GOOD RIDDANCE

Over the years magistrates have been removed from the bench for a variety of reasons; some that were arguably perhaps rather petty and others for criminal activity from assault to murder.  But for sheer stupidity the honours must go to this idiot who paraded around on Twitter holding an AK 47.  Maybe he thought he could   intimidate some defendants who might appear before him. 

EQUALITY.......BAH HUMBUG!

I blogged on 25^th September on the latest statistics from the MOJ concerning ineffective trials.  Today`s numbers indicate that court maladministration is still responsible for 29% of such failings; a figure which suggests the problem is flatlining.   The costs of such inefficiency can only be guestimated by those professionally involved and/or interested.  It is unlikely that such admissions will ever be available from Petty France, London SW1.  It seems that no senior figures amongst our representatives are willing to articulate that this erosion of competence is a direct result of the cost cutting to a.......some might say......the major pillar supporting our democratic society where all are supposed to be equal before the law.

WHERE IS THE LAW TAKING US?

I can think of no better reason to refer the reader to my post of  11/03/2014  than the events and comments  in the Family Division of the High Court in London as recently reported in the Independent.

ANOTHER BIG MOUTH

Another unthinking know all  who  thinks  we`re all muppets with our brains up our arses.

SPEAK YOUR MIND IF YOU DARE

An uncommon outburst on a public forum  from  an apparently serving J.P. over the retirement age.  I would hazard a guess that this person is indeed now retired from the bench.  If he is still serving, which is highly unlikely unless the reporter has his age wrong, I would imagine an appointment has probably been made with his justices` clerk in the first instance to discuss his future.

SILENCE SPEAKS VOLUMES

A little publicised report from a current trial at the Inner London Crown Court deserves a mention.  The trial is that of Gibert Deya a self styled “archbishop”, born in Kenya, who is accused of rape, attempted rape, sexual assault and battery.  The witness, a Sierra Leonean,   who claimed she was raped gave evidence for a full hour with repeated promptings from lawyers to speak more clearly,   before a court official also from that country, informed the court that she (the witness) was not speaking English or at least any dialect which could reasonably be assumed to be English.   My point today is how could a judge who must, one can assume, have been in the same difficulties as the lawyers in failing to comprehend the witness, fail to intervene and order the question of her language to be investigated.  My conclusion  is that until the timely intervention of the court clerk it would appear that all and sundry were afraid to be denounced as that all encompassing worst of all epithets; “racist”.  Will the judge`s non intervention be subject to a complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints ?...........I suppose  you can guess my opinion.  I would add a corollary.  Owing to the situation and making a pragmatic decision albeit overdue  the judge swore in the court clerk as a temporary interpreter.  I recollect very clearly during a trial many years ago when the Arab witness was stumbling over a few phrases and I authorised a native Arabic speaker on the bench to help him over a few sentences.  At the post trial review I was criticised by the legal advisor.  I told her that she was going too far and if she wanted to report my action I would defend myself at any level.  That was the end of the matter.