THE SINKING OF THE GOOD SHIP JUSTICE

It is truly hard to believe what unthinking nonsense has emanated from Grayling`s fiefdom in the last four years and true to form with only three months to go the press office of the Ministry of Justice has been working overtime expounding the latest thoughts of chairman Chris.  Amongst those wonderful new initiatives from the great leader is the Social Action, Responsibility andHeroism (SARAH) Act.  It seems that the reason for this completely unnecessary piece of legislation is the political correctness, a scourge of our generation, which has banished the concept of common sense.  Everything now has to be pre or perhaps proscribed. Not content with that the  Criminal Justice and Courts Act will inter alia prevent long serving  prisoners being offered early release until the Parole Board is satisfied that they no longer pose a threat to society.  This is all very well if the conditions for possible parole were met in a timely fashion. Unfortunately in the real world it ain`t necessarily so.   New increased sentences for on line trolls are a total waste of time.  Contrary to newspaper headlines there are relatively few such convictions under current laws.  It is questionable that the situation requires new legislation.  The arguments and comments here are worth a glance.  Jury misconduct is also being categorised including    researching details of a case (including online research).  I have never sat as a juror.  There is no research on what happens within the confines of the jury room.  But bringing together twelve strangers each with his/her own knowledge base is it  now to be a crime for one of the cohort to impart his/her own knowledge based on some experience to the others when it is directly relevant to the evidence presented?

Not content with a so called “victim” surcharge on all offenders we have now reached the point where financial penalties are likely to be increased for offenders “to pay for the courts”.  What perverted thinking has infected what passes for the brain of this Lord Chancellor and those zombies who must obey his every whim?  Along with the defence of the realm justice must be disposed by the crown and accordingly whether it`s Alfred the Great`s justice or Queen Elizabeth 2^nd`s  it behoves the state to finance this mainstay and pillar of our country and not outsource it.  It has been asked previously but now the rhetorical question “what price justice” can be answered: look deep into the accounts in the bowels of Petty France.

The most calamitous post war Lord Chancellor is determined that the good ship Justice will go down with all hands including his red ones.

FANNING THE FLAMES

It is becoming increasingly the case that very senior public servants who have occupied well cushioned seats in the judiciary, police or armed services and retaining influence in many quarters reveal their underlying philosophies in retirement whether from the red benches of the House of Lords or the ivory towers of Oxbridge.  This week Lord Woolf, former Lord Chief Justice, in a lecture at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies championed the cause of protecting Muslims from being offended. He was of course referring to recent tragic events in Paris.

* His comments were described by the Archbishop of Canterbury as being, “not very helpful.” [see below full piece from The Times (behind its paywall)].

Muslims have generally lived as the majority population of nations or states but  more than 300 million Muslims, or one-fifth of the world’s Muslim population, live in countries where Islam is not the majority religion.  That now includes England.  Often where there is a minority Muslim population eg in India, Russia,  China and Burma  there has been inter-communal strife.  In this country giving offence has been the flip side of our concept of free speech just as outrageously enormous wages  paid to four hundred footballers is the flip side of capitalism and the concept of demand and supply economics. 

S.5 of the Public Order Act 1986, after much lobbying, has finally been amended to remove sections 5(1) and 6(4) by section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. This amendment removed the word 'insulting' from the two sections with effect from 1 February 2014.  Police have been advised on changes in operation.

Unless Muslims in England, immigrants and native born, are ready to accept the mores of this country and learn a degree of tolerance that the other monotheistic religions with their various branches from high church to low, from orthodox to reform,  encompass I fear increasing levels of confrontation.  Lord Woolf`s remarks serve only to encourage the extreme right wing who seize on such comments to ferment their own brand of confrontation.  Such lordly myopia serves his fellow citizens of all faiths and none little benefit; indeed he has to a degree fanned the flames of a combustible situation. 

*

DIRECT ACCESS

Last week for the first time sitting across from me and my colleagues was a barrister who described his firm as “Direct Access”. Neither our L/A nor either of my colleagues was familiar with the designation. He proceeded to explain that he was present on a one time only basis on behalf of his client.  There was some contentious  legal argument which was hardly unusual but what was unusual was his vociferous and at times downright rude manner to the court.  His method of making his case was to try and shout louder than our L/A .  It took a great deal of self control from the bench to make it perfectly clear to him that as opposed to the L/A`s position when giving the bench “advice” which the bench can follow or not as the case might be when she gives an interpretation of the law the bench is obliged to follow that instruction.  Eventually he sat down muttering under his breath.  His behaviour provoked a few minutes discussion during the post court review.

And now earlier this week my colleagues and I find another barrister presenting his client`s argument that he is unable to offer a plea on his first appearance owing to disagreements over disclosure and in his opinion the requirement that the CPS should pay the translation and transcription costs of documentary evidence which he claimed would be necessary for his client to be able to successfully defend a charge of assault.  The debate was relatively uncomplicated but once again the manner in which it was presented by the barrister,  whilst not quite bordering some might have said  on contempt, was delivered in  such  furious outbursts and language which had no place in a court of law. 

At the post court review I described to our L/A the previous experience of the week prior.  He was as baffled as we  were by the aggression shown.  Perhaps in our neck of the woods chambers have decided to go all out no holds barred for this new business opportunity leaving no prisoners in their wake.  Perhaps they consider a bench of three lay magistrates might be easily intimidated.  I would say,”Think Again!”

SHINE A LIGHT

This blogger usually reports facts, incidents, experiences, is known to criticise organisations and occasionally offers opinions.  I write this post to ask a question in the hope that my reader can offer an answer, the more authoritative the better. 

On February 6^th I posted inter alia that our L/A advised (told) us that if a defendant`s lawyer considered that his/her client required an interpreter the bench had no authority to intervene to make its own inquiry of whether that was indeed the case.  When our court has a four month delay in fixing dates for DV matters owing to the need to have screens (available only in three courtrooms) and the case in question had taken about six months from the first complaint  the bench had concerns that any further delay might encourage the defendant to influence the complainant despite strict bail conditions. We were effectively silenced.  Earlier this week I mentioned his colleague`s advice as above to another of our legal advisors.  He was surprised.  According to his reading of a situation of that ilk a bench is perfectly entitled to question a potential witness or defendant (as I have done on previous occasions) to make its decision as to his/her competence to understand sufficient English language to be able to follow the occasional legalise used in court.   So, dear reader, if you can shine some light on this matter I would be most grateful.