JUSTICE EVAPORATES WITH 8 JUSTICE SECRETARIES SINCE 2010

To put it mildly, the justice system is in a mess. As will increasingly become apparent much of this mess as with so many other policies is being put down by government to Covid 19. Perhaps there other reasons one of which is that we are now on Secretary of State/ Lord Chancellor number eight since 2010. With only one of this number still clinging on to the greasy political pole and the current incumbent there as a demotion is it any wonder that justice, a pillar of any successful democracy, is crumbling before our very eyes. 

With Kenneth Clarke on his first appearance before the Justice Select Committee 25/7/2010 we saw what was below that "I`m a fair chap" image; " He was not fussed about competitive tendering (“we have enough lawyers” and there is “no lack of people wanting to come in”). “I haven’t made that many policy decisions yet”, he concluded." Further comment is available here. He was proud to tell the media that in that first austerity budget of the Coalition he had made cuts of 23.8% in the MOJ budget and that he was the first secretary of state to have submitted that intention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His period at Petty France was just the beginning of the cracks which are now threatening to collapse the pillar of justice. 

From the sublime Kenneth Clarke to the ridiculous Chris Grayling who was his anointed successor. It was his bright idea to decide that having courts and personnel to offer a system of justice to all as the right of every citizen as had been the ethos (more or less) for centuries was untenable and wasteful of precious funds. He decided to impose a tax on every offender for the privilege of appearing in a court of law. This tax was to be over and above any fines, compensation or social or custodial sentence imposed. It was not means tested. Perhaps his landmark achievement was to forbid visitors bringing books for prisoners to read in jail; such a stupid decision it was reversed by his successor. However he will forever be  remembered for his actions in his next job as Transport Secretary in signing a shipping contract with a company which had no ships.But no problem; he was a staunch supporter of our prime  minister and a fanatic Brexiteer. 

Next came Michael Gove to who, to many supporters, is the brains of the party. Speaking outside his portfolio before the Referendum he was not immune to endorsing the lies of the Leavers; Just prior on being questioned on Sky it is quoted, " Like Mr Cameron, Mr Gove faced intense scrutiny of his campaign tactics, in particular the claim that the UK sends £350m to the EU every week. Sky’s political editor Faisal Islam said Mr Gove knew that figure was wrong, and accused him of importing the “post-truth” politics of Donald Trump to the UK. The UK Statistics Authority has said the figure “is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics”, because it is a gross sum and does not account for Britain’s rebate and funding received from the EU. In response to Mr Islam, Mr Gove agreed to have the figure independently audited."  The full text is available here. To quote from Politico, "As justice secretary and lord chancellor, Gove got “a lot of the judges and legal Twitter on-side” with warm words on rehabilitation and the justice system, according to one former civil servant who was working in government at the time.But the ex-official believes Gove “did little in the way of actual reform, simply applying his strong rhetorical skills to tell a story about justice.” That was mainly due to his short tenure. He was in post for just over a year before the EU referendum brought the Cameron government to an abrupt halt". It is arguable that had he been in post longer our justice system would have benefited greatly from his intellectual prowess, a facility sadly lacking in some of his contemporaries.  Under his short stewardship at Petty France the MOJ produced its annual report 2016/2017 as bland and meaningless as ever. 

We have four strategic objectives to deliver our vision. 

1. A prison and probation service that reforms offenders. We will:
 Maintain the highest level of public protection;
 Keep prisons safe and secure;
 Reform offenders; and
 Reduce reoffending.
2. A modern courts and justice system. We will:
 Upgrade the best justice system in the world using
technology and modern ways of working;
 Put the citizen at the centre of the justice system;
 Protect vulnerable victims, witnesses and children; and
 Support the independent judiciary and their ability to attract the best and widest range of talent.
3. A Global Britain that promotes the rule of law. We will:
 Make the most of opportunities presented by exiting the
EU to expand the reach of our world leading legal services;
 Promote our world class legal sector and judiciary; and
 Protect our common law traditions and strengthen ourhuman rights framework.
4. A transformed department. We will:
 Deliver excellent services to the public through a diverse,
engaged and capable workforce;
 Be a unified and responsive department, collaborating withpartners across the justice system and government;
 Put data, information, technology and innovation at the
heart of our work to improve our services; and
 Deliver value and drive efficiency in all we do.

