SUSPENDING CUSTODY

Health, immigration and crime; these three topics are, according to our political masters, the subjects most raised on the doorstep.  That term "doorstep" is shorthand for what a politician seeking election thinks will carry most meaning as a personal interest for the electors many of whom have never been visited by such an individual for many years.  My own suburban doorstep has been politician frei  for decades.  Nevertheless all three topics are a statistician`s delight.  Every aspect of the inner workings, inputs and outputs and much else of their function is argued over and debated from school children being encouraged to consider how society works to cabinet ministers agreeing to disagree to preserve party unity to improve their prospects of re-election. Crime, unlike the other two topics, for all the hubbub raised in media from time to time, is rarely an issue of personal involvement.  Opinions flare according to headline news.  Indeed that is why since 2010 government has been able to get away with closing half the country`s magistrates courts,  emasculating the legal aid service, imposing a secret courts system (the Single Justice Procedure) and using the recent pandemic as an alibi for trial delays of two years or more. The last decade has also seen that same government attempt to control the numbers of offenders who deserve immediate custody by virtue of government`s own sponsored sentencing guidelines.  There is no altruism involved.  No latent governmental compassion is involved.  Quite simply what was once a reasonably efficient probation service has been systematically ruined by government dictat and prison services allowed to deteriorate both in those still under their control and the remainder outsourced to companies whose shareholders` dividends are their sole reason for their existence.   Those are the reasons why a decade or more ago sentencing discretion in the courts which had followed an informal but well structured approach was abolished in favour of state controlled sentencing guidelines.  Suspended sentences were first introduced in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1967 but their availability to courts was greatly restricted by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which required the court to exercise its power to suspend a sentence only where it could be justified by the 'exceptional circumstances.  However On 4 April 2005 two new sentences for adults aged 18 and above became available to the courts in England and Wales: the Community Order and the Suspended Sentence Order (SSO). Both sentences were intended to narrow the custody/community divide and therefore were important factors for the development of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). Both were also intended to offer more robust, demanding and credible alternatives to short custodial sentences, thereby contributing to reductions in the prison population. Both should be served in the community.  From my own experience the basic judgement that the court had to be absolutely certain that the custodial threshold had been crossed before there could be consideration of its being suspended was often overlooked by fellow magistrates as well as probation officers in their pre sentence reports.  To this day, more than a decade into the current guideline, many media still refer to custody suspended as a get out of jail free card.  The number of persons who received suspended sentences at magistrates courts in 2006 when revised guidelines were introduced  increased more than three-fold over 2005 from 7,100 to 23,300, having been around 1,200 on average in the years from 1996 to 2004. The proportion of persons who were sentenced to suspended sentences at magistrates courts was two per cent in 2006, compared with 0.1 per cent in 2004, the last full year before the changes brought about by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.  In the year ended June 2021 the number of suspended custody orders made at magistrates courts was 8,395 or 1.16% of 722,563 sentenced that year.  The immediate custody rate for the same period was 1.5%. Undoubtedly the pandemic has had a major effect on the numbers during that time and is having a knock on effect with all courts severely backing up hearings.

In practice it is my opinion that it is difficult not to get an impression that there those deserving of immediate custody who are being given too often the benefit of the doubt insofar as the sentence being delivered is of custody suspended.  Just a few of such recent outcomes are listed below.  Media reports are as usual basic and only those attending these courts will have had  the same information as the bench but nevertheless until local court reporting becomes as regular on our TV screens as "breakfast television" or weather forecasts these reports are the only media on which we can base an opinion on the outcomes so readers` opinions are as valid as any. 

Leeds cleaner

Assault on police

Assault by police

Multiple drug driving

 

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW? I DON`T THINK SO

Controversy exists in all walks of life. It could be argued that it is within the practice of medicine and the interpretation of the law that that condition when it does exist  affects most people most often most seriously.  To some extent the judicial oath should minimise or eliminate much of the controversy in our courts. “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of ________ , and 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.”  Medical practitioners have their own historic words to affirm their intentions in the practice of their profession. Many people think that doctors still swear the Hippocratic Oath. It is not compulsory but in fact many medical schools now hold a ceremony where graduating doctors do swear an updated version. It is often said that the exact phrase "First do no harm" (Latin: Primum non nocere) is a part of the original Hippocratic oath. Although the phrase does not appear in the AD 245 version of the oath similar intentions are vowed by, "I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm".

And so to a situation where these two declarations clashed at City of London Magistrates’ Court.  At this point I must declare an interest.  As I have written previously I have experienced the result of Extinction Rebellion`s determination as an organisation to disrupt the daily lives of ordinary people going about their ordinary or extraordinary but lawful business by blocking the public highway.  Having said that the following comment is based simply on fact.  

Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 grants the police the power to impose conditions upon public assemblies which govern the time, location and circumstances of such assemblies. They are only permitted to do this if a senior police officer reasonably believes that:
 
1. An assembly may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community; or
 2.The purpose of the assembly is to intimidate others into doing or not doing something which they have a legal right to do.

In the case of the Extinction Rebellion protests the Met Police have stated that they believe the protests have caused serious disruption to the community, following what they say have been ongoing breaches of previous section 14 conditions. The courts have said that any conditions imposed under s.14 must not amount to a disproportionate interference with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Earlier this month seven medical professionals were acquitted by a District Judge of a breach of article 14 on the grounds that  he was "not convinced that the necessary steps that are required for the imposition of section 14 had been taken". Of reports that I have checked none has reported if the judge explained that observation. In my humble opinion the court, the CPS and the public are owed an explanation for his action. Certainly from my own experience of the admittedly relatively limited times of presiding over high profile cases the legal advisor would have politely suggested that my pronouncement should include the complete reasoning for the bench`s decision including what said steps deemed to have been omitted.  In addition it appears that the judge was pre disposed to the fact that the defendants were doctors. According to a report "The judge was ‘impressed by the integrity and rationality of their beliefs’ and found doctors’ evidence ‘highly moving’."  Thus by his own comment the judge was emotionally motivated in reaching his decision.  The defendants` occupations had obviously been a major factor in his conclusions.  Consider for one moment what the decision might have been had these defendants been unemployed or poorly educated workers exercising what they had considered to be their "rights".  Indeed in that instance would the police themselves have acted differently.  These questions should not arise from this case.  The law should be equal for all. This hearing shows clearly that that is and has been for decades a misconception. 

