HIS HONOUR`S TOLERANCE

An essential part of making a success as a bench chairman is one`s  colleagues having confidence in one`s  being able to control the court. Of course that is taking as a given having the required knowledge both in theory and practice. There are some  making clear their opinion especially on Twitter who consider that Justices of the Peace are under trained and who would prefer to see only professional single judges presiding over the lower court.   I have long held the opinion that just as one cannot consider every M.P. prime ministerial material or even worthy of cabinet membership or every colonel worthy of ascendancy to four star general however proficient his training one cannot train a bench chairman who hasn`t got within him/her the basic round personality to fit the round hole required. Judges by their very position do not require the confidence of their colleagues whilst actually in court. They sit alone and omnipotent unless their failings stimulate higher powers to take more than a passing interest. There are habits in all of us which in themselves might be minor but to those with whom we have regular contact  can be irritating or worse.  

On Tuesday I posted on the failure in my opinion of a crown court judge to assume the position of the keeper of order and decorum in his own court. It is therefore somewhat surprising to read that the self same judge in the self same court  is reported yesterday as having tolerated behaviour by a defendant which was arguably at the very least worthy of a short time in the cells to cool his demeanour instead of merely a warning.   That action of course would have delayed the proceedings and those following. Perhaps HH was conscious of his duty to HMCTS to avoid such delays. Did any person in the public gallery have an increased or reduced respect for the law and our judicial system by his forbearance? Judge Tabor is by all accounts an honoured and respected judge. He was appointed Honorary Recorder for Gloucester earlier this year.  I wonder if sitting as first amongst equals with a J.P. on either side  during a crown court appeal in similar circumstances  they would have felt his tolerance went too far.

THEFT OF DISCARDED FOOD

Here`s a forthcoming trial to exercise the little grey cells of the J.P.s who will be involved. It might also be a guide for others. Without delving into the legal minutiae  of theft it seems to this observer that the law is quite clear; the goods were the property of the supermarket irrespective of what it as the owner decided to do with them.  I suppose it comes down to the tabloids` view of the morality of the whole situation eg the sight of food banks no longer apparently being an unusual situation.  You pays your money, or in this case you don`t, and makes your choice.

COUNCIL TAX DEBT AND IMPRISONMENT

 Imprisonment of single mother over council tax debt unlawful – High Court

This is required reading for every magistrate and legal advisor.

ALMOST LOST FOR WORDS

Most officers of the court and especially those who sit on the bench are aware of and/or have used the disposal of detention within the court building as a means of punishment for certain minor offences as a parent  would send a child to bed early for misbehaviour.  It is almost but not quite impossible to understand the thinking processes of a vagrant who, offered the opportunity by Blackburn magistrates to rid himself of a £350 debt by remaining within the court`s precincts for two hours, rejected said offer:  `nuff said. 

A DISMAL DUTY OF J.P.s AND AN EVASION OF DUTY BY HIS HONOUR

There are occasional matters before magistrates` courts when one wonders just how incoherent families can be.  When that matter involves a child`s non attendance at school the instinct is to put the interests of the child as a priority.  Whether or not that direction is followed sometimes decisions have to be made that irrespective of the parent`s or guardian`s efforts the child in question is so mentally or emotionally damaged that no amount of effort would have enabled them to escape being found guilty.  At the very least they would appear in court to plead their case or at least to personally explain their mitigation to the bench. 

Basildon Magistrates recently had what I would describe as the dismal duty to fine parents of non attending children who themselves failed to turn up in court. One can only wonder in dismay at the internal dynamics of such families. 

There can be few Justices of the Peace who have had the privilege of chairing a court who have not had to speak directly to witnesses or attenders who have shown their contempt for the proceedings by behaving in a manner incompatible with the solemnity of those proceedings  and which  must not be tolerated.  To farm that job out to a court usher outside the court is an evasion of responsibility but that is exactly what happened at Gloucester Crown Court when HH Jamie Tabor was presiding.  Shame on him for putting such pressure on an overworked and vastly underpaid member of staff when he himself should have chastised such people within the confines of the courtroom.

ARROGANCE, FAILURE AND USEFULNESS

Apropos my last post and Tweet the "I must be nice to all those underlings I have to control" CEO of HMCTS in her arrogance has still failed to make contact to explain or otherwise the report in the Littlehampton Gazette last week. She owes all who believe in press freedom an explanation.

