MORE PROPAGANDA FROM PETTY FRANCE

 The public relations and press office of the Ministry of Justice should feature in all schools of journalism as an example of how to provide maximum publicity for “initiatives” which appear to be from the school of Orwell`s 1984 where the world view of the inner party is rotated through a prism of 180* for the proles. 

Today`s press release announces the lifting of the level 5 maximum fine of £5,000.  In keeping with previous similarly heralded announcements the practice will be radically different from the impression given.  Whatever the offence the fine applicable must be related to ability to pay i.e. income or in rare cases; assets.  That barrier in itself will considerably reduce the number of offenders eligible for this “new” unlimited fine level. My experience informs me that as far as CPS prosecutions are concerned this change will make virtually no difference to the fines handed out in future years.  Like many other innovative measures conjured up by overpaid young things at Petty France we will hear little more of this nonsense.  Perhaps if they devoted similar efforts to retrieving the one billion or more pounds currently outstanding in fines, costs, compensations and surcharges   this cynical blogger would be more sympathetic to the most awful Lord Chancellor in his lifetime.  As a final thought today the wording of the release reinforces his impression that it is only a matter of perhaps another two parliaments when lay benches at magistrates` courts will be precluded from imposing custodial sentences. In such a scenario if J.P.s are still sitting in a court environment which I very much doubt custody will be the preserve of District Judges(M.C.) 

QUE? I KNOW NOTHING. I`M FROM BARCELONA

It had been at least two years since I had last sat on a means court.  There were over forty on the list and about a dozen attendees.  One common feature was that the “histories” as recorded on the means files of each of them were so truncated as to be almost meaningless.  That being the case where possible our L/A had to send for the original court files to be certain of the facts and chronologies.  But our usher was functioning over two other courts also so it takes no imagination to picture the pressure she was under.  We actually managed in the three hour session  to deal with eight of the attendees the remainder filling the downtime of other courts.  For the others listed (the non attendees) we sat at 2.00p.m. to decide on warrants and then another blatant inefficiency in administration appeared like Hamlet`s ghost.  In order, as we had expected, to issue warrants with or without bail we had to be sure that such a warning was written on the summonses which had been served on those failing to appear.  But lo!  No such warning had been written.  What had   been written as a last sentence was a warning to those who failed to show that “the court would consider other measures” without explicitly mentioning the threat of a warrant being issued.  My colleague and I with the consent of our L/A decided that in those circumstances it would be unjust to issue warrants and instead they would be written to again to appear at the next means court with a clearly worded threat of warrant with or without bail for those who failed to attend at that later date.  But and it`s a big “but” the original letters were signed off pp not by a legal advisor, a legal manager nor a Deputy Justices Clerk but by the Justices` Clerk; he who must be obeyed who has ultimate responsibility for an entire justice area.  If he had actually approved the wording it would appear he was not as competent as perhaps he should be.  If he had given the job to an underling and allowed the latter to have his signature attached his management skills were perhaps open to question.  The upshot of this seemingly minor carelessness was yet another hidden increase in costs associated with time wasted and future time to be allocated.  Add the myriad such situations in our court systems owing to staff reductions, staff incompetence, low staff morale, poor quality management and a box ticking mentality and it is quite clear why with an induced reduced workload magistrates` courts are almost as inefficient in practice as they were a decade ago notwithstanding all the statistics, video gizmos and grandstanding by the Ministry of efficiently having adapted to a 23% budget reduction and more to come. But what do I know?

DRUG DRIVING

When new laws come into effect one would assume that all the “T”s have been crossed and all the “I”s dotted. In obtuse areas of the law it could be argued that if tweaks have to be made to new laws as prosecutions falter we have an appeal court to ensure justice is done and seen to be done.    To schedule new legislation in the area of motoring with the likelihood of thousands of prosecutions where there are still areas of doubt seems precipitous.  With regard to new laws related to driving under the influence of drugs Greater Manchester Police after their initial negative reaction to its enforcement have done an abrupt U turn.  Results of first such prosecutions in Manchester  might prove of interest.

