FAILING GRAYLING`S ROAD TO AUTHORITARIANISM

The current Lord Chancellor (how long will he remain in post) announced today that the probation service will in effect be re nationalised in 2021.  Thus another "innovation" of the worst of his predecessors and least effective cabinet minister of modern times bites the dust. The probation service pre Grayling was, in my area, a service teetering on the brink of failing those in whom the courts had placed their future hopes of offenders  leading a law abiding future life.  Virtually every group or organisation involved with the delivery of probation services advised Grayling of the pitfalls in his proposals. The due diligence and pilot projects reinforced those predictions but he continued like the proverbial bull crashing into all the china. Not satisfied with what would be a ruinous policy he proceeded to inflict more of his ill considered policies. He removed the rights of prisoners` having books in their cells. Books were to be allowed to prisoners only when they displayed good (compliant) behaviour. To his eternal shame he reduced by tens of £millions the legal aid budget and enforced severe financial cuts on the CPS. Perhaps these two decisions have contributed more than anything else to the calamitous state  of today`s justice system. Arguably his crowning glory was effecting the Criminal Courts Act in 2015 by which the imposition of court charges for all offenders irrespective of their ability to pay or original offence was so iniquitous IMHO that I retired shortly ahead of my allotted date so that I would not have to utter the pronouncement of said additional costs. His disastrous tenure at the MOJ was merely the latest in a line of questionable policies beginning in 2010 when the then Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke proudly announced in line with the austerity policies of the Coalition his forthcoming budget cut of 23% for the Ministry of Justice before any of his cabinet colleagues had announced theirs. Graylings lamentable period in his office was from 2012-2015.  Michael Gove who followed Grayling lasted in post for only one year but during that time he abolished the Criminal Courts Act and undid many of his predecessor`s actions re the prison service. From Clarke to Gauke ie from 2010 until the present time there have been six Secretaries of State for Justice.  Is it any wonder that our justice system is in terminal decline?    

The lamentable history above is but a microcosm of what has befallen this nation as a result of the Referendum; a device hastily thrown together to serve the interests only of the Conservative Party.  Grayling`s failings were all and I repeat all approved in cabinet. That miserable collection of incompetents for their own selfish reasons and laterally serving under the most incompetent personally unsuitable holder of the title of prime minister allowed the country to drift politically adrift from all reality.  Grayling as a hard Brexiteer was kept in Cabinet as Secretary of State for Transport where  currently he is continuing to demonstrate his complete and utter unsuitability for office.  Paradoxically his being there is final proof that the government has not only failed the country and its people; he has reduced confidence in the democratic norms we have taken for granted since 1945.  If this country tends to populism and subsequent authoritarianism a route from Grayling in 2012 until today can be directly traced as having nurtured the unthinkable. 

MAGISTRATES COURTS MUST RETAIN POWERS OF CUSTODY

There has been a flurry of announcements on social media particularly Twitter that the MOJ is seeking to abolish "short" prison sentences.  That is a press relations department`s way of talking up a ban on any magistrates court being enabled to send offenders to custody.  Instead any outcome would be of a financial or so called rehabilitative nature overseen presumably by some sort of probation service which owing to the incompetence of failing Grayling is utterly incapable of providing such a service.  Such is the way the iniquitous weasels at Petty France perform their duties. Despite the usual moaners and groaners who have been pressing for such changes in the powers of the lower courts for as long as I have been involved in such matters it is almost a dead certainty that their desires will be as pie in the sky in the next decade  as they have been in the past. 

To return to real life as it is lived in court this offender has been correctly treated as the law allows.  To all those in the aforesaid moaners and groaners camp please indicate how they would prefer such a miscreant be treated were custodial sentences to be prohibited in the lower court. 