Liz Truss, another non lawyer, the next incumbent, lasted less than one year bossing the MOJ.  Her short reign was rather less than successful.  She initially failed to defend the judiciary in November 2016 after they were branded “ Enemies of the people” by the Daily Mail because they ruled parliament had to be given a vote on triggering Brexit. Ms Truss later issued a statement supporting the judges but this was seen as too little, too late. Her actions drew unprecedented criticism from Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, who told a committee of MPs in March that he felt Ms Truss had been “completely and absolutely wrong”. It was the duty of Ms Truss to defend judges, Lord Thomas told the committee, adding he was “very disappointed” that she initially failed to defend them describing it as “constitutionally absolutely wrong”. The Lord Chief Justice also attacked Ms Truss for a “complete misunderstanding” of reforms to cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses in rape trials.

And so we have another Lord Chancellor who is not a lawyer; David Lidington. He had  consistently voted in favour of restricting the scope of legal aid and for allowing national security-sensitive evidence to be put before courts in secret sessions. He had a history of squeezing as much from the parliamentary purse as possible. In May 2009, it was revealed he had claimed £1,300 on expenses for dry cleaning. He also claimed for toothpaste, shower gel, body spray and vitamin supplements on his second home allowance. He repaid the claims for the toiletries, saying: ’I accept that many people would see them as over-generous.’  He could claim the honour of being the shortest in tenure at Petty France having lasted a whole six months. 

In January 2018  David Gauke transferred from Work and Pensions. At least he was a lawyer.  Indeed he was the first solicitor to be appointed Lord Chancellor. A month into his job he outlined his hopes in a speech available here; as bland as ersatz coffee and egg powder available to war time Britons between 1939 and 1945. His leaving office was as notable as his arrival. 

Robert Buckland, a solicitor, was anointed in 2019.  His keynote speech on judicial review is available here. I copy below an extract.  (my black)
The second part of my principles is the Rule of Law. What I mean is that as a society we are governed by clear rules set in advance and not by the arbitrary choices of those in power. That is a fundamental principle of our Constitution and I would not want any reform to endanger it.
The third is the Sovereignty of Parliament. In order for life in common to be possible, the laws that govern us must be orientated towards the common good. But what the common good means is, of course, open to interpretation. As Winston Churchill said, the least bad way of settling those disagreements is through democracy. It is our Constitution that gives the final say to the elected Parliament, not to the unelected branches of the state. I think that is a very sensible settlement which has served us all very well.

It is arguable to say the least that above we have the irresistible force meeting the immovable object and of course as a buddy of Boris Johnson when push came to shove he was a government lackey in the Brexit controversies over parliamentary rights. 

And so we come to Dominic Raab, demoted this year to Petty France but given the office? (title) of Deputy Prime Minister. That alone indicates the status of Justice Secretary in the eyes of this Tory government  where its newest holder needs his ego polished. 

Is it any wonder that Justice in this country is now an accoutrement  to our society`s well being in addition to saving the face of on overblown egotistical political irrelevance. The concept of Justice as a right for all citizens has long gone and with it the basis of our democratic traditions and freedoms because without Justice they evaporate just as surely as the morning mist in autumn.  

STOP AND SEARCH; THE FACTS

"Stop and search" has become a phrase which is familiar to most people over the age of ten.  It is, perhaps, the most divisive of actions which the ordinary cop on the beat can take.  It is subject to very stringent rules about which most people especially those liable to be the object of such action have only partial knowledge.  It is also a topic about which individuals from Opposition shadow ministers to rabble rousing members of ethnic minorities make a great deal of heat but often very little enlightenment.  There can be very few of those who listen to, watch or google the news from any number of sources who are unaware that there seems to be an inordinate number  of young black boys or youths  killed by other young black boys or youths.  Indeed in some parts of London it might not be an exaggeration to call this an epidemic.  