On more familiar territory this case at Cardiff Crown Court is in a nutshell symbolic of all the failures with the justice system at the level where it matters most; in our courts.  Personally I encountered many similar circumstances on the bench and no doubt current active colleagues have their own tales of woe. 

Council Tax liability cases are  familiar if sometimes boring sittings for magistrates.  I would opine that those weasels at HMCTS and Petty France are cooking up plans to add them to their single justice list alongside TV licensing and similar. Read this case reported at the Court of Appeal on landlords` compliance.  It might be useful in limited cases applicable.  I certainly had quite a few in my time.

IS IT MISLEADING THAT NEWSPAPER PUBLISHES HMCTS PRESS RELEASE AS NEWS?

Yesterday was the cut off day for consultation on Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.  Naturally the newspaper industry and this blogger amongst many hope that the government will repeal this iniquitous piece of legislation.  In general terms when government departments issue press releases they are published at the discretion of the media concerned and are subject to editorial comment.  News and comment are not to be confused.  

I have blogged previously that it is generally recognised that court reporting in local print media has become an increasingly rare event.  On January 3rd the Littlehampton Gazette apparently published  a direct press release from HMCTS as news of court results.  I commented on this the following day. As a result of this I received a Tweet from the CEO of HMCTS requesting my contact details such request being complied with. My impression was and is that I would receive some sort of reply. 

For the newly appointed head of HMCTS to be so sensitive to my suggestion that it might not be in the public interest for the press release to be published in a form that might be construed as the news as published by an independent newspaper indicated to me that there was some reasoning behind the release that would be a useful explanation.  One week on and I have heard nothing more. I can only assume that either Ms Susan Acland-Hood CEO of HMCTS thought better of asking one of her minions to get in touch with me or that those concerned have forgotten to do her bidding.  Either being the case I now must assume that the Littlehampton Gazette knowingly published a government press release as news without making it clear that it did not exercise any editorial control of it or a similar explanation.  

It would be iniquitous for similar future press releases to be published as news.  This is not the way to compensate for a lack of local courts` news reports compiled and edited by independent journalists. 

BRITISH TRADITION

Sometimes events widely separated in distance but with a common theme appear almost simultaneously to throw us into deep thought over our own convictions or opinions.  Last week a suspected villain was shot dead by police in West Yorkshire.  As per the British way an investigation was immediately put in hand notwithstanding the publicity given by media to local ethnic compatriots screaming for "answers".  The comparison between such police actions in the U.K. and America are striking.  Nevertheless the Metropolitan Police Federation is surveying its members as to whether they wish to be armed.  Many such exercises over the years have consistently indicated that police officers do not wish to be routinely carrying guns. Whether the British public wants its police officers armed is a moot point. Some polls say yes and others indicate a resistance to such a change.  Whether the traditional bobby on the beat syndrome can survive is IMHO doubtful.  Police are by all accounts deserting the concept of "the beat"  becoming a reaction force similar to the Fire Brigade which in certain areas is being brought into a joint command. From my own experience a few months ago waiting on the platform at Lille train station for my TGV connection to the South I was not disturbed, indeed I was comforted by the sight of an army squad of eight soldiers patrolling the platforms as a reaction to the atrocities in France. 

Such changes in this country are often done by stealth incrementally.  I will be surprised if routine arming of police does not become reality during the life of the next parliament.  

On a lighter note I have often wondered why non sentient beings such as dogs are credited with so called "bravery".  They are creatures of instinct and training yet we still have them being awarded medals or commendations.  It does no harm and of course reflects well upon the trainer. Like our unarmed police this is just another typical example of British tradition; like it or not.

REPEATING FAILURE PRODUCES FAILURE

I apologise in advance if this post seems boring, repetitive or the literary equivalent of banging one`s head against the proverbial brick wall. On the day when the government`s latest release shows the prison population is 84,737 i.e. it is running at 98.15% capacity, continuing tales of overcrowding, three to a cell being common and only a few weeks after the worst jail rioting in decades  an offender appearing at Boston Magistrates` Court pleaded, perhaps not in the normal sense, to actually be sent to prison. Faced with this typical example of an addicted recidivist  stealing at least without violence the bench refused his request. 

