*Includes Assistant Chief Constables, Deputy Chief Constables and Chief Constables, and their equivalents in the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police. These police officers were previously referred to as Association of Chief Police Officer (ACPO) ranks; however, on 1 April 2015 ACPO was replaced by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).

Those who are much more knowledgeable than I  know that the backbone of an efficient fighting force is determined by the quality and number of its non commissioned officers.  This opinion has been reinforced by the war in Ukraine where the Russians have been found deficient in that very area cf the highly trained Ukrainians.  The ratios of constables/sergeants and sergeants/inspectors have significantly changed since 2010.  Sergeants are perhaps the most important  cohort within the police service.  No amount of fast entry university graduates can be a substitute for training on the job: a form of education which after two generations of being excluded from so many routes to professional qualifications is just beginning to be recognised as the educational baby which was thrown out with the supposedly academic bathwater.  

This post began with an adage and I think an even older one best sums up the situation as above...........too many chiefs and not enough indians.