SNIPPETS

Sometimes there are snippets of information which in the excess media output showered upon us all in any 24 hour period are often overlooked.  These snippets are today the subject of my post. 

Judges can be bullies.  I doubt that there are many lawyers who disagree with that assessment.  But it is not I offering this opinion it is Lord Burnett the big chief himself. A comprehensive report in the Law Society Gazette can be found here.  However unlike the disciplinary bodies of the vast majority of professions the general public will rarely be aware of these episodes of misconduct and in the current climate the "m" word is certainly appropriate.  There will be discreet "advice" offered for most cases when judges` godlike behaviour or language  exceeds what is termed "tolerable" by those judging the judges.  Only the most serious matters will ever reach the eyes and/or ears of Joe Public.  There are those who view the current way of handling such cases in private as essential for retaining public confidence in the judiciary and hence the law and hence the government which makes such law. Whilst there is a whiff of an argument in that position it is now untenable.  When universal websites and interactive social media conspiracy theorists and rumour mongers benign or benevolent  are just around so many corners it renders that policy time to be overhauled.  Those that do feature in the 1984 version of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office deserve at least for them and for us a full explanation of their situations.  The General Medical Council was for decades also secretive about its actions when its members fell foul of their own ethics or the law of the land. Not before time its disciplinary processes are now open to those interested.  

There is no doubt that magistrates who transgress receive shorter shrift at the hands of the aforesaid JCIO than others who feature in its disciplinary statement. But how do lawyers fare in comparison?  From this example it would appear that the Law Society is much more tolerant of aberrant behaviour than others performing a similar function to protect the population from those who fail to abide by internal rules of behaviour.  Certainly a magistrate would be sacked if s/he were guilty as  Simon Trees a solicitor partner. 

I am old enough to remember when from time to time one broadsheet or another would comment on how a defendant in India had been remanded in custody for perhaps 10 years or more before being acquitted at trial.  "How awful" would be the Comment or Opinion column which would then go on to congratulate the British justice system for its professionalism where such outrageous delays could not happen and especially when the result was acquittal.  Such glorious national chest beating by the legal profession and its mouthpieces like homing pigeons has come home to roost. DPP Max Hill has said that 74,587 cases at crown courts were live (between charge and trial) at the end of September. Asked if the government’s target of bringing down the backlog to 53,000 by March 2025 was achievable, he replied: ‘A large number of things would need to align for that to take place. It’s certainly achievable to return to the backlog below 50,000. That’s where the system was, at 43,000, in February 2020. But to achieve that now, at a baseline of almost 75,000, a number of things would have to happen.’  On the current economic climate and impact of potential budget cuts, Hill said: 'If we are not able to maintain the budget that we were given in the spending round of 2021, and we are therefore not able to maintain the expansion in our numbers within that budget envelope, I think it will be catastrophic for our work, it will be catastrophic in terms of the impact on the backlog. In simple terms, I will not be able to say to CPS staff, "just work even harder". I have said that already.'  With the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer due in 48 hours and predictions of budgets being decimated the future of our courts being able to offer simple, speedy justice seems unlikely at best and a descent into Indian standards of tardiness at worst.  

For many years it has been obvious that the government will check out any method that keeps people out of jail provided that it retains the public`s confidence and that statistically it reduces recidivism. Enter remote monitoring. At 30 September 2022, the total number of individuals actively monitored was 14,996 , an increase from 13,371 as at 30 September 2021. The number of individuals actively monitored under a court bail order was 5,979 as at 30 September 2022 or 40% of all individuals actively monitored. This is a 9% increase from 5,471 as at 30 September 2021. Between 30 September 2021 and 30 September 2022 the number of individuals actively monitored with a location monitoring device (GPS) increased by 143% (from 2,161 to 5,243). This increase is the result of the continued roll-out of electronic monitoring to new offender cohorts, particularly immigration bail. As at 30 September 2022, 1,503 individuals were actively monitored with an alcohol monitoring device, a 153% increase from 593 as at 30 September 2021. This reflects both the continued national roll-out of alcohol monitoring from March 2021 and the introduction of alcohol monitoring for prison leavers.  Whatever the cost involved in tagging it is much cheaper than keeping an offender in prison the average cost of which is £926 per week.  What is difficult to calculate is the failure and/or recidivist rate.  Perhaps a criminologist reading this can supply some answers. 

Earlier this year  in 47 Crown Courts in England   pre- recorded cross examination became available to victims and witnesses of crimes such as rape and modern slavery. The video was then able to be played later during trial subject to a successful application to the court.  By the recording taking place as close to the time of the offence as possible memories remain fresh, and helps victims avoid the stress of giving evidence in a live trial which some might find traumatic.  Many statistics on rape and conviction rates are open to speculation and the politics of the observer.  What is obvious and cannot be denied is that an act which for most people is lawful ie sexual intercourse must be separated from a not dissimilar act which is a very serious offence.  Sometimes the proverbial counting of the angels on a pinhead might be considered simpler to codify. 

Finally for those who wish to know the latest criminal statistics here is your opportunity. 

