EXCLUDING SOMEBODY FROM PUBLIC GALLERY

Reading about this bench`s controversial decision  reminded me of a recent sitting where I at least faced a completely new situation.  No additional training in whatever format  would have been of any help.  As I have remarked in conversation with new colleagues there are many times  when training and book reading are little preparation to fulfil the position of a bench chairman.  Today as it so happens  one of my spies attended a seminar on improving magistrates` training deficits organised by Transform Justice, a lobbying group run by a former J.P. Penelope Gibbs.  But more of that in another post.  In simple terms either one has the ability to run a court or one hasn`t.  Unfortunately IMHO I have seen those who might overcome the hurdle of appraisal but are as unsuited to the role as a doctor without a bedside manner.  

 But returning to the subject of this post;  last month my colleagues and I were sitting on yet another assault by beating in a DV context.  The complainant had not turned up on the previous occasion.  At 10.00 o`clock we were told by CPS that she was under the care of a charity dealing with such matters and that having had a witness summons served the previous day by a police officer she was “on her way”.  Just when defence counsel was sensing a dismissal of the charge she arrived.  The defendant was removed whilst she was positioned behind screens and examination in chief began.  It took only five minutes for her to begin showing signs of stress. She whispered something to the usher who was close by.  He made his way to the public gallery where he indicated to a man that he should leave.  CPS rose to continue but I intervened to ask the usher what was going on.  Apparently the member of the public gallery was known to the complainant as being a friend of the defendant and she had felt uncomfortable.  This was an occasion when a chairman has to have control of the court and make instant decisions. I explained that any member of the public has a right to peacefully view the proceedings at a magistrates` court without any hindrance and that a complainant cannot put her discomfort above that basic freedom.  The usher was instructed to inform the person concerned who apparently was still outside the courtroom.  He returned to his seat and the case continued. Before or after his removal he was not seen to have made any action that would have been considered unusual i.e. he had silently listened to the proceedings making no expression to the witness whom he could barely see behind the screen.   My colleagues, also chairmen, were doubtful if they would have acted similarly on the basis that they were very sympathetic to the complainant`s situation.  Best I stop here.

A JUSTICE SYSTEM RAVISHED

The prosecution of those suspected of violence against their intimate partners has changed radically in the last two decades.  “Domestics” where no serious injury occurred often resulted in a warning to the perpetuator to behave better.  Now the pendulum has well and truly swung the other way.  There has been  cross party political pressure to charge and convict those responsible for such crimes.  Indeed the definition of “domestic” has widened.  I have sat on a case where the defendant was the distant brother in law of the complainant.  Hardly intimate partners but the whole weight of the protocols in place to prosecute DV cases was employed.  In the event the accused was found not guilty of common assault.  I mention this owing to a recent series of DV matters before my colleagues and me having   resulted in “case dismissed”.  The reasons were complainants failing to appear despite the protocol of there having been a witness summons issued; withdrawal statements having been made which of course undermined the CPS case; complainants attending but refusing to give evidence and those whose evidence consisted of “Can`t remember”.  There is always an underlying suspicion that despite the probable bail condition imposed upon the defendant of “no contact” pressure in some form or another has been brought to bear upon the complainant.  But and it`s a big “but” I believe that prosecutors are being pressured to pursue such cases with a portfolio of evidence that is less convincing than would be expected in non DV matters of a similar gravity.  This is based upon this government`s ceaseless quest to, “put victims and witnesses at the centre of our reforms”, quoting Chris Grayling.  Indeed today another breathless press release from his minions at Petty France announces further efforts which appear to convert our common law to that based upon Sharia.  It won`t be long before every offence has a price that an alleged offender can pay a complainant in order to forestall court action.  With many more defendants on average earnings  being made to represent themselves owing to their being denied legal aid  and  victims and witnesses to be given more support with double the number of “courtroom experts” soon to be available to help them give evidence, one wonders what more will be done to raise the conviction rate to a Chinese 99%. 

Where is the learned opposition to this galloping trend?  Where is the Magistrates Association`s opposition.  Does the Bar demonstrate only when legal aid fees are cut?  Do the higher judiciary await retirement before expressing opinion?  I have previously commented on the outspokenness of such people including the military and  police on defence and crime respectively only when their pensions hit their bank accounts.  The result is plain to see with the predicted budget for defence likely to fall below 2% and senior generals being bullied into silence on criticism of the country`s ability to be defended.

I vote in a marginal constituency currently held by the Tories where UKIP is breathing down the neck of the incumbent.  I am a capitalist by experience and conviction but it might stick in my craw to put my cross for the party which has allowed our justice system from arrest to prison  to be ravished as it has been over the last five years.   

PLAIN ENGLISH

Journalese, gobbledegook, jargon, rhubarb, pigeon, estuary, legalese  and other terms are used variously to describe  unique forms of the English language.  To those must be added the simple unadulterated word “police”. Police English is unique to those fellows who described an aggressive stance as an individual whose eyes were bulging, shoulders hunched and fists clenched or the drunk who smelt of intoxicating liquor and walked with an unsteady gait. During the week just gone a  witness was quoted in the officer`s notebook as describing an assailant who “showed  signs of impending aggressive behaviour”.  In another case an officer quoted a witness to a traffic incident who was supposed to have said ,”the junction was controlled by traffic signals”.

Now it is not beyond reason that the officers recorded exactly what was said in these examples but as they say in the land of the thistle and the heather, “I hae ma doots”.          

BAN DITTODITTODITTO

Over the last decade many new driving offences have become law eg causing death by careless driving and just last week causing serious injury by driving while disqualified.  But whilst most serious driving error scenarios seem to be covered by some law or another the problem of the recalcitrant disqualified driver remains.  I cannot recall ever reading about a case which even approaches the level of disregard for court orders shown by this offender.  One wonders whether it is psychiatric treatment he requires in addition to a lifetime driving ban which of course is not an available disposal.  What is available is a CRASBO.  I am not an ardent supporter of this form of sentence or its predecessor but in a case such as this one there appears an argument in favour.  A deprivation order would have been apposite if the driver had been using his own vehicle.    All in all I would suggest that it is not unlikely that colleagues in Blackburn will be seeing this person once more before too long.

NON ACTIVATION OF A SUSPENDED SENTENCE ORDER IN NORTHERN IRELAND

A suspended sentence is supposed to act as a deterrent against future offending within the period of suspension.  The protocol is that upon conviction of a further offence the sentence should be activated in whole or part failing which the court must state its reasons for not so doing. I commented on this topic in some detail exactly one year ago.  What has interested me was a report  from Northern Ireland where a District Judge presumably operating on devolved legislation decided not to activate a very recently imposed suspended sentence order because the current offence was of a different kind from the previous.  This reasoning has never previously crossed my horizon.  Perhaps somebody can explain the law behind the DJ`s decision?  After all walking the plank was not much of a deterrent without the ocean below.