What will it take for the nonces at the MOJ and their supreme commander to grasp the nettle that court inflicted measures are futile for such people?  The system as it is constructed and likely to be for years to come is unable to rehabilitate or detox such as Sergejs Danilevics.  It surely cannot be more costly to divert certain offenders to compulsory medical units. Even the capital costs would be less than building more prisons. 

Sometime or other a government will have to face the reality that the current situation is unfit for purpose and that ending of short custodial sentences would do nothing to alleviate the problem which is people not fit for society and not sentences unfit for criminality. Repetition of a failing policy is futile. Possibly attributed to Einstein the following quotation says it all, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

A STAB AT JUSTICE

Contrary to what many people outside the legal environment might think alcohol is considered an aggravating circumstance in the committing of a criminal offence i.e. it is grounds for increasing a sentence from the starting point in the range recommended for the offence.  In the light of perennial ministerial comments about sentencing for even carrying a knife or bladed article never mind the use thereof it was therefore quite surprising to read of a case where a Recorder did not sentence to immediate custody a woman who in a state of inebriation stabbed her equally drunk partner in the chest. 

I suppose the anti prison lobby will be happy.

LOCAL COURT REPORTING OR BIG BROTHER HMCTS?

Social media, increasing costs, reduced advertising revenue  and myriad various reasons have been given for the reduction in court reporting by local print media.  That being said it was unusual to see in the Littlehampton Gazette the headline, "HM Courts Service;Results list for December 19th to 23rd 2016".  The format seems to indicate that the report was a press release from HMCTS directly and not written by a press reporter who was present or even an agency reporter`s submission. If the report was indeed compiled by a third party I would deem it a worthwhile contribution to the local population`s awareness of its local court  but if it were submitted by the former and published uncritically I would be less than joyous.  There has to be independent scrutiny of courts. Publications should not rely upon the state as the sole provider of such information. As a secondary thought; from the above  report of Joshua Lee of Hatfield Walk, Durrington, who was jailed for a total of 18 weeks what would the "ban short custodial sentences lobby" make of his case?

Joshua Lee, 22, of Hatfield Walk, Durrington, was jailed for a total of 18 weeks

Read more at: http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/crime/hm-courts-service-results-list-for-december-19-to-23-2016-1-7756014

HM Courts Service: Results list for December 19 to 23, 2016

Read more at: http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/crime/hm-courts-service-results-list-for-december-19-to-23-2016-1-7756014

HM Courts Service: Results list for December 19 to 23, 2016

Read more at: http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/crime/hm-courts-service-results-list-for-december-19-to-23-2016-1-7756014

HM Courts Service: Results list for December 19 to 23, 2016

Read more at: http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/crime/hm-courts-service-results-list-for-december-19-to-23-2016-1-7756014

HM Courts Service: Results list for December 19 to 23, 2016

Read more at: http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/crime/hm-courts-service-results-list-for-december-19-to-23-2016-1-7756014

IMMOVABLE OBJECT OF SENTENCING-v- IRRESISTABLE FORCE AGAINST

Sometimes the futility of available sentencing disposals and the weary facile words of a bench chairman really do not invigorate my generally optimistic spirit. This example is not just a Christmas prezzie; it is repeated up and down the country every day in every magistrates` court.  The immovable object of a suspended sentence order the reason for not activating of which if breached must be made clear in the courtroom has met the unwritten irresistible force [advice?] at all levels not to impose custodial sentences especially short such sentences if there is any glimpse of a way of avoiding it. 

It is precisely for offenders such as he that efforts must be put in place by compulsion if necessary to treat addiction.  Without a properly funded government controlled national probation service this is impossible.  Until such time the whining moans and groans of those who wish to see custodial sentences less than six months banned completely will continue to fill the media from Twitter to The Times.   

THOUGHTS ON ANOTHER YEAR GONE

As the tide is going out on this year 2016 it`s a normal human function [failing?] as ever to look back over the previous twelve months and give thanks to whichever god, man made or ethereal, goes with you.  For me as a retired J.P. and I would surmise, many of my colleagues past and present a very very light slap on the back for undertaking a job for no financial reward but which offers the self satisfaction of being able to jack it in if personal principles are facing unacceptable imposed practices.  I retired early not wishing to be a party to having to pronounce the imposition of  the inglorious court charge in 2015.  