What I have done for this post is to source some irrefutable government statistics on this thorny subject.  For those who have the interest and the time I hope it will be a worthwhile effort.  First of all perhaps the most important fact on stop and search is an awareness of the actual powers the police have to operate it within the law.  The information can be accessed here. When black spokespeople bemoan the indignation and embarrassment of young black men being subjected to stop and search they might be losing sight that it is precisely males of black ethnicity  who are most likely to be victims of violence.  It is often the mothers of young black men killed by their peers who publicly denounce this fact. A much longer more detailed treatise on this was published earlier this year.  If you, dear reader, have read this far, a further ten minutes of learned observation might complete your understanding of this for ever controversial subject.  

MAGISTRATES` MAJORITY GUILTY VERDICT

Magistrates courts might arguably claim to be the first courts in England where the common person and the king`s law came into conflict. Depending on the circumstances such courts were sometimes held outside in public where the full power of the king through his judges could be demonstrated as a deterrent to those who would consider breaking his law. Paradoxically today  it could be argued that the magistrates courts system at the base of the courts pyramid far from being public is the most secretive of all.  I have in previous posts offered my opinion on the latest such example of secrecy embodied in the Single Justice Procedure.  There is, however, another facet of the system that has been commonplace for generations; the verdict after trial. Most cases at magistrates courts end in a guilty verdict (84%).  Of course that includes the many who plead guilty.  In 2004 there were approaching 200,000 trials; in 2019 that had reduced to 109,396 and owing to Covid in  2020 there were 57,388. Statisticians, criminologists and lawyers will argue over this apparently perhaps disturbing trend. When a crown court verdict is announced it is publicly known whether or not it is a verdict of all 12 jurors or whether the judge has accepted a majority of 10:2. At the Appeal Court or Supreme Court where there is a dissenting opinion that opinion is placed in the public record. What is certain is that nobody knows whether the trial verdict at the magistrates court is reached by all three magistrates or by a majority of 2:1.  Of course when a single District Judge (MC) is presiding the question is unnecessary. I have long considered this an anomaly in what is supposed to be an open and fair justice system. When the verdict is acquittal the matter ends but when guilt is established why should it not be announced that it is a majority verdict and the appeal process compulsorily made public to the offender and the public?  As far as I know this question has never been asked; never mind being answered. From my own position as a presiding magistrate or "chairman" as we used to describe ourselves before woke thought and action infiltrated every aspect of the justice system as it has so many aspects of society, whenever I had to pronounce a guilty verdict with a retiring room colleague having made a plausible not proven argument I would ensure that the appeal process and particularly the time limit and financial cost of the exercise were explained.  Thankfully such occasions were relatively few in number the exceptions usually involving a relatively inexperienced colleague who had deviated from having a structured approach to his/her conclusion.  Such colleagues usually were open to their being assisted in coming to a logical conclusion based upon the evidence presented.  If they finally came to a contrary conclusion but based upon ascending that structural ladder I would make clear that no criticism whatsoever would be taken by the majority couple. More often or not at our next meeting in the retiring room words to the effect of "I enjoyed sitting with you last time.  Thank you for your support" would be exchanged.  With identity politics even invading the bench and especially the Magistrates Association I doubt I would last a month in a system now becoming even more dominated by HMCTS, an organisation which would throw this post on a bonfire if it could.   

MORE ON SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE

Almost half a million cases at magistrates courts are dealt with in private. It`s called the Single Justice Procedure. At the very least justice is not seen to be done. At worst it forms a basis on which a future government of a more authoritarian bent could extend this process and that is a road where blackness looms.