STATISTICS, SPEEDING AND THE FACIAL CARBUNCLE OF THE SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE

Cases at magistrates courts are usually routine insofar as they involve breaches of the law committed by thousands annually. Last year 48% of cars exceeded the limit on motorways; 11% of cars exceeded the limit on national speed limit single carriageways and 51% of cars exceeded the limit on 30mph roads. The proportions of cars complying with the speed limit were 52% on motorways, 89% on national speed limit (NSL) single carriageways and 49% on 30mph roads.On NSL single carriageway roads 11% of cars exceeded the speed limit compared to 51% on 30mph roads and 48% on motorways.The proportion of cars exceeding the speed limit by over 10mph on 30mph roads was 5%, whilst 1% and 10% exceeded the speed limit by more than 10mph on NSL single carriageway roads and motorways respectively. The RAC Report on Motoring 2021 asked users to select up to three reasons why they exceed the speed limit for each road class. The respondents who admitted to exceeding the speed limit on motorways selected a greater number of reasons on average than those who admitted exceeding the speed limit on 20mph roads. Of these five reasons the top reason given was “I drive according to the speed of other road users”, cited by 40% of motorway users and 33% of 30mph road users. On 20mph roads users most often cited the speed limit being inappropriate as the contributor to their exceeding the speed limit (49%). All the above are hard statistics. For those involved there was an 90% conviction ratio for people proceeded against for speed limit offences in England and Wales in 2021 (187,000 were found guilty). In 2021, 33% of motoring convictions were for speed limit offences. It is unlikely that any magistrate on any day is aware of all these numbers and many more concerning the results of these transgressions. As of 2019, the Single Justice Procedure  accounted for 57% of the 1.5 million cases passing through magistrates courts in England and Wales. In 2020-21, 2,426,950 speeding offences were detected in England and Wales. These represented 86% of the total number of all motoring offences for all of England and Wales.  I have so far been unable to discover the number of speeding offences undertaken through the Single Justice Procedure. 

There can be few of us who have not driven past two or more  speed cameras on a motorway whilst exceeding the speed limit on that stretch of tarmac.  The police must send the actual speeding ticket, i.e. the Fixed Penalty Notice, within six months of the date of the offence. They can only send the speeding ticket if they previously sent the Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days. With a six month delay allowed for prosecution those of a nervous disposition are liable to experience a few sleepless nights. A defendant who had the experience of multiple charges for excessive speed on a single journey decided to exercise his right to a court hearing.  Personally not once in my time on the Bench did I sit on any situation remotely similar. I would hazard an opinion that my lack of experience in that regard is common amongst JPs.  My point in all this statistical overload is the likelihood of so many defendants with a clean license in a similar situation, perhaps with two lapses involving 6 penalty points, or three with 9 points at stake being unable or unwilling to take their case to a full hearing at a magistrates court open to the public and to that diminished coterie of court reporters. Increasingly warranted criticism of the SJP is beginning to move some "movers and shakers" in the direction I have advocated since its inception.  It is a carbuncle on the face of British justice and it should be abolished. 

ONE COURT`S MEAT IS ANOTHER COURT`S POISON

Lawyers involved in criminal law have a lot to read.  Daily, thousands of cases are decided.  Whilst most are routine in the broadest sense of that word because for those involved be they witnesses of defendants they are anything but, there are always a few where there are lessons to be learnt or an exposed conflict between the letter of the law and its spirit.  For the interested  non lawyer only those cases which make the national or increasingly under reported local news media are attention worthy.  Occasionally this blogger considers them worth a few minutes of his and others` limited reading time.  

Perhaps the most interesting revelation of recent weeks is an insight into how woke our justice system has become.  The tendency for so called "diversity" to be upheld as the 11th commandment is to me of great concern.  It reveals a desire for superficial appearances in thought, mind, intention, opinion or deed to be of a uniform nature on pain of expulsion or to use the current terminology "cancellation". The individual who has expounded this "philosophy" is no less than the Master of the Rolls.  Whilst there is much to be improved with British judges and especially those at the top of the judicial tree such comments are in my humble opinion most unhelpful.  Perhaps judges` dining quarters (where I have in times past been a guest whilst sitting on appeals) should display a notice of topics to be outlawed.  Perhaps there should be microphones hidden under the dining tables to catch those robed figures in full flow over their Salade Niçoise.  

As if Bristol University has not self harmed over its years long refusal to sack antisemitic lecturer David Miller it is now faced with demands over its policy regarding the well being or otherwise of the students under its care.  Whilst not currently a matter for lawyers it might soon be.  The very sad case of  Natasha Abrahart must strike a chord with every parent with a student child.  I recollect that when as a parent amongst many others  I was in a lecture hall at Newcastle University where my son was considering enrolment listening to a professor telling us that the university could not discuss with parents any matters; educational or medical  affecting their children because they were over the age of 18 and their consent would be required.  Too many student suicides surely must force authorities to allow a middle ground of common sense to overcome rigidity of historic practices. 

The Home Office and its bosses are currently very newsworthy for an authority which is the epitome of all that is lawful in practice.  Nimbyism will forever be a trade off between local rights and political favouritism and a greater national interest. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the dispersal of illegal immigrants to hotels and accommodation in areas palpably unsuitable.  Perhaps a court will again have to overrule the wishes of this department of state.

Having personally been delayed on the M25 for over an hour by so called protesters I am pleased at this judicial ruling last week.  These misguided individuals are proto fascists seeking to impose upon so many others their supposed solution to a massive problem.  This ruling must be followed by others similar when required. 

Knife crime even when the weapon is brandished but not used must be punished by immediate custody has been the mantra of Lord Chancellors for a decade.  Oooops but the tidal wave of cases where "mental health" is an excuse seems to have infected the judiciary to see things differently.  In such matters I ask myself how did the generations of the last century survive such problems with a weary "get on with it " attitude but then perhaps I really am a dinosaur out of touch with current norms. 