2007-17 FINES AND MORE FINES

Today the MOJ released its latest batch of criminal justice statistics.  No doubt most major news outlets and commentators  will be giving their opinions on what they all mean and then the politicians will weigh in.  I cannot and will not compete with that but I can comment on just a snippet of information from the myriad of numbers below which can be seen more clearly with the Windows magnifier tool.  They cover the years 2007-2017

The inflation rate in the £ over those ten years was 31.89%. The average fine (top of table left) in 2007 was £172 and ten years later (top right of table) was £256; a rise of 49%.  At the other end of the scale for fines over £10,000 there were 276 offenders in 2007 and in 2017 such offenders receiving over £10,000 fines numbered 2695. That major increase seems to be a direct policy result of using fines as punishments in place of other outcomes. There is much to decipher in this table. Readers more acquainted with statistics might have their own knowledge and opinions. 

RAPE AND DIGITAL HISTORY

Not surprisingly this page is usually used to air problems, grievances, histories etc of matters  normally associated with magistrates courts and/or their users. Generally matters of law are beyond the competence of the blogger and best left to those who are more qualified to comment.  However there are from time to time matters where the principle underlying that law or decision can be open to comment to any thinking member of the public.  Such a situation arose last week with the lurid headlines in most of the press of the victims` lobby denouncing new police procedures when there is an accusation of rape.  During my time on the bench I have seen the rise and rise of this lobby to such an extent that the impartiality of our legal system can rightly be called into question. On the issue of rape this has had a profound effect on the manner in which complainants (pre a guilty verdict the "victim" is a complainant), have been and are treated.  Whilst there is little doubt that in the past such people have been less than justly considered by police and prosecution there is a real danger that the legal pendulum has swung too far. It seems that the words of that great thinker Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) "That it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer", is a maxim that has been long and generally approved in law books but in current times has been placed in the waste paper basket of our legislators. Shrieks from vocally enhanced left thinking activists have left the facts of the situation far behind. There are strict conditions to be applied when application is made to examine complainants` phone records.  If there had been no infamous cases of late of false allegations of rape it is unlikely that the changes would have been considered. By denouncing the procedures outlined there is no doubt that a green light would be given to more such false allegations. The mere fact is that the spectrum from lawful consensual sexual intercourse to rape is a difficult legal road to travel when in most cases it is a case of he says she says. There are in our midst those who have in their minds the "she was asking for it" scenario when a woman`s clothing, sobriety and behaviour have had a bearing on their attitudes to sexual intimacy whether in the privacy of a home or in the steam pressure cauldron of the jury room. Franklin`s adage was correct in the male orientated society in which he lived and is equally correct in our supposed times of enlightenment. 

REAL COST COMPARISON OF DISTRICT JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES

I have long opined that an unsaid policy of the Ministry of Justice is that the role of Justices of the Peace should be in managed long term decline in order that government would have  total control of the court process. In the last decade JPs` numbers have halved to around 15,000. District Judges(MC) numbers have been fairly constant over the last five years at around 115 with a slightly greater number of part time Deputy DJs. The argument that such an opinion is misguided is usually based upon the vastly greater costs of employing professional judges, ie DJs. The official statistics of the comparable costs are tabled below. 

These numbers, however, have a hidden story. Taking the 2017-18 figure for DJs alone £22,012,824 simple arithmetic results in a cost per DJ of £194,803. Now consider that the current salary of a DJ is £110,335 with an additional payment of £8,000 p/a for London appointments and that the MOJ contributes around £8,000 towards the DJ`s pension. DJs must devote a minimum of 215 days each year to judicial business. It is reasonable to assume that about seven weeks holiday is paid for.  So in reality the individual costs about £120,000+ per annum in addition to the cost of holiday cover of the lost seven weeks by a DDJ of at least £500 per day which works out at about £17,500. The costs imposed to reach the figure of £194,803 amount to £57,500.  These admittedly crude calculations lead me to believe that this last figure is the cost of a qualified legal advisor sitting with the District Judge. Without knowing exactly how many sittings are performed by DJs, DDJs and lay magistrates it is impossible to calculate the actual cost of a DJ + L/A  to compare with the expenses incurred by magistrates` costs of  £9,143,381.  What can be implied is that if the qualified L/A attending with a DJ were removed from the calculation or replaced with a low level unqualified clerk the cost advantage currently favouring using magistrates would be considerably reduced perhaps to the level where my previously stated opinion would be likely to be implemented. 