DRIVING DISQUALIFIED AND 3rd PARTY INSURANCE

At my last motoring court I had two matters confirmed.  To my surprise not all comprehensive car insurance policies offer no cost  3^rd party cover as an automatic “extra” when driving other vehicles not on loan or hire.  As the specialist prosecutor said to me, “That is a privilege often offered to “older”  drivers...... with respect your worship”.  The other matter was one of law.  A driver disqualified from driving in this country cannot obtain a license from another E.U. state and expect to be legal in the U.K.  On that latter point some months ago a CPS prosecutor was unable to give a definitive reply when faced with that defence against driving whilst disqualified and the case was adjourned.

EYE ON THE BALL

When a foreign  defendant on police bail makes his first appearance on an either way matter involving fraudulent documents the question for the bench is whether to offer conditional bail as police have done, to consider additional conditions or to remand in custody.  We were in such a situation earlier this week.  The current conditions were residence, curfew and reporting.  It took us  a full two seconds in a huddle to ask ourselves why no travel restrictions and surrender of travel documents had been added.  The date of appearance at the crown court was pronounced with an order that the aforesaid documents be surrendered and a prohibition on any application for further such documents at which point the CPS prosecutor got to her feet to inform the court that the defendant`s passport had already been surrendered to police.  In the league of CPS errors and omissions that failure to offer information was hardly in the Premier League; indeed it was barely in the league of Sunday pub kickabouts but was just another indication that CPS once again had taken  their eye off the ball.

ARE SOME DV PROSECUTIONS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED?

Sometimes the progress of a case through the magistrates` court is so bizarre as to be beyond the wit of man.  Such was the situation in my trial court a couple of weeks ago.  We sat in our usual lofty position so that seated our heads were level with those standing before us.  The common assault in a domestic setting had, according to preparation for trial form previously known in 2014 as case management form .......oh how civil servants love to make unnecessary name changes to procedures or forms to validate their life on this Earth.......... required the court to make provision for a Punjabi interpreter  for the defendant.  On such a person failing to have appeared since being tannoyed every five minutes since 1.30p.m. an urgent request was telephoned at 2.05p.m.  We were told a replacement was nearby and that his E.T.A.  was 2.50p.m.  At that point CPS got to her feet to inform us that her witness`s interpreter was present but  that her  single witness the complainant (wife) had not only failed to appear but had made a withdrawal statement a few days after her original statement.  She had not responded to telephone contacts or personal visit by police since that second statement.  A penny was seen to drop into the mind of our L/A who had been perusing the “form”. Receiving confirmation that CPS had also ordered a Punjabi interpreter   she suggested that s/he be made available for the defendant. This was accepted and a call went out.  Our L/A cancelled the interpreter who was on his way.  After we had returned from five minutes downtime CPS in a fluster told us that unbeknown to her,  her interpreter had been released from the proceedings and had left the building.  On the bench three heads visibly drooped with three intakes of breath. Our L/A made a call to replacement  interpreter who, fortunately was quite near when asked to cancel and was now quite happy to fulfil his original contract.  As good as his word he appeared shortly after 3.00p.m. and stood in the dock with the defendant.  Expectation now was that CPS would have made an application to proceed on hearsay evidence or to adjourn.  She chose the latter option which was rejected whereupon she told us she could proceed no further without authority from reviewing lawyer at CPS.  With a note of surprise the chairman stated that never in such a circumstance had such an observation been made to him previously.  Ten minutes later she returned to tell the court she was offering no evidence.  The case was duly dismissed.  Another defendant in a DV matter had been pursued in the knowledge that the case was unlikely to be proved owing to the determined and known intention of the complainant to refuse to give evidence against her husband.  Was this in the public interest; a hurdle that CPS must overcome in order to proceed? It appears that many such cases are driven as much by political considerations as by strength of evidence.  The interpreter was happy.  He was being paid when he thought he had lost out.