Legal interpreters, translators and other language service providers have long been an essential part of the justice system. The ability to understand the case against you and to understand the process you are subject to, either as a plaintiff or defendant, is a vital part of the right to a fair trial and is guaranteed both by centuries-old common law and Articles 5 (right to liberty and security of person) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Answering questions about this privatisation contract in the House of Lords on 9 July 2012, Lord McNally Minister of State for Justice stated that the courts receive ‘some 800 requests a day for such interpretation’. In an attempt to make savings  of up to a reported £12 million per year as well as to make the system more efficient, the MoJ entered a four-year framework agreement in August 2011 worth £168 million with a small private language service provider, Applied Language Solutions Ltd (ALS), to provide legal interpreting services potentially across the whole justice system (police, courts, prisons, etc.) A further five-year contract, under the framework agreement (‘agreement’), worth £90 million signed by the Ministry in October 2011 and took effect in January 2012 covering mainly the courts and tribunals, has courted much controversy. It has been the subject of two parliamentary select committee inquiries and a report which revealed the total inadequacy of the individuals responsible for approving the deal. Shortly afterwards ALS was sold to Capita the outsourcing firm for a large profit. Probably some time after the 30 year rule the shenanigans will be revealed. Meanwhile the consequences continue.  This is an example. 

I have at times castigated judiciary for saying too much and occasionally too little about the inadequacies of the judicial system at present.  At Swansea crown court HH Judge Geraint Walters spoke I`m sure for many of his colleagues when he raged at the CPS.  

It was the recommended practice in my day not to ban drivers in their absence and to do everything to secure their attendance at court.  The reason of course was obvious: no driver should be driving with a disqualification over his/her head about which s/he was unaware.  I wonder what efforts were made at Harrogate magistrates court to drag these offenders to court to hear their fate straight from the horse`s mouth? 

A round of strike action at magistrates courts under the auspices of the Public and Commercial Services Union led by far left boss Mark Serwotka ended on October 30th.  According to the union it has a mandate to take further action and reserves the right to call more strike action if necessary.  Considering the problems currently with magistrates courts` backlog one would hope that sense will prevail but of course one court`s meat is another court`s poison. 

CHANGE OF P.M. WILL HAVE LITTLE CHANGE FOR JUSTICE

Yesterday I published the latest post of a magistrate`s diary:  A NEW BEGINNING WITH A NEW SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE?  This was written 13th May 2010. Four days previously as a result of the general election on that day the Tories regained power after thirteen years of Labour government.  Thus began an age of austerity subsequent to the recent banking collapse which was almost an existential end to two generations of economic growth following the end of World War 2 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The newly ensconced Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke was proud to announce ahead of all his cabinet colleagues his departmental budget reduction for the following year.  Altogether 23.8% (£2 billion)  was to be cut from the previous money pot.  Immediately a programme of economies followed including limits on recruitment at the Crown Prosecution Office and legal aid.  In June the ministry announced plans to close more than 150 of the 530 courts in England and Wales. In a major speech the following week Clarke made it clear that the prison population was too high. Changes were initiated which effectively allowed offenders to walk free from what would have been previously an immediate jail sentence. Those with a more thorough knowledge of our justice system than I ever possessed were scathing in their opinions:  they asserted that the economies to be expected would be false ones. Cutting legal aid would simply lead to more litigants in person. Cases would take longer and court costs would rise. Vulnerable children would be at greater risk. There would be more miscarriages of justice costing huge sums to investigate and put right.  How prescient were those commentators.  162 of the active 323 magistrates courts in England and Wales in 2010 have shut with predictable results.  Waiting times have gone through the roof. Those on low income have been denied legal aid, travel times and therefore costs  for staff and witnesses have increased against assurances propagated by a press office`s regurgitation of information that would have made a Pravda reporter in the former USSR feel comfortable. At its heart justice is a function of the state. Apart from the armed services it is not like other public services which can be handed over to the private sector. Justice is a pillar of a democratic society. When the public lose confidence in its efficacy the future is dire. 

Literally at the time of writing a new prime minister is kissing hands with the monarch. Within 24 hours we will be informed whether or not the current incumbent  Brandon Lewis retains his position at Petty France or whether the 10th Secretary of State at the MOJ since 2010 will be appointed. In any event what changes affecting magistrates will take place during his/her occupancy and what would be desirable?  Non payment of the BBC license fee will be decriminalised; a long overdue realisation that an outdated financing model for that organisation cannot be enforced by outdated legislation which to say the least is unjust for so many caught up in its rotten tentacles.  The iniquitous Single Justice Procedure is likely to be offered to miscreants presenting for a wider range of offences that at present.  The increased sentencing powers available to magistrates court benches (two years custody) was met with howls of rage from the legal profession.  I have some sympathy with them owing to the likely diminished quality of Justices of the Peace currently being appointed on a mass basis with questions being asked over a tendency for "diversity" being a criterion in the minds of advisory committees.  However the necessity of defendants being able to have legal assistance when they need it be it because of the seriousness of charge to be faced and/or an inability to self fund that assistance is in my opinion fundamental to a society retaining confidence in those who judge them in court.  The concept of the level playing field of justice and an equality of arms to decide the outcome of trial is no longer realistic when lawyers cannot afford to appear in a court to speak for defendants owing to the derisory fees on offer.  Magistrates must have the confidence to be more interrogative when it becomes apparent that a miscarriage of justice is a possibility owing to a witness`s or defendant`s inability to express his/her thoughts in an acceptable or appropriate manner.  

With so many factors in front of him to be tackled before the next general election it is unlikely that activities of the Ministry of Justice will make headlines or that the new prime minister would want them to.   Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

ADDENDUM 13.15  25TH OCTOBER

Current Justice Secretary Brandon Lewis has resigned.  Look forward to Lord Chancellor number 10 at Petty France since 2010

JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE IS UNFIT FOR PURPOSE

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office is the judiciary`s disciplinary body.  Its composition is charted below. 