Below is from Hansard 

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

26 Oct 2021

Dominic Raab: ...introduce measures that use new technology to streamline procedures to strip out unnecessary in-person hearings and create more efficient processes for allocation of cases in the Crown court and the magistrates court. That will enable swifter resolution of low-level offences such as travelling on a train without a ticket or fishing without a licensed rod without the need for the time and...

magistrates : 1 Written Answer

Written Answers - Ministry of Justice: Reoffenders

26 Oct 2021

James Cartlidge: For the year ending March 2021, approximately 670 defendants were dealt with at the magistrates’ courts under SJP where the offence was deemed ‘recordable on the PNC’, which makes up 0.1% of the total defendants dealt with via SJP in that period (489,910). We are unable to say how many of these defendants were convicted of the recordable offence without incurring a disproportionate cost.

MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION REVEALS ITS WOKE APPROACH TO JUSTICE

The Kingdom of England can arguably be stated as having been founded in the last century of the first millennium perhaps a century after the founding of the northern part of the British Isles known as Scotland.  The 13th century saw the incorporation of Wales into the Kingdom of England. The Kingdom of Ireland was brought under English control between 1541 and 1691. A sixteenth century royal marriage led to the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and the Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707 leading to the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.  The establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922 led to the current designation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927.  The underlying political sentiments of those involved particularly for the last 200 years have been that there is much more that unites us than divides us.  That is until the latter part of the last century.  Whether by benign neglect or the emergence of an anti colonialism mind set in Scotland and Ireland separatism as a target began to take hold in some philosophical/historical  minds and actions within both nations.  The modern tragedy of Irish nationalism is still with us and the Scots seem to be plunging deeper and deeper into a death wish of economic turbulence and possible collapse. So what has this to do with a blog written by a retired magistrate with an interest in justice and the law?  In the last few weeks the Magistrates Association has been following a singularly IMHO divisive line of its thinking as indicated by its Tweets. 

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

11 Oct

It’s National Coming Out Day! Our LGBT+ Diversity and Inclusion Network provides a safe space for LGBT+ magistrates to discuss any issues which may affect them in court, as well champion equality and respect within the justice system

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

#BlackHistoryMonth recommended reading: Influential Black Britons illustrated book (published by UK Parliament). This resource lists individuals who have impacted UK laws and equal rights. Olaudah Equiano, Mary Prince, Claudia Jones, Lord Learie Constantine, Bernie Grant… (2/20)

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

11 Oct

It’s National Coming Out Day! Our LGBT+ Diversity and Inclusion Network provides a safe space for LGBT+ magistrates to discuss any issues which may affect them in court, as well champion equality and respect within the justice system. Find out more at - https://magistrates-association.org.uk/What-We-Do/MA-

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

2 Aug

Over on the

@JudiciaryUK

Instagram, Dan, our trustee and deputy chair of our LGBT+ Special Interest Group, talks about the importance of having a diverse magistracy and some of the transferable skills magistrates gain that can be so valuable to employers.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

27 Jul

Knife crime is a serious problem but there is no robust evidence that stop and search is the answer, while it could further damage the trust and confidence that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities have in the justice system.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

16 Jul

The MA’s disproportionality presentation provides information about the disproportionate over-representation of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people in the youth justice system, and what magistrates can do to address this in and out of the courtroom.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

16 Jul

It is encouraging that 18% of new magistrates are under 40, though there is still work to be done to attract more volunteers from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

14 Jul

‘Must-Listen-To’ Claxon: Hear MA board member & chair of our Young Magistrates Group,

@lukerigg

, talk on

@BBCRadio4

#FourThought about what it’s like to be a young magistrate, and why having more will improve justice. Luke you were excellent

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

9 Jul

Modelling for raising the retirement age to 75 projected that there will be 0.8% fewer BAME magistrates in any given year than at present. The MA has called for this impact on diversity to be mitigated by recruitment specifically targeting under-represented groups.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

29 Jun

'There is certainly no such thing as your stereotypical magistrate'.

Some retweets..