TO PUNISH OR NOT PUNISH;THAT IS THE QUESTION

Every day thousands of cases hit the magistrates courts. This observer can generally comment only on what reaches the public domain although from time to time information is available from other sources. In the former category I noticed this week two examples of what I believe are real but subtle changes in how we ie the law, treats miscreants at the lower level of harm.

Freedom of expression is perhaps the most basic of all our "freedoms".  And most importantly freedom to express that which others might find objectionable is arguably one of the most difficult areas in law as to where the line of freedom  is drawn that one person`s freedom is another`s hurt feelings or worse.  The laws of slander and libel have developed over the decades to cope with social media but many cases are much less clear cut than those which involve wealthy corporations and whistle blowers. 

Earlier this week Southark News reported that "A man from South Norwood has been charged after a video of a burning cardboard model of Grenfell Tower was shared online. Paul Bussetti, aged 46 (30.05.72) was charged on Friday, April 12, with two counts of sending, or causing to be sent, grossly offensive material via a public communications network. This is contrary to section 127 (1) (a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003.He will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday, April 30."

Type in the search box exceptional hardship and my reader will read many of my examples where IMHO those on the bench applying the non guidance on this matter to the advantage of the offender are just plain soft and afraid to use the law as it is meant to be applied. They might be impressed by a junior counsel`s heartfelt apologetic  words or the seniority of the accused.  They might feel that they themselves if in that position would beg steal or borrow to avoid the mandatory disqualification on reaching 12 penalty points.  One reason I had offered by colleagues more than any other to accept the hardship argument  is the old story; leave the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head until the next time. What a fatuous argument in a matter where the current offence is at the very least the second in the three year period.  Indeed in most cases the disqualifying offence is the third or fourth example of the law being broken. Where is that useless sword to be sheathed?  

Here is another example where a bench, at least according to the report, did not have the cajones to do its job to punish habitual law breakers on our roads. 

DRIVING AND MOBILE PHONE "USE"

Every magistrate will have had his/her own experiences of excuses offered by those defending a charge of using a mobile phone when driving.  Such a  driver convicted of using a mobile phone whilst driving has been given leave to appeal his conviction at Willesden Magistrates Court and a subsequent upholding of that conviction at the crown court.  The High Court will consider the matter: should be interesting. 

CHICKENS HOMING IN TO THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

I have long advocated here and elsewhere that offending drug users should be removed from the court pathway and transferred willingly or otherwise to a medical pathway where they can be treated for their addiction under lock and key until it is considered that they are no longer dependant. These institutions I have described as workhouses for a modern age. To view such posts type "workhouse" in the search box.

It seems that the Sentencing Council in its wisdom has made wide sweeping changes in its Guidelines for sentencers of addicts (and others).  This is a promising start for such cases.  Around 70% of violent and/or acquisitive crime is committed by addicts. Police have more or less washed their hands in pursuing cannabis possession for own use.  It is only a matter of time until contrary to the opinions of some outspoken right wing so called thinkers a format will be achieved to remove cannabis possession from the criminal law.  Until such time those responsible for our judicial system like its political counterpart will have to undertake radical  revision of processes which are so obviously not fit for purpose. The country is in a mood for change.  It is a dangerous time. My fear is that if clear thinking people in positions of power and influence do not appreciate the problems only a short time ahead of us decisions will be taken out of their hands. The complete and utter incompetence of Theresa May and her Cabinet have changed our political landscape for ever.  There is a high risk that dark forces will prevail to fill the vacuum of the current lot of MPs who have lost the confidence of those they should be representing. 

I have not been a supporter of much of what the Sentencing Council has produced in the decade or so of its existence. But this much is clear; the public will not for much longer tolerate sentencing which allows so many custodial outcomes to be suspended nor automatic release from custody when only half or less of a sentence has been served.  The Ministry of Justice since 2010 under that arch EU appeaser Kenneth Clarke has been deprived of such amounts of capital that it is a miracle that it still functions. It cannot continue.  The chickens at the Home Office have come to roost. The door is open at the coop at Petty France.   

MEANS FORM MEANS NOTHING

Talking to an old friend from my court some weeks ago she remarked that compared to her early days on the bench in the 1980s rarely had she had sex workers before her in recent years. Changes in many attitudes in the last thirty years have certainly been enlightening and generally for the public good.

