A STATISTICAL ANOMALY

Yesterday`s all day sitting was a statistical anomaly.  Forgetting the imperious terminology it was highly unusual.  We had two trials listed for the morning and similarly for the p.m. sitting.  

 Anomaly #1.  There was no overlisting.  Each was scheduled one and a half hours.

Anomaly #2.  At 10.00a.m. were present and ready to proceed one CPS prosecutor, one defence counsel, one defendant, one complainant and one police officer.

Anomaly #3.  At 11.45a.m. present and ready to proceed were one (the unchanged) CPS prosecutor, one defence solicitor, one defendant  and one complainant. 

Anomaly #4.  We rose at 1.05p.m. and enjoyed almost a whole hour to relax and to reflect that we had not had to endure a moment`s downtime.

Anomaly #5.  At 2.00p.m. with a new L/A in her place we entered the courtroom to be faced with a defendant already standing in the dock awaiting identification, a smiling CPS prosecutor silently acknowledging her being recognised by the bench and defence counsel making some hurried notes and confirming she had been able to see the prosecution CCTV footage on her laptop. Both parties confirmed they were ready to proceed.

Anomaly #6.  At c 3.15p.m. having sentenced the previous defendant the dock was, within two minutes,  occupied by the fourth defendant of the day with his solicitor almost immediately on his feet to request an adjournment which was opposed by CPS and refused by the bench.  Having heard evidence from complainant, police officer and defendant  and deliberating for ten minutes sentencing concluded at 4.45p.m.

Anomaly #7.  No matters were put over to another day.

Will such a day happen again during my remaining time on the bench?  As I said at the start of this post; the day was a statistical anomaly.

HOW DID THEY BRING THE NEWS?

Over  my years on the bench I have been convinced by what I have seen and heard  that nowhere is there a more politically correct organisation.  That having been said I would have thought that all participants, professional and lay, would always apply a virtual five second delay to any remarks made in the retiring room and certainly those made from the bench.  I was wrong!  The crass remarks of Deputy District Judge Richard Terrence Peter Hollingworth are almost beyond belief. What is of some interest is that the incident took place in October yet appeared only this weekend in the public press. 

I SPRANG to the stirrup, and Joris, and he;

I gallop’d, Dirck gallop’d, we gallop’d all three;

“Good speed !” cried the watch, as the gate-bolts undrew;

“Speed!” echoed the wall to us galloping through;

Behind shut the postern, the lights sank to rest,              

And into the midnight we gallop’d abreast.

STICKING PLASTER POLICIES

The fiasco at the MOJ regarding the award of a new contract for interpreter services to a twopenny   halfpenny company only to be sold on a couple of weeks later to Capita plc was our first insight into the total incompetence of those senior civil servants at Petty France.  Their public humiliation at the hands of the Public Accounts Committee is a most enduring piece of fly on the wall T.V. and is even more entertaining than the fictional “Yes Minister”.  Of even more significance is the report in the Law Society Gazette in which the Permanent Secretary admits that no research was done into the effects which would follow cuts to civil legal aid.

The failings over the last four years at the MOJ and the Home Office must surely reach back to the occupant at number 10.  But hold on!   All the good old British public is concerned with is its free at the point of use NHS.  So come next May all will be well with that extra £2 billion while the core of our society is held together with sticking plaster.

I WILL DO RIGHT TO ALL MANNER OF PEOPLE

Unlike that hallowed organisation the NHS the majority of the population has no contact with “Justice”.  And those who do, especially within the criminal division, do not deserve public sympathy. At least that must be the thinking behind the coalition`s decision making since 2010 culminating in LASPO which further removed state aid to those faced with prosecution.  The very concept of treating the civil justice system as a business which should pay for itself and even be profitable is an abomination.  Grayling and his cohorts have ravaged and are ravaging what was arguably one of the fairest justice systems  in operation anywhere.  Now it appears that senior figures are beginning to rise above the battlements in what might be judicially described as opposition.

The mutiny in the prison trial has ended in ignominy for Genghis  Grayling.  The judicial review goings on in parliament show that this government has lost all moral sense.  Control control control..........that seems to be the mantra.  Fewer represented defendants in the magistrates` courts will lead to increased conviction of parties bereft of legal representation.  Legal advisors are there to assist such people but IMHO we J.P.s must become more pro active when circumstances demand otherwise we could be complicit in convicting those where the evidence fails to reach the required threshold.  When such a defendant fails to ask that most obvious (to us) question when cross examining a witness are we to sit shtoom in the name of being impartial or are we to assist in the levelling of the judicial playing field?  It is inevitable that such considerations are going to enter the minds of all of us if they haven`t already.  I referred in my last post that my decisions in court do not keep me awake at night.  On the same basis I prefer to level the playing field if such levelling contributes to the enactment in practice of    “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”

SOUND SLEEPER

It`s been quite some time since I`ve sat in a breach and/or sentencing court.  With all the hoo ha over the reorganisation shambles at  probation services and desperate press releases from the MOJ   I was quite unsure of the quality of PSRs we would be reading that morning.  We had three such in front of us one of which was so disjointed, illogical and grammatically inept that we had to make a statement that the writer (from a judicial area in another part of the country) be advised that its content was next to useless in its contradictory conclusions.  That didn`t go down well with one of our regular probation officers in the well of the court.   

There has been and  is IMHO a considerable amount of political lobbying surrounding the subject of domestic violence and its outcomes.  Combine that with the current fashion for victim orientated sentencing and we are beginning to resemble an embryonic Sharia law approach to the topic.  All we need is the concept of blood money to be refined for our English purposes.  We had two bail decisions on such matters and for one of them we decided to remove conditions imposed by police and to allow unconditional until next appearance.  All members of the bench were of the same mind.  Nevertheless during the post court review we were advised by our very efficient L/A that when he made his regular report that decision would be highlighted as would be our reasons for acting against what seem to be unwritten protocols.  Such decisions are probably the most difficult that a bench can make but I`m a sound sleeper and as I usually do I slept like a baby that night.