Magistrates Association Retweeted

 

Mawia Bin-Sufyan MStJ BCA

@MoawiaBinSufyan

 

·

19 Jun

Joining colleagues from across the UK for the

@MagsAssoc

inaugural meeting of the Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority Special Interest Group. Speakers included the MA Chair

@BevHiggs

and new CEO @TomFranklinUK

Dan, MA trustee and deputy chair of our LGBT+ Special Interest Group, speaks to

@JudiciaryUK

as part of #PrideMonth

 

What those tweets indicate to me is that the Magistrates Association following the many examples of woke inspired separatism is functioning in the mistaken belief that representation of all manor of variations in the make up of society provides a better quality of justice for all those who come to court. In simple terms the so called life truths of a bench are more likely to  provide outcomes which suit the individual`s circumstances than the intellectual challenge of weighing up evidence so that the facts of a case are teased from all that the court must consider in coming to its conclusion. The practices of the M.A. in having sub committees for some of the very varied groupings in our society is inimitable to the cohesion which binds together those very same groupings. Undue emphasis on "diversity" risks a mockery of the judicial oath; “I, ______ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ______ ,
and I will do I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour , affection or ill-will." [my bold]. There will be those who will retort that it takes eg a "life truth" of living as an impoverished or racially abused member of a minority group to understand and appreciate circumstances of any offender`s particular actions but from my experience much thinking along those lines is in direct contradiction of the last eight words of the oath above. The continued emphasis on recruitment to supposedly represent society does no favour for selecting the best people to be sitting in judgement on their fellow citizens. For example in Bradford where the ethnic composition is that the largest religious group  is Christian (45.9% of the population) and nearly one quarter of the population (24.7%) is Muslim is that to be the target by the advisory committee charged with appointment of magistrates? 20.7% of Bradford citizens self declare that they do not follow a religion. Are they too to be represented on the Bench in that proportion?


When I was appointed in 1997 a question on the application form was for the applicant to state which political party benefited from his/her vote at the previous general election. I left it unanswered. In due course I received a letter enclosing my application telling me that unless I resubmitted the form with every question answered my application would not be considered. I duly filled in the name of the political party for which I had voted. That question was omitted from the form a few years later. The powers that be no longer want to know who their applicants vote for but now do want to know so much more about the essence of their very being.


All this might be considered under the term "woke or not woke". When universities and many institutions are afraid to issue firm declarations to students and others who foster hate at those whose opinions they oppose, who ignore antisemitism propagated at all levels of our society in the guise of "anti Zionism" there is a fear pervading many to whom society has bestowed influence that speaking out about any topic which questions current societal  mores is a career and/or reputation breaker. In simple terms it`s called self censorship. When fear is the basis of the way we conduct our daily lives proto fascism is appearing over the political horizon. Unfortunately the Magistrates Association is slowly but surely being dragged into this cultural morass.