Magistrates, however, still hear from many fellow citizens about those slices of the bread of life that are obscured in wrappers .

I well remember that such was the case of Geoff M. He was twenty two years old, evenly tanned, well built and had, according to both my female middle aged colleagues, the looks of a man who could do certain things to the female body.The lady to my left referred to him as a Richard Gere lookalike in the film American Gigolo. We noted that he lived at the most expensive block in the most expensive road in the most expensive suburb of town. Magistrates must have local knowledge to function efficiently. That being said he was before us on a charge of affray to which he had pleaded guilty. We decided to fine him and accordingly looked at the means form he had filled in. His occupation was described as "escort agency services" and his income £450 per week. When our sitting was over we remarked that it was the first time any of us had had a gigolo.....to coin a phrase.....and that at £450 per week he was either just a part timer, wasn`t very good at his job or he`d lied on his means form as I suspect is the norm for very many defendants.

SENTENCING WHICH BRINGS COURT INTO DISREPUTE

I make no apology that the last two posts here have been about short custodial and suspended sentences and that this is another.  My underlying theme and main concern is that our masters, in their attempts to convince us that most offenders will respond to the myriad rehabilitative programmes that are offered by a demoralised and failing probation service the efficiency of which has been decimated by the Ministry of Justice, have failed us. The result of the public`s increasing lack of confidence in sentences which are simply inadequate for the crimes committed will be a lack of confidence in the justice system per se.  In light of the disquiet on so many aspects of the Brexit shambles this would be another nail, small but effective, in our overall democratic system of government.  Such sentencing decisions are taking place every day in every court in the country. I can only offer a few examples as they appear in front of me. This is another example of what I consider a complete disregard for public protection and is a further instance of the courts being brought into disrepute. 

SENTENCING RESPONSIBILITIES

Last Tuesday March 26th I argued that short sentences should not be abolished.  What I did not address was the de facto situation that has been before sentencers for over a decade; the suspended sentence or to be more accurate custody suspended.  Statistics on suspended sentences at magistrates courts are a mess but it seems that at magistrates courts 155,000 such sentences were handed out in 2017 cf 13,434 a decade previously: It is my humble opinion that abolition would be rejected if put to a public vote. Governments of late have to their cost misread this factor and whilst governments sometimes must lead it takes wiser people than the current lot to make these decisions for the benefit of us all.

Note two recent examples from Crown Court where the offenders on the basis of the Sentencing Guidelines and the media reports should have been jailed.  Abrogation of the duty of public protection will provoke a public backlash.  Judges and magistrates should be aware of their responsibilities.

SHORT CUSTODIAL SENTENCES MUST NOT BE ABOLISHED

Everyone has heard of cause and effect but many pay lip service to an understanding of that simple phrase.  Those who are increasingly vocal in their hints and arguments  that short custodial sentences, i.e. of less than six months, should be abolished are talking so much nonsense when they attempt to explain what would be the effect. Facts are that in the magistrates courts only 4% of cases end with an immediate custodial sentence.  These are usually reserved for violent offences particularly in domestic cases and for those for whom previous non custodial sentences have failed to reduce offending. An awful example of where we are now occurred yesterday at Burnley Magistrates Court. Similar cases happen every day at every magistrates court in the country. We are asked to believe that a probation service decimated by acute mismanagement by failing Grayling can institute and supervise appropriate rehabilitative programmes for these recidivist offenders around 70% of whom offend under the influence of drink and/or drugs. No modern society can repeat the error of 1920s America and institute prohibition of the former but we can decriminalise drug use and at a stroke tax its sales from licensed vendors and allow addicts to know they are  imbibing substances that in "normal" use will not kill them with their impurities. With the farcical political proceedings currently exhibiting the worst of politicians perhaps in the not so distant future we can have a government that is for the people and not its own survival as a living entity.  