Since I can remember the MOJ has huffed and puffed like a miserable old dragon on its intention to retrieve outstanding fines.  This year is no exception.  Latest figures indicate that currently the jumbo amount of £747 million is outstanding. Indeed it is outstanding that none of the young weasel brains in Petty France has been able to invent  a system of punishment for low level summary [often motoring] offending which has a modicum of a chance of being successful; success being defined as achieving its aim.  In a month when 34 people were jailed for not paying Council Tax in Bradford there must be some other form of chastisement available which doesn`t cost over £18,000 annually as it does  per prisoner for an open prison; the cheapest in the prison estate. 

Recent proposals to streamline summary justice have indicated that a single J.P. could dispense very low level simple summary matters eg TV Licenses from suitable office premises with the assistance of a legal advisor. Proposed  changes to the Prisons and Court Reform Bill could herald the establishment of virtually secret on line courts where innocence or guilt would be established by e mail and those pleading guilty would not as at present have their guilt open to public reporting. There are some who argue that such decisions should be available on line; an argument unlikely to succeed.  But it is the principle that matters currently seen and heard by anybody choosing to sit in the public gallery of any British court might no longer be held sacrosanct  which is a great cause for concern for those who note the continuing reduction in the civil liberties of a citizen in what was once an open society. 

Governments seek to persuade us that they are achieving the maximum result for the minimum cost  whatever the subject of spending.  It is beyond reasonable doubt that they fail more often than not. Such failures are covered up until a media organisation or individual ferrets out the truth.  That the MOJ under Chris Grayling was able to waste so much tax payers` money on matters motivated by politics rather than good old fashioned common sense eg Transforming Probation, is a disgrace to us all especially the system which allows him to continue in office as Transport overlord.  The NHS has also suffered from political upheaval since 2010 which has resulted in the instigator of such "reforms", now discredited,  being found a seat in that sinecure called the House of Lords. 

Is it surprising that the great British public is losing faith in the established order?  It is by such incremental deficiencies in the actions of those voted into office that losing faith transforms into something more sinister.  Perhaps there is still time for those with the foresight to alter the general direction of political drift.  Brexit is just a single indicator of changes in the national psyche.  Momentum is another. What comes later could be disturbing to the extreme. 

 

ROBERT BURNS MADE IT CLEAR

The British or perhaps it`s only the English that have a reputation for loving their animals more than their neighbours. It seems that some apparently misbegotten people have taken that reputation rather more seriously than the rest of us.  In Yorkshire it appears that the French "fille" and its very close English derivative "filly" have become somewhat confused for an alleged  middle aged horse lover who doesn`t seem to have the need to go to the races to indulge his fancy. Tally Ho!

But it`s not just Yorkshire men with their cry of D.H. Lawrence, England and John Thomas who have made it to the courts recently.  They`re at it in Lincolnshire where this time it`s man`s woman`s best friend who has the bit between his teeth.....allegedly.

They used to say, Only in America........ 

At this for some, festive period I must thank my reader for using a few of their precious minutes over the past twelve months to peruse my offerings.  I will be spending the holiday period at hameldaeme this year so there might be a post or the odd Twitter contribution (@bloggingJP) before the start of 2017.

As the great poet put it:-  

O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us

CHRISTMAS MEANS "NO"

It has been demonstrated that in the first four or five years of life synaptic connections are made in the brain which direct a child`s behaviour for the future..........in fact this process continues past puberty..........and that if clear limits to behaviour are not made during this period it is virtually impossible to impose them at a later time except by enforcing conscious changes by various therapies to protect themselves and to protect the public. And that includes prison for adults or for youths a young offenders institution.

Just before  Christmas and where families include young children, these few days and those just after the holiday will probably have contained events that will be remembered for years to come such is the capacity of children to retain so much of the sensory input to which they are exposed. In evolutionary terms it seems simple enough; if outcomes are forgotten or impeded mistakes could be repeated or positive actions overlooked so reducing the possibility of successful progress to adulthood. A generation ago social cohesion was assisted by low level authority figures being able to tell robust children that certain actions were forbidden or unacceptable and more often than not a lesson in acceptable behaviour was learnt. When park keepers regularly patrolled the parks, when bus conductors walked the upper deck of the Clapham omnibus, when teachers could keep control by the accurate throwing of a piece of chalk at the child talking at the back of class. Now, owing in a large part to a few very bad and sometimes evil professionals, sadistic policemen, paedeophilic teachers and priests and multi murdering doctors and nurses very often the first time a wayward child is firmly told "no" by somebody in authority, that somebody is a police officer.