THE KING OF THE WORLD AT NUMBER 10

Since 1945 the Chancellors of Germany have been significant in the development of this country and its relationships with mainland Europe.  From   Konrad Adenauer (1949–63),  Ludwig Erhard (1963–66), Kurt Georg Kiesinger (1966–69),  Willy Brandt (1969–74),  Helmut Schmidt,(1974–82), Helmut Kohl (1982–98),  Gerhard Schröder (1998–2005) to Angela Merkel (2005– 2021) the last named perhaps more familiar than the others owing to her historical proximity and her distance from the ravages of 1933-1945. It was 2014 when despite the entreaties of the then prime minister David Cameron she refused to concede to him some very simple even basic steps to enable him to tell the British electorate that this country had secured at least a token of independence from some of the strictures imposed by the European Union. And this inability to negotiate a get out of jail free card begot the referendum and the referendum begot a most divisive fissure in the British political system in the post war era. The current government with its huge majority, led by the man who would be king of the world, has since 2019 tried to usurp the will of Parliament only to be stymied by the decisions of the Supreme Court. More than once he has conveyed his opinion that the Court was interfering in what were political decisions.  It seems that the new Lord Chancellor following in the footsteps of his master like a well trained puppy has expressed his master`s voice in that " A  'mechanism' to allow the government to introduce ad hoc legislation to correct court judgements that ministers believe are 'incorrect' will form part of proposals to reform the Human Rights Act".  Whilst such UK enacted legislation might not necessarily be to the detriment  of UK citizens he made clear that "Where there have been judgements that, albeit properly and duly delivered by the courts, we think are wrong,(my bold) the right thing is for Parliament to legislate to correct them."  This intention is nothing but the first tentative footstep to disavowing the very basis on which this country is governed; ie by the rule of law where no person, organisation or political party is above the law.  In some respects this would be unelected king sits in Downing Street largely because his 2019 opponent was an antisemitic Marxist whom the nation rightly rejected.  Imagine for one moment if he were in number 10 and his  Lord Chancellor the equally antisemitic.........oops anti Zionist Marxist Richard Burgon were to have made such a declaration.  There would have been outrage but the Tory press and a supine Cabinet have remained largely silent. The Prime Minister tries to disguise this whole charade by exclaiming that this process will restore the rights of Parliament. To be polite this is poppycock in my opinion. The earliest signs of an authoritarian regime  or one that is progressing along that road is to enact legislation to insulate itself from criticism followed by active steps to control and finally eliminate that criticism.  From Attila the Hun to Adolf Hitler via Genghis Khan and countless others the same formula is followed to ensure obedience to rule by decree; hamstring the judicial system and cow the judges.  A brief glance at the situation in Hong Kong over the last two years provides an example of how quickly the rule of law can be subverted to the rule of political authority. 

What these proposals are of course intended to do is to further insulate the executive organs of the state from the burden of complying with the law, as of course put in place by, err, Parliament.  With Parliament and particularly the House of Commons enjoying a brief period of respect after the murder of one of its own there is no doubt that those who enabled Johnson to his present position are first and foremost tasked with securing their own and their party`s re-election.  Until and unless Her Majesty`s Loyal Opposition is capable of providing an alternative we might in the next couple of years look back at 2016 as the worst event since 1939. 

11 YEARS ON AND NOTHING MUCH HAS CHANGED

The Law Gazette`s comments page on extending the sentencing powers of magistrates courts has as expected produced the same old arguments that one reads almost annually when this proposal gets a public airing. The usual  people respond that the best way to serve justice is to remove entirely the powers of magistrates courts to use custody as a sentencing option. Earlier this week The Guardian had published this.  A new Lord Chancellor has already in his short time in office come out with the usual platitudes.  No doubt there will be more to come.   A looming financial crisis is once again going to be an excuse for delaying the much needed finance to reduce the abysmally long delays especially in the crown courts. All this hoo ha reminded me of a post I wrote almost exactly 11 years ago on 20th October 2010. I think it might jog a few memories and even be instructive if I copy it below in full.

 

 QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE/SHORT SENTENCES

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 20. Oct. 2010. – 12:52:52

A question and answer session yesterday with Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke on short sentences at Magistrates` Courts is worth copying here below.

Short Custodial Sentences
Oral Answers to Questions — Justice
House of Commons debates, 19 October 2010, 2:30 pm

Next debate » « Previous debate All Commons debates on 19 Oct 2010

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

What recent discussions he has had with the Sentencing Guidelines Council on its guidance on short custodial sentences.

Kenneth Clarke (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State, Justice; Rushcliffe, Conservative)

The Sentencing Guidelines Council has not issued any specific guidance on short custodial sentences. We have had no discussions with the council on this topic, which we are considering as part of our assessment of sentencing policy.

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

The Secretary of State may be aware of a recent case in my constituency in which a young man suffering from autism and Asperger's syndrome was subjected to a series of horrific attacks by three other young men. The judge said that the attacks could almost amount to torture, yet the three perpetrators were given community orders. During the general election, Mr Cameron, now the Prime Minister, told the country that we are not convicting enough. He then explicitly said that

"when we do convict them, they're not getting long enough sentences."

Just two weeks ago, in his speech to the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister said that

"offenders who should go to prison will go to prison".

I agree with the Prime Minister-does the Secretary of State?