THE BENEFITS OF AN ENFORCED SHORT SILENCE BY THE BENCH

In order to allow producers of radio talk shows to have some control over what some malicious phone contributors might say a time delay of eg ten seconds is often incorporated into the system thus enabling any offending or offensive opinions to be deleted before the programme reaches its audience.  Bench chairmen have no such protection.  Personally I tried to allow perhaps three or four seconds before making any statement or responding to a question from officers of the court or witnesses.  Generally that enforced short silence served me well. Last week the chairman of the bench at Haverfordwest magistrates court might have opened himself to unwanted inquiry if his remarks had reached the ear of a pedant intent on causing trouble. He told an Irish burglar, "I just want you to get on the ferry and get out of Wales."  Perhaps on reading the report of the case in the Western Telegraph the unnamed bench chairman will realise that his remarks could have been construed as inappropriate verging on racist by those of a politically correct disposition out to cause trouble. 

ABOLITION OF SHORT CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

If you buy a car and fail to keep up with your payments there won`t be a gentleman from the finance company opening an office in your area to enquire why you`ve missed the payments. You`ve broken the contract and the car will be repossessed. As many have and are discovering the same applies to those who default on their mortgages. Their properties are repossessed. It is obvious of course that generally but not exclusively those defaulters are nearer the middle or lower levels of income distribution than the higher. And it can be said that their loans were based on income and/or credit rating. The loans were freely entered into and both parties to the deal considered, in theory at least, that disposable income was sufficient to service the amount. They might even have been offered various insurances to indemnify themselves against unemployment.

Fines imposed at court are for breaking the law. The law is rarely hidden waiting to jump out and catch innocents going about their daily business. When it did became widely known that the law was behaving in just that fashion the speed cameras were painted yellow to ensure justice was seen to be done. Fines in this country are calculated according to ability to pay. Depending on how the figures are analysed there is general agreement that at least half a billion pounds is owed in unpaid fines. Of course that amount is akin to water flowing into a bath with the plug out. It will never be completely empty of water so long as the taps are open; for taps read fines imposed daily. In some southern states of America if, after all attempts at getting unpaid fines in have failed, imprisonment on the basis eg of $1 unpaid = one day inside is actioned . I have witnessed such sentencing. It is quick and effective. There is none of the shilly shalishing that is the approved procedure here to get in what`s owed. But for a multitude of reasons the American example will never be considered here. It would be considered illiberal for a start and the current thinking within the Justice Ministry would be more likely to lobby to bring back hanging than undertake any new policy likely to increase the jail population. So once again we have the tail wagging the dog until perhaps the “Daily Believe It” publishes the scandal of fines remitted annually owing to offenders being considered unable ever to meet their obligations this side of 3000 A.D.

But all that was supposed to change some eight years ago in Widnes where the local council and Her Majesty`s Court and Tribunal Service  opened a fines surgery for defaulting offenders to be encouraged to come up with at least some of the readies owed for their own law breaking. The tail is not just wagging the dog; the inmates are running the asylum. Ah!..........I overlooked that we don`t have asylums anymore; it`s care in the community.  Anyway the experiment didn`t last long. I suppose the council found better ways to use the facilities. 

And now the talk is of the abolition of custodial sentences under six months. Presumably there will be an increase in those fined.  I suppose for deliberate defaulters in that event  there will be empty cells for them but they won`t be available for sentencers owing to the very rare occasions when that sanction is employed and as rare as hens` teeth for any sentences of more than a couple of weeks. 

The MOJ is pursuing cheap digital justice in the lower court.  Nothing else matters.  What sad times for us all. 