Unlike most such organisations it operates in secret. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition or the Star Chamber in England the proceedings are not available to public inspection unlike the trial eg of Joan of Arc who was tried by an English ecclesiastical court the verdict of which was subsequently overturned.  Of course that didn`t prevent her being burned at the stake.   Details of the disciplinary process and more are available by typing JCIO in the search box. Today, however, the iniquity of this so called judicial court  is more exposed than ever in its treatment of magistrates who have supposedly erred. In a word they are punished much more severely than their civil service full time paid seniors on the judicial ladder. 

Date:16 September 2022

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

Mr Gary Cracknell JP

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

"Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice, and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Mr Gary Cracknell JP of the South Northumbria Bench with formal advice for misconduct following a complaint about a verbal altercation he had with a neighbour. While finding the majority of the complaint to be unsubstantiated, they decided that Mr Cracknell’s conduct demonstrated a lack of the circumspection and sound judgment expected of a judicial office-holder."

ENDS

Note that even although the majority of the complaint is unsubstantiated Mr Cracknell`s judicial record is permanently endorsed with "formal advice".  This terse statement is typical of the public record. 

Date: 19 August 2022

 

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

 

Kate Fitzpatrick JP, Natalie Carter JP and Susan Carrington-Porter JP

 

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

"Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Kate Fitzpatrick JP, Natalie Carter JP and Susan Carrington-Porter JP, of the Staffordshire Bench with formal advice for leaving court early without authorisation when they were listed to sit on hearings."

ENDS

From the above it would seem that a full bench must have had its own very good reason(s) for leaving.  The term "without authorisation" is a form of words that I`m sure would not have been used were the miscreant a District Judge or Recorder. It indicates the manner in which the JCIO regards magistrates. 

Date: 26 July 2022

 

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

 

Lesley Pickup JP

 

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

"Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Lesley Pickup JP of the Greater Manchester Bench with a formal warning for her disruptive behaviour during an online training course and for the improper tone of her post-course feedback. In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that Miss Pickup had received a previous disciplinary sanction for intemperate behaviour and was unwilling to accept full responsibility for her actions."

ENDS

"disruptive behaviour",  " improper tone of her post-course feedback", "intemperate behaviour",  "unwilling to accept full responsibility for her actions."  These phrases of castigation appear to me as if a teacher is disciplining a disruptive child in her class.As for " unwilling to accept full responsibility for her actions." that means that she defended herself against the accusations but failed to convince the accusers of her innocence.  It reminded me of an occasion when I was appraised internally by the then bench chair who told me the process was that subsequent to her presenting me with her report and signing it off I was permitted to add my own comment after hers and that would complete the matter.  However after my criticism of her comments and having signed as instructed she proceeded to add her criticism of my comment wholly against  her own description of how the matter would be officially completed. She had changed her own rules to suit herself.  In the above case I have a sense that Ms Pickup had forfeited an opportunity to be professionally defended and that no doubt would be due to the cost of so doing.  In any event we just do not know proving once again that secret justice is bad justice.

Date: 25 July 2022

STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

Polliner Chukwuma JP

A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:

"Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Mrs Polliner Chukwuma JP of the East London Local Justice Area with a formal warning for making a complaint against another magistrate in bad faith. In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that Mrs Chukwuma failed to accept responsibility for her actions."

ENDS

Once again the statement throws out the accusation that the erring magistrate "failed to accept responsibility for her actions."  In other words she had not pleaded guilty but defended her actions.  What`s more the sentence of the inquiry took into consideration that non acceptance of culpability.  The defendants at the Spanish Inquisition knew they could save their lives by renouncing their heretic beliefs or their Judaism.  I doubt that Mrs Chukwuma was offered the opportunity to "repent" and accept a reduced sentence; eg "advice" as opposed to "formal warning".  Unfortunately she now faces dismissal if a further "grievance" is successful. 

The above is just a current extract of the everyday workings of an organisation which should not exist in an England of 2022.  There must be some form of disciplinary process for members of the judiciary but in its current form it is simply not fit for purpose.

BAD NEWS FOR THEM AND WORSE NEWS FOR US

It seems that with Dominic Raab`s departure from Petty France the new government (for that is what we have in practice if not in name) felt that pressure on the courts would be relieved by the Criminal Bar Association`s acceptance of an agreed fee increase back dated to the backlog of 60K cases in crown courts. But no sooner had one head of the legal Gorgon been lopped off than others have appeared.  Solicitors are also putting forward claims for increases.  The Crown Prosecution Service, a direct employer within the MOJ, is under pressure from its diminished workforce of prosecutors for increased pay rates.  This from a service which, like teaching, dentistry, the legal profession and others has, over the last two decades, introduced a class of prosecutors of lower qualification to prosecute initially what were simple guilty pleas in the magistrates courts. And like the aforementioned professions their scope has been widened the prime purpose of which is to reduce costs.  On top of all that magistrates courts staff, legal advisors and court associates, who  postponed last month’s planned strike after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, will take action from 22 to 30 October at 65 magistrates’ courts in England and Wales over the  controversial Common Platform system. 

And that leaves magistrates, who,  for more than a decade have been considered in practice if not in theory as unpaid employees by HMCTS [His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service].  Their morale whilst not measurable is considered by some as not of the highest level.  Part of the reason is one of out of pocket expenses; an important consideration considering that JPs are volunteers.  The mileage rate is now 45p per mile – the standard, HMRC-approved, rate. However it was changed some time ago from a three tier system which paid a different rate according to the size of your car’s engine. Those with very small cars were made better off, those with larger engines lost out to the tune of 13p per mile. The new system might be fair but inevitably the losers are not happy. If officials want someone to sit in a court thirty, forty or fifty miles from their home, they do not take account the cost to the magistrate of that journey before allocating that sitting to him or her. In response to requests that the paid rates should be increased to cover the significant increases in the cost of fuel, insurance, maintenance etc, the MoJ simply says it would be too difficult to introduce a new, fairer, system.  When magistrates courts were responsible for their own individual rotas such difficulties were sorted in house.  The take over of that process was the second in a continuing series of authoritarian grabs by HMCTS the first being the abolition of magistrates courts committees a couple of decades ago.  This has continued to the present when so called unelected appointed "leadership" magistrates were supposed to be a replacement for elected bench chairmen who comprised a national forum which could be described as a magistrates` senate. They most certainly are not.  They are self serving people with a veneer of doing public works looking forward to a gong which the civil service often offers to its own unlike that which is earned by fine people like my late mother for doing good works within the community.   

I am sure that many now on the bench must be re thinking their role in our justice system.  Covid 19 has reeked havoc on the courts as it has in so many parts of our lives.  There are three areas to be considered.  The best place to begin is the judicial oath which every JP must swear in a public place before being recognised.    “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign lord King Charles III in the office of Justice of the Peace and 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.”  With the introduction of the Single Justice Procedure over five years ago can it truly be said that those undertaking this position are following their oath?  The process is carried out behind closed doors where the onus in practice is for the accused to prove his/her innocence; where there is no possibility of outside comment because of course there is no reporting. But it seems there are enough magistrates willing to sell their souls so that they do not incur the wrath of HMCTS.  Indeed they might be described as spineless but their dark place in our courts system is self inflicted to some extent.  They have no way to resist apart from resignation.  They have no organisation which represents them.  Some might cry but there is the Magistrates Association.  But the Magistrates Association is to magistrates what the Spanish Inquisition was to heretics: a lingering painful  departure or a quick end. Its charter prohibits any form of representative protective activity.  It produces a lengthy 37pp account of its activities for the Charities Commission and specifies that its annual income from membership fees is £472,728 equalled by a similar grant from government but nowhere does it tell us in all the 37pp how many active members are on its books.  Generally speaking if the government whistles the MA does a jig. Unless magistrates have a truly independent protective organisation where individuals can exchange opinions and have a shoulder to cry on when faced with professional problems representation as we know it is a mirage. Indeed as a very early contributor to an independent forum constructed on the MA website early this century I have witnessed its being absorbed into the "protective arms" of the MA and then being removed altogether.  The result is as a body of around 12,000 souls nationally magistrates have no way to communicate with each other except in small voluntary groups

Finally and perhaps of most importance is the fact that so many defendants now appear for summary trial without legal representation or plead guilty simply to avoid the period wasted until court time is allocated for trial and of course to seek a 33% early guilty plea sentence reduction.  During the trial magistrates have from their earliest training been told to apply the principle of there being equality of arms on a level playing field and that their position is to sit as Zeus in the clouds and pass judgement on the facts presented. It is my strongly and long held opinion that whilst not approaching the position of "magistrate" as employed in France nevertheless British magistracy must be redefined.  And that means that a currently forbidden on pain of death interrogative approach must be undertaken when litigants in person (LIP) are facing professional prosecutors of the CPS.  During my final five or so years pre retirement when this situation even then was becoming not uncommon I upset many legal advisors and not a few colleagues by assisting those who could not quite formulate their answer in cross examination by the often incomprehensible legal verbalise of crass prosecutors owing to poor English or intellect or both and more significantly those whose ability to question witnesses was hampered by their inability to translate their thoughts into clearly understood sentences.  

Justice cannot be done in 2022 by habits formed in 1922. It is urgently required that an academic researches all aspects of the magistrates courts procedures from first appearance to sentencing outcomes with particular regard to those points above.  Only then will there be continuing public confidence in this part of the justice system; a part where well over 95% of justice is dispensed. And for magistrates themselves: until utilising perhaps outside influences attempts to attract individuals of the calibre of those of the last decades of the 2oth century will be blighted.  But as the cynic within me keeps whispering: governments are seeking ever increasing control of the legal system to suit themselves.  Sourcing JPs en masse as is happening now is not a clear indicator of  a desire to improve the quality of what was once upon a time the independent bench.  All too often the appearance is to reinforce the concept of  a master and servant relationship which is bad news for them and worse news for us.

 

TITANIC JUSTICE

So now we have the ninth Justice Secretary in 12 years of Tory government.  Each has left no fundamental mark upon the justice system although failing Grayling did his best to undermine the prison and probation services.  Until the summons hits them in the letter box most people have little knowledge of and couldn`t care less about the courts and what goes on within them.  Part of the reason is that local court reporting about which I have written here more than once is becoming a historical left over from the time when local newspapers cost a single denarious  (1d). When local communities were what that term really meant and neighbours or some of them were truly their brothers` keepers. When shame of transgressing in many forms really did act as a deterrent to misdemeanours and more serious acts of local disapproval. With over a million cases annually passing through magistrates courts very few are considered worthy of local reporting by newspaper editors or their financially pressed owners.  Instead when apparently atrocious decisions are reached in the courts it`s more likely that dissemination of the cases is spread by social media with all the accuracy and (m)objectivity such media offer to those with the time and the wit to provide an opinion.  Indeed the Law Society Gazette last week published a very interesting article on court reporting. 

Thankfully notwithstanding the above there are still some reports of the magistrates courts up and down the country.  And there are still some cases where the defining object seems to be that all steps must be taken so that as few offenders as possible are subject to immediate custody however much the facts of the case seem to point unhesitatingly in that direction. 

An officer of Staffordshire Constabulary was found guilty after a two day trial  of common assault following which he was found guilty of misconduct at a public hearing chaired by the force`s Chief Constable but allowed to keep his job. Such lenient decisions are sure to undermine public  confidence within the country. No shame, no deterrence and yet there is wonder in high places why respect for the uniform is failing. 

Until 15-20 years ago suspended sentences were not very common.  Then the law changed in parallel with the cost of keeping convicts in jail becoming a hot political topic and the increasing discomfiture within and without parliament of the annual rises in custodial sentences almost overwhelming the prison system.  According to all guidance given to magistrates a custodial sentence could be suspended only when the custody threshold had been reached.  That instruction  fell upon the deaf ears of some magistrates and certainly many probation officers who saw a suspended sentence as one level below certain immediate jail time.  Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBO) have been the subject here previously my opinion being that they should be titled for accuracy as criminal displacement orders.  They are civil orders the breach of which is a criminal offence.  Indeed I sat on the first such case in the country and because its terms were not met by the prosecution it was thrown out. When a magistrates court sentences an offender to 40 weeks inside it is a matter of note considering that only about 3% of all cases in those courts receive an immediate custodial sentence. It is somewhat against the grain when 40 weeks custodial, a very severe sentence, is suspended.  What does that do for public confidence in our courts?  Consider also that the offending was in public.  

Crown Court judgements naturally receive more coverage than the lower courts but the single sentencer, the judge, also has the Sentencing Guidelines to follow plus the unwritten advice concerning our overcrowded prisons.  Critics of comments such as those here maintain that without full knowledge of a court`s proceedings remarks on sentencing are without foundation.  Unsurprisingly I disagree. The alternative is silence. As this case shows it is truly shocking that apart from any mitigation by the defence such an offender committing such an offence should not escape immediate custody. To the general public as per the article headline he has avoided jail. When the state fails to act in accordance with natural justice that justice and its proponents are devalued and a sense of vigilantism creeps in to the dismay of all who hope some sense of society still remains in our psyche.    

A similar case in Hartlepool shows that there is a deficit in government thinking brought about by a continual failure to provide required funding for the Ministry of Justice currently a little over £9 billion.  

The problem is an unrecognised national carbuncle on the arse of justice.  Readers will see a similar dereliction of catering for the public good  in this case. 

There is no doubt that below the public consciousness budgets like that are of little significance to public and Treasury when NHS, Education, Defence and Social Security hit all the headlines.  However like the Titanic it`s what is below the waterline which most effectively defines whether a ship (and its passengers) or a nation sinks or swims to safety.  

EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP REQUIRES REVISION

Last week I posted on the possible connection between those who evade a driving disqualification by successfully pleading special reasons or exceptional hardship and who later are convicted of serious driving offences punishable by a custodial sentence.  The law in such matters is not fit for purpose when a man said to be worth £100 million and a duke of the realm attempted to use the latter get out of jail free card.  He was unsuccessful thanks to the lay bench at Lavender Hill Magistrates Court in London.  This area of law urgently requires revision.

There is no specific legal definition of what might amount to exceptional hardship. Each case will turn on its own particular facts and the personal circumstances of the individual driver. For example loss of employment will undoubtedly cause some hardship for anyone but whether that amounts to ‘exceptional hardship’ will depend on a number of factors including financial circumstances and family support to name a few.   

Magistrates should know all about exceptional hardship as it applies to driving disqualification……….or at least their legal advisers ought to know. Practice suggests that the loss of employment by itself is unlikely to satisfy the “exceptional” test. Some judicial guidance can be found in the Scottish case of Brennan-v-McKay (1996) 1997 S.L.T. 603. A taxi driver reached 12 penalty points on being convicted of speeding. He claimed that he would be likely to lose his job and be unable to obtain other work and this would have a substantial effect on his family. The High Court of Judiciary held that the justices were entitled to conclude that exceptional hardship had not been demonstrated. Whilst it was not an invariable rule that exceptional hardship would only be established where persons other than the accused and his immediate family would suffer it was ruled that it was necessary to demonstrate that there were other circumstances associated with loss of employment which might involve reflected hardship of a serious kind on the accused`s business, his family or his long term prospects [per Lord Hope in Brennan-v-McKay].

 
It is important to note that offenders may not put forward the same circumstances which have been used either for not disqualifying or for reducing the length of the totting up disqualification within three years of conviction {sec. 35(4)(c) RTOA 1988} It follows that detailed court records must be made of the exact circumstances which justified any finding of exceptional hardship. 

Nevertheless those facing a totting ban with some cash at their disposal for legal representation are likely to tell extraordinary stories to escape their just rewards; the aforesaid Duke of Norfolk being a prime example.  I would suggest that all those whose cases rest on a financial argument of being unable to afford alternative forms of transport eg taxis should be made to provide proof of their earnings eg tax return or similar irrefutable documentation to the court.  I would further suggest that those whose income is in excess eg of £100K /per annum be refused to employ a financial argument.  When the argument is based upon the proposed disqualification`s effect on third parties these individuals should be required to attend court and be cross examined and provide relevant evidence failing to do so being an immediate dismissal of the application. 

I would hope but have my doubts that this high profile case might stimulate some thinking by the new occupants at Petty France that all is not well with so many errant drivers evading a banning order.  The fact that MOJ refuses a Freedom of Information request to provide facts which are recorded on their data bases that might prevent innocent people being injured or worse by drivers who have little care for other road users is, unfortunately, a signal to the rest of us that they are all fur coat and no knickers when it comes to providing the public with real effective benefits from knowledge sitting there but ignored.   

A MINORITY REPORT APPROACH TO AVOIDING LENIENCY ON DRIVING BANS

In order for a democratic society to function as such the law must reflect the attitudes of that society to particular actions which might be detrimental to members of that society individually or as a group.  There are as so often is the case exceptions to the rule.  Hanging was suspended  (pardon the pun)  in 1965 when arguably there was no public mandate so to do but the government at the time led rather than followed public sentiment. It was abolished four years later. Offences for errant motoring activities have been around since the first cars appeared on the streets around 120 years ago when a driver was fined for refusing to identify himself to a constable. 

Since then the numbers of such offences have reached the hundreds.  Events and improved data collections have refined both the definition of offences and their sentencing.  Generally it should be assumed that the purpose is to deter, punish and rehabilitate offenders just as with much other legislation.  To do that a firm statistical basis on which to formulate such legislation is required.  Cost benefit analyses and other parameters are weighed, studied, and predicted to ensure maximum efficiency in the practice of new regulations.  The prevention of harm to individuals one would assume is a guiding light to those who are involved in this task. One such volume of information to that end  is already within the millions of data points collected by the MOJ: Special Reasons and Exceptional Hardship statistics. The latter topic has been discussed here at length and might be accessed by those two words being inserted in the search box. 

Between 7,000 and 8,000 motorists in England per year who have totted-up more than 12 points on their driving licence avoid disqualification by using that loophole in the legal system. A total of 142,275 people between 2017 and 2021 were banned from driving after accruing a licence-losing volume of points.However, a further 35,569 were allowed to remain on the road having told magistrates they will face 'exceptional hardship' if they were unable to continue driving. 

Driving offences where special reasons are applicable can be argued for any Motoring Offence. However these reasons are commonly used for: 

Drink Driving 

Failing to Provide a Specimen 

Speeding 

Driving without Insurance

Failing to Provide Driver Details. 

For special reasons in a specialist hearing to be accepted by the court the circumstances relied upon need to satisfy the criteria below;
 

Must be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance
Must not amount in law to a defence to the allegation Must be directly connected with the commission of the offence
Must be something which the Court ought to properly take into consideration when imposing sentence.

Whilst the statistics of exceptional hardship are widely available those for special reasons are locked somewhere in the bowels of the computers at Petty France where perhaps an expert researcher which excludes me might find them. However this post is not primarily concerned with numbers.  It is that knowing the numbers and circumstances of both get outs who go on to commit much more serious motoring offences would be an enabler in predicting those of them who would indeed be a future danger to life and limb both to themselves and innocent others. To that end a third party has recently made such a Freedom of Information request.   The MOJ has admitted it knows the numbers of those who have saved themselves from a driving disqualification by the successful employment of the above two arguments and have later convicted of having committed further serious imprisonable motoring offences  at the crown court especially causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving but that the cost of relating them to their  driving records of previously escaping a ban is beyond the statutory allowance of £600. 

This appears to be a deliberate avoidance of a statistical analysis which just might offer clues to those who subsequent to avoiding a totting disqualification nevertheless show indications of being possible future offenders in more serious matters of breaking motoring laws. It might also give reasons to legislate so that the two arguments are placed under a more stringent basis so that fewer totters are excused their just deserts and that that dangerous minority is less likely to drive in a manner dangerous to others. For movie aficionados my proposal might be termed the Minority Report approach.  Now that would mean an incoming Secretary of State for Justice actually doing something tangible to improve the well being of the public instead of the seemingly unending press releases his department is expert in providing. 

DEATH OF A QUEEN AND S.5 PUBLIC ORDER ACT

There can be few of us who have not wondered whether or not our nation has been gripped by some form of national hysteria.  I write as somebody who leans towards republicanism but who was honoured to swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs and successors  as a Justice of the Peace. She was head of state and I felt no hypocrisy on my part by so doing.  I am old enough to have been a primary school boy when told of the death of George VI.  Thus to some degree I stand apart from those of later generations who, in dozens of media conversations, have said that they felt some sort of personal affinity to our late monarch.  I did not.  The most startling impression I have had in the last few days is that so many people in this country are repeating scenes we last saw in 1997 on the death of Princess Diana.  I am no psychologist but my abiding impression of the TV coverage at that time was a nation in the grip of the aforesaid condition of national hysteria. It has long been recognised that groups of people can be enveloped in an overpowering common feeling whether benign or bewitched.  The Salem witch trials of 1692-3 have been considered lately by  psychologists as perhaps being of such a nature.  But what caused the mass hysteria, false accusations, and lapses in due process which resulted in the "execution" of 14 women? Scholars have attempted to answer these questions with a variety of economic and physiological theories. Thankfully the results so far of public grief expressed on the streets of Britain are not threatening to anyone except perhaps to that handful of individuals who have dared to express by means of posters carried that they would prefer to live in a republic or to one or two individuals who have voiced diverse opinions of the Duke of York.  According to social media and scant reports in mainline TV the police have merely arrested them in order to prevent a public affray or breach of the peace.  It is likely that S.5 of the Public Order Act was employed. 

Harassment, alarm or distress.

A section 5 offence comprises two elements:
 A person must (a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and

The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Unique amongst the public order offences in the Act, section 5 requires no proof of any intention, nor that any person actually be caused harassment, alarm or distress, only that the act took place within the hearing or sight of a person “likely” to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

It doesn`t take a lawyer to realise that this offence is based on subjectivity and not objectivity.  Thus it gives the police widespread power to impose their will at any scene which appears to them to be encompassed by the legislation.  The maximum penalty is a fine. For someone of the criminal classes a conviction for a S.5 offence is but a tap on the wrist but for a professional person of good standing it could be a hammer blow. Intending protesters should consider carefully the possible consequences of their actions. 

A SORRY HISTORY OF LORD CHANCELLORS//A LITANY OF FAILURE

Cameron, May, Johnson and now Truss; the fine figures that have led this country since 2010.  Such an accumulation of prime ministers in a dozen years makes us more Italian than Italy when it comes to political upheavals.  When it comes to Secretaries of State for Justice/Lord Chancellor the occupants of said post over the same period were as frequently deployed as the substitutes in international Rugby Union.  When one considers the disarray and lack of cohesive thought within that ministry it is no surprise that it is currently appearing to self destruct in front of us.  Barristers have finally had enough of being paid a pittance for their services within the criminal courts system but expected to provide a first class service for which they have taken an oath so to do.  Judges by their own volition ration their sitting days owing to impossible rules on the taxation of pensions in addition to government deliberately limiting courts` functioning timetables to reduce spending. Magistrates courts` staff