Kenneth Clarke (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State, Justice; Rushcliffe, Conservative)

One of the failings of the last Government was to take a popular subject from the popular press and make rather shallow partisan points out of it. Sentencing in individual cases is not a matter for Ministers, and should not be a matter for sensational comment to the newspapers by Ministers with the frequency that it was. We have to ensure that justice is done, particularly to the victims of crime, and that justice is carried out in such a way as to reduce the risk of reoffending. We have made our approach to crime perfectly clear: we must punish the guilty. Prison is the right place for serious criminals-they will not commit more crimes while inside-but we also strive to avoid reoffending. The case that the right hon. Lady mentions was obviously a serious case for the victim, but newspaper cuttings from Salford are not the source of future criminal justice reform.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to acknowledge that very few people are sentenced to prison for a first offence? The vast majority of people who serve short-term prison sentences do so only because they have been given community sentence after community sentence, all of which have failed. The last thing to do with those people is to give them another community sentence, only for it to fail once again.

Kenneth Clarke (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State, Justice; Rushcliffe, Conservative)

It is very pleasant to say that I largely agree with my hon. Friend. He has probably been upset by reports that I am minded to abolish short prison sentences. Actually, I have always expressed precisely the opposite opinion. It has never been my view that we should abolish all short prison sentences. Indeed, I have rather shared his opinion that with the kind of irritating recidivist offender who is causing a lot of damage, if they offend over and over again there is quite often no alternative to a short prison sentence. There are too many such offenders, and although there are cases in which we can avoid the use of short prison sentences, if we do that we must have a very effective alternative.

Sadiq Khan (Tooting, Labour)

May I begin by saying how much I genuinely relish the prospect of debating-and, dare I say, arguing-with the Lord Chancellor and his team on the matters in their portfolio? I am also looking forward to working with the coalition Government where there are areas of agreement between us, notably on the use of restorative justice projects such as community payback-a subject that has already been raised by Elizabeth Truss and other colleagues. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that most people who receive short prison sentences are persistent offenders who have refused to change their behaviour, even after undergoing community sentences, as has been said. He has said that he is not against abolishing the power of magistrates to award short sentences. Will he commit today not to reduce, in the sentencing review now taking place, the power of magistrates to give custodial sentences where appropriate?

Kenneth Clarke (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State, Justice; Rushcliffe, Conservative)

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place, and I look forward to debating with him. He has certainly got to Cabinet level a damn sight more quickly than I ever did, so I am sure that he will prove a formidable challenge to the Government. As I have already said, we will not take away powers from magistrates courts, which sometimes find it absolutely inevitable that they have to give somebody a short prison sentence, because everything else has failed and that person is continuing to cause damage to other people. However, we hope to provide magistrates with the full range of alternatives. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said a few moments ago, more credible community sentences-sentences with a properly punitive element that might have a better chance of rehabilitating the offender-should be tried in more cases, and we will try to provide them for magistrates.

Sadiq Khan (Tooting, Labour)

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for that answer. He has made it absolutely clear that magistrates will not have the power to give short sentences taken away from them. For clarity, will he also confirm that the cuts that will be announced tomorrow will not lead to a reduction in any prison places or to any prisons being closed?

Kenneth Clarke (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State, Justice; Rushcliffe, Conservative)

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to follow his predecessors in making a great policy point about a target for the number of people in prison, because there is no evidence that that does any good to anybody. We do have to- [ Interruption. ] The present numbers are enormous compared with the numbers when we were last in office. There are 20,000 more people in prison than there were when we last had a Conservative Home Secretary in charge. We are looking at what works, and what protects the public. Prison must be used for those for whom it is essential, but it is simply not the case that prison is the only way of dealing with all offenders. Once we have punished people and given others a break from their activities, the key thing is to do more than the present system does to reduce the risk of their reoffending and committing more crimes against more victims, to which the present system almost condemns us. More than half of prisoners-

John Bercow (Speaker)

Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but we now need shorter questions and shorter answers.

FROM CLEVELAND TO MONTY PYTHON

Officially Justices of the Peace are considered by the authorities who govern  them pure and simple as members of the judiciary. But their very status as unpaid part time volunteers supposedly representative of the communities in which they live or work sets them apart.  As a retired member of that fraternity I feel that I can comment from the unique position of having had a foot on both sides of the divide.  

There are many commentators being paid thousands of pounds a week to provide their supposedly enlightened viewpoints of the daily events which enter into what can loosely be described as our justice system from alcohol excess to public xenophobia. Recently there have been a few situations which IMHO offer an overall insight into its workings.  

The establishment of elected Police and Crime Commissioners ten years ago was supposed to allow the public some influence albeit at a distance over local policing.  Today there are few within the circle of legal influence who would disagree with the abandonment of this circus.  There have just been too many scandals associated with the position. The latest concerns Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner Steve Turner.  Considering the Cleveland Constabulary was considered the country`s worst this latest revelation I suppose comes as no surprise.  For the people of Teeside and surrounds this must induce or reinforce a lack of confidence in the law and lawmakers; a prelude to dissatisfaction with the norms that must be upheld for a thriving civil society. 

Sadly it seems that that brutally abused woman Sarah Everard is forever going to be remembered  by millions for her murder at the hands of a monster in a police uniform. And in the same context the current Commissioner of Scotland Yard is going to be remembered by many who wonder how she was appointed to the job in the first place considering her record of misjudgements which killed one man and ruined the lives of others.  To compound such a record of ignominy it seems she is about to appoint her choice of investigator into the whole sorry mess.  I would call it the schoolgirl marking her own homework. 

Hardly a day passes when the term asylum seeker legal or illegal does not appear in a headline or news bulletin. The current Tory Party conference will thousands of words on the topic today and over the course of the event. It has been said that one way to reduce the magnetic effect of this country to those striving to travel here is to turn off the magnet; reduce the attraction. The Home Office has been trying various ways to do just that.  Removing an allowance to make  phone calls  has been declared unlawful by the High Court. The fact must be faced is that this country cannot be an almost open door for the thousands of mainly young men from the Middle East and Africa who annually are landing on our shores however the distress in their native lands. To square this circle with a humane and lawful policy will take the wisdom of Solomon. 

Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders were instituted after my retirement so my knowledge is hearsay.  But it seems they operate akin to various orders around domestic abuse and other matters of disorder where ASBO was the forerunner; civil orders the breach of which become criminal offences. Since then they have proliferated.  They operate on the civil basis of probability and IMHO are open to abuse.  Surely all the supposed brains at the Ministry of Justice can do better?

Northern Ireland is literally a law unto itself. But even there some matters stretch credibility.  One such is those charged with murder being given bail. The structures of this province within the UK have always been an anomaly.  I wouldn`t bet against the unification with the Republic by the decade`s end.  

The legal age of sexual consent for heterosexuals in the UK is 16, in Japan it is 13 and in Nigeria it is 11. In Scotland 16 year olds can vote but in England it is not until the age of 18 at which one can also be appointed a magistrate.  Whether or not one`s opinion on these age limits is positive or negative it is sheer fact that a human brain is not fully developed until the early to mid twenties. However owing to a recent Court of Appeal decision puberty blockers can be supplied to children under 16. Of course I cannot comment on the judicial basis of this decision but I do wonder at the outcome. 

Self harming is a cry for help.  For those of us with a more rational disposition it is almost unfathomable.  For the sufferers it is tragic.  To perform such an action in public is beyond comprehension. But does it justify the criminal penalty of  a £40 fine, an order to pay £85 court costs, £60 probation costs and a £128 victim surcharge? 

It used to be said that judges have no real understanding of the common people ie you and I and live a rarefied life from birth to retirement. Governments of all colours for decades have sought to increase public confidence in the judiciary leading to the establishment of the Sentencing Council and Sentencing Guidelines. It would appear that these initiatives have been by passed by HH Judge Timothy Spencer QC when he sentenced a potential terrorist to read some classic English novels. If only Monty Python were still active: what a sketch that would have made.