Those households which do not enforce reasoned rules and discipline upon their children to immunise them against the effects of "non immunised" children ie their feral untamed peers, face misery. Childrens` bad behaviour is similar to a disease like measles where the "herd" effect of vaccination is paramount in keeping the disease to a minimum level of spread. Currently owing to misguided policies of government over the last thirty years in the fields of law, welfare and education we are in a situation where compulsory "this" or compulsory "that" will have to be employed so that the desirable change in direction can be achieved. Youth offending is perhaps the most depressing part of the Criminal Justice System. To incarcerate teenagers because society and family constraints on bad behaviour have failed is depressing for everyone involved. To avoid this outcome very often the most positive gift a parent can give a child is the meaning of "no".

DIVERTING OFFENDERS FROM THE COURT SYSTEM

We are being informed with unfailing regularity , rain or shine, Tory or Labour that our prisons are overcrowded and something must be done. That something has been virtually automatic release on license when half time arrives and increased use of suspended sentence orders. Currently there are some who posit somewhat controversially that the Sentencing Council itself is responsible for inflation of custodial sentences. An additional shadow which has been looming in the background of this argument for over ten years is a proposed increase in magistrates` courts` sentencing powers to 12 months custody. This could be done almost at the stroke of a pen and should be done ASAP according to regular input from the Magistrates Association with predictable vehement responses in opposition from organisations eg The Howard League. The re-offending rate is a particular cause for concern for everyone and every organisation concerned with criminality.  The probation service is in almost a terminal condition much because of the actions of former Tory Justice Minister Grayling. The fashionable term for current tinkering with the present situation is "restorative justice" which has more merit in its description than its possible future practice. On the other hand it is generally agreed that the great British public considers that the criminal justice system is too soft on sentences. Contrast that with a 101 year old paedophile jailed this week for 13 years for offences committed up to 40 years ago.  Many interesting current statistics from the Prison Reform Trust are available here. Indeed the criminal justice system is bombarded with statistics to such an extent that it takes more than a mere blogger to make any sense of it all.  It is estimated that about 70%  acquisitive and/or violent crime is caused by addiction mainly although not exclusively to drugs and/or alcohol. There is one avenue of escape from all this; a desire and action to divert as many as possible from entering the CJS to begin with and as a corollary to assist those with appropriate history by diversion from the courts system and providing the medical and psychological means of intervention to enable them to return to more or less a simple life cured or at least in control of the problems that have been the cause of their recidivism.  It is sad that such a change in thinking is not even on  the horizon; it is not even over the horizon on the yellow brick road ahead.  

So the argument will continue as surely as Andy Murray hits the ball back and forward with unfailing regularity. People such as this poor soul will appear at every magistrates` court in the country so often as to be recognised by those sitting in judgement. And the same limited choices will be available to them. Those with the power to effect change will continue to make their speeches in and out of parliament and publish their papers on the topic while those howling from the cloisters will rant back and forwards choosing their statistical bases to suit their cause. We must strive to divert  offenders from the court system. And then perhaps we can call ourselves a civilised country.

A JUDGE, A BENCH & A LEGAL ADVISOR

Justices of the Peace are at the bottom of the judicial pecking order.  To be effective they rely on legal advice from a qualified lawyer employed for that purpose by HMCTS. Before any sitting the bench will or should be required to check through the list for that sitting with advice and/or observations from the allocated legal advisor.  That process being done thoroughly should allow as far as possible for the bench to be well aware of any potential awkward, difficult or legally complicated cases about to be presented. In the parlance of a U.S. Secretary of Defence it is a recognition of the known unknowns. Any experienced magistrate can attest to the occasions when these known unknowns enter a grey area where within the law and legal framework of the courts a legal advisor is just that; an advisor where advice given allows for final decision making to be done by the bench provided that it is made within the aforementioned legal framework.  If a bench in its wisdom decides to act against the advice of the L/A it must be prepared for possible consequences. I personally with my colleagues defied clear advice from a L/A during the riots of 2011 when we were told quite unambiguously to send every such connected either way case to the crown court because our powers were insufficient.   We kept one matter and made a pronouncement in open court that we were acting in contradiction of the particular advice from the L/A, herself advised by the Deputy Justices` Clerk as it transpired, and that that would be recorded in her court notes.  She was protected and we were not inhibited from following our oath as we interpreted it.However a recent not too dissimilar case before Coventry Magistrates  led to an unsavoury scenario.

Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug / Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another is governed by Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 s.4(3), Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.5(3). The sentencing guideline for this offence is a prime example of the labyrinthine tortuosity of the thinking processes of the Sentencing Council. It would have been more honest to provide a real tick box for judges instead of this masquerade of one. But notwithstanding all that it is the judge`s remarks which disturb me. By these remarks, in particular, “Potentially this defendant has been denied a really significant right, and that is the right to have a crown court trial in a case where the magistrates should never have retained jurisdiction.” she has arguably brought the law into contempt by her scathing criticism however justified it might or might not have been. I would argue that she would have been wiser to have refrained from making those withering comments and to have put them in writing to the appropriate authority because it is inconceivable that the bench were acting without the full knowledge of the L/A.  If, however, that were not the case and the bench`s decision had not previously been conveyed to the L/A both it and s/he have questions to answer. My bench`s actions described above, I would opine, would have been appropriate in this case. Perhaps similar statements were indeed made at the magistrates` court. We do not know. There is no record.

Crown Court judges IMHO do occasionally let their mouths go off before their brains are in gear. This is a sad story for all concerned; the defendant, the bench, the L/A and Her Honour.

THE ROLE OF THE MAGISTRACY//REPORT & RESPONSE

The government has just published its response to the recent Justice Committee`s Report on the Role of the Magistracy.  Readers can make up their own minds on these and can decide inter alia whether their conclusions enhance or diminish the concept of an independent local representative judiciary serving its fellow citizens and therefore the likelihood or otherwise of its retaining its unique position in our society. A crit from the Law Society Gazette might assist.

WAS THIS MAGISTRATE A MUPPET?

When I was appointed a chairman I recollected the wise words of a colleague, "Don`t get to love the sound of your own voice".  And how true she was.  

As a bench chairman when you are speaking generally no other voice or interruption is permitted unless perhaps the legal advisor is making a salient point.  When a bench decides to sentence outside the Sentencing Guidelines it is appropriate to make clear reasons for so doing.  These should be logical and significant and directed to the specifics of the offence and/or the offender.  I find the the report of a driving whilst disqualified case at North Wiltshire Magistrates Court on Thursday somewhat disjointed insofar as the chairman`s remarks related to the situation.


"If we followed our sentencing guidelines you would lose your job," she said. "I really want to give you a lecture about being honest with your employer and if you had been honest you might not be here in the first place.
"We are going to go against our guidelines with huge reluctance and we will impose a community order of unpaid work of 98 hours. For driving without insurance we are going to fine you £353 and you must pay £85 in costs and a victim surcharge of £85." 

 The Guideline for this offence is copied below.

Considering he was almost halfway in to his 22 month ban the starting point would appear to be a medium/high level community order.  It can hardly be considered that his ban was "recently imposed" as the bench seems to have concluded because that is the only logical route the bench could have taken to state that, "you would lose your job" with the underlying consideration that that consequence would arise from a custodial sentence suspended or otherwise being imposed.  

My opinion for what it`s worth is that the final disposal of indeed a low level community order negates entirely the the pompous verbosity of the bench chairman.  This apparent unstructured and patronising behaviour is not worthy of a bench chairman and would be another reason for some lawyers to conclude that the word muppet is an accurate designation for my former colleagues.

EXPLANATIONS OR EXCUSES?

Today`s post is all statistics; well mostly. Quarterly court info is available here. Also published today is a  50 page guide to legal aid to supposedly explain the current manner in which the statistics of this apology, for what was once a comprehensive system to offer many defendants the opportunity to have equality of arms in the courtroom, are produced.  And finally a report to explain why happy children in comfortably off loving and well adjusted families who care about their schooling are less likely to offend than others not so fortunate.