THE IDES OF MARCH WAS MY RETIREMENT

It`s the ides of March and the day four years ago on which I last sat in court.  I look back with mixed feelings on those days as an active Justice of the Peace  especially when I was considered competent enough to chair a court.  Looking back through my files I note that it was almost a year from my application being posted to my receipt of the letter informing me of my appointment to the bench. As I understand the process of appointment is equally tardy as it was over two decades ago.  That in itself is enough evidence to indicate at the very least that times they are not a changin` for  those in the MOJ who control it all.  At that time my bench consisted of 265 mostly agreeable individuals of strong opinions. Bench meetings were held three times a year allowing a newbie to meet those colleagues whose rotas were such that they were strangers to many. Localised rota planning by the committee of which I was later to become secretary enabled last minute vacancies to be filled.  Indeed I remember a summer morning when I was out jogging being called to inquire if I was available ASAP to fill in for a sick colleague. There was a fairly even balance of the sexes with many of both being of south Asian origin. There were certainly few black people, perhaps fewer than a dozen in all. Being middle aged I found myself in a very large majority age wise.  Our local courts` committee controlled much of the bench`s business and of course the rota was controlled by another committee voted in at an AGM.  There were regular meetings organised by the probation liaison committee where forthright opinions were exchanged with local probation officials to the better understanding by all. We were fortunate indeed to have for most of my tenure single District Judges who went out of their way to assist the bench and individuals in so many matters that were not covered by training.  They were happy to offer opinions from the general to the precise without of course prejudicing any actions a bench might take.  But all that changed. My bench amalgamated in 2012 with two others and it became a bench of 300. More black faces appeared in the directory and certainly a noticeable increase in colleagues under forty.  Sentencing Guidelines were supposed to avoid post code sentencing but many of us found that they were restrictive. Our bench had very effective training on sentencing structures from the very early days of appointment right through to the publication of the Guidelines. Chairmen whom I had admired as a winger always seemed to be of strong minds. They were thorough in their reasoning in the retiring room always allowing more junior colleagues to express themselves freely with advice if it were required delivered in friendly logical sequence. They were confident in their pronouncements and authority but helpful to those defendants with no representation and/or with difficulty in expressing themselves. Equally they had no hesitation in visiting the court`s annoyance if officers of the court overreached themselves.  It was obvious to me that those chairmen had the respect of the legal advisors both in the courtroom and in the retiring room.  In due course I did my best to emulate them. 

I retired a short time before Chris (failing) Grayling`s  Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015  became operational.  I just could not bear the thought of having to make the required pronouncement when sentencing. I understand that bench meetings are now history, rotas are centralised digitally and that magistrates are working in what could be described as a HMCTS  straitjacket where they are treated as unpaid employees rather than junior members of the judiciary.  I fear that the Magistrates Association is partly to blame for this.  It is apparent that those at the top of its tree are looking forward to their gongs on retirement as much as a letter of thanks from the Lord Chancellor.  Magistrates are now appointed to positions of influence by the MOJ.  True representation for magistrates by magistrates  is but a memory for those nearing retirement and an alien concept for newcomers. I had almost two decades on the bench.  I doubt these newbies will have similar longevity. Increasing numbers of DJs and Deputies are destined IMHO to take over our courts.  At the very minimum magistrates will be fortunate to still be sitting as wingers by 2030. 

I enjoyed my period on the bench and hope that some of the initiatives I undertook on a local level have not been swamped by central control. My feelings are as  mixed as a gin and tonic.  The whole tastes better than the sum of the parts. 

LATEST COURTS CLOSED AND SOLD

Last three years of court closures and sales.

THE NOT VERY CANNY FOLK AT THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

The financial acumen of the people who service the Ministry of Justice has never been a pre - requisite for employment.  Indeed government in general of whatever department has been infamous for selling off assets at giveaway prices the most scandalous of all being Gordon Brown`s selling our gold at a time when the market was at its lowest for years. In 2010 the MOJ began the great court sell off.  Buildings deemed superfluous to need were closed and most but not all were sold to a first come first served bidder. Wantage magistrates court was one of the first closures. It shut its doors in 2010 under the orders of that great EU fanatic and so called man of the people with his crumpled suits and hush puppies; Kenneth Clarke. It took six more years for a buyer to come forward and by then the MOJ were glad to get rid of it and get rid of it they did for  £657,000. I am not a chartered surveyor or property expert but it seems to me that the buyer was a very shrewd cookie indeed. Including the adjoining police property the flattened plot has become a site of flats for retired folk. Thirty two one and two bedroom flats have been built along with parking facilities with a minimum price of £280,000.  Allowing for demolition and building costs it seems to me that when the final flat is sold there will be £millions for the developer. As a capitalist I salute their receiving reward for risk taken but as a taxpayer I am appalled that unless there is a denial from MOJ there is no provision for a profit share for the seller.  In football sell on profit share is common.  Club A sells a player to club B for £x and has a contract that if (when) club B sells on player to club C for £x+y club A receives z% of £y.  But then football financiers are canny folk and who in his right mind could apply that description to Ministry of Justice.    

18 IS TOO YOUNG TO BE A MAGISTRATE

In 2012 the minimum age for magistrates was reduced from 27 to 18. I considered that a gross error at the time and still do.  The current minimum age for voting is also 18. The Representation of the People Act 1969 lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, with effect from 1970 and remained in force until the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 which allowed 16 year olds to vote for the first time but only in Scotland and only in that particular referendum. Soldiers cannot be sent into combat until 18. Jurors cannot sit until 18. In contrast however.  Felons under 21 may not be sentenced to a whole life order and so must become eligible for parole. Many (most?) car rental companies stipulate a minimum age of 21 although some allow 18 year olds to rent very small cars. The legal minimum age to enter into a marriage in England and Wales is 16 although this requires consent of parents and guardians if a participant is under eighteen. 

From the sample above it is obvious that age restriction rules are arbitrary. Physiologists and psychologists agree that the human brain does not attain complete adult functioning processes until the early twenties. Age and gender related politics have been a cultural phenomenon for twenty years in the West. The latest addition to this mindset is the furore we hear almost every day in one form or another over "trans" people and their so called rights. Even this morning on R4 "Today" there was a proponent on eligibility for such indeterminate people in female Olympic events.  I would posit that the virtually universal acclaim for 18 year old magistrates is as much a politically directed socially accepted position as the wish to reinstate the death penalty for treason and the murder of police officers is the direct opposite.  Similar arguments, I believe, had much to do with the Brexit argument being lost by those who did most to promote it. "Go with the flow", "be on the right side" and similar tendencies for many people not to disagree with a supposed "mainstream" have put us in this position.  

A 22 year old magistrate who has barely finished his induction training gave an interview last week to BBC. I have no idea at all with whom or with what agencies he made contact prior to the event if at all. I have no idea whether he instigated such proceedings or what was sought out by the BBC or any agencies as mentioned above. All I do know that unsurprisingly he messed up.  He was quoted quite correctly as saying inter alia, "  'Being a magistrate is challenging, it does test you and your morals. It is just about following your gut instinct,'  As soon as critical comments emerged on social media the helping hands of apologists swiftly enveloped him. At the risk of making comments with virtually no detailed knowledge of this man except what has been published I`m surprised that if somebody is accepted by an Appointments Committee his aspirations in life at his age have not led him to a more inspiring place that being a Tesco till operator. I write as one whose father left school at 14 to train as a barber before becoming a British Junior Chess Champion in his late teens and who achieved many social and political positions as befitted his sky high IQ. 

My opinion of a necessary requirement for magistrates amongst  many others can be summed up in two words, "life experience". I rest my case and hope he and others similar have learned from his error.  

THE COST OF PUBLIC RELATIONS AT M.O.J.

From time to time I have commented, often disparagingly, on the press/public relations department of the Ministry of Justice.  Latest figures on that department are that currently there are 31 employees at a cost of..........comprising employee salary along with employer pension and National Insurance contributions........£2,354,000. This represents 0.03% of the MOJ budget.

I don`t know how this compares with other central government departments but on the surface this F.O.I. answer appears to be less than I would have thought although with Failing Grayling doing his stuff at Transport MOJ staff have less hard work to do.  They only have to justify excessive closures of magistrates courts, fewer than needed magistrates and judges, elimination of legal aid, excessive trial delays and much else. 

FAILING GRAYLING IS POLITICS TODAY

Over the last five years I have not been alone in castigating the "improvements" brought about by the former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. Indeed quick use of the search box will indicate just what a catastrophe this incompetent man has been.  Reinforcing the fact that it was not a departmental failing of one sort or another today brings news of his ramshackle approach in his current job as Transport Secretary which has once more cost the taxpayers of the UK £millions.  The fact that Maymustgo (to employ a well used Twitter handle)  has kept this arrogant stupid man in position is yet just another facet of what the Brexit farce has brought us. He is an arch Brexiteer she dare not sack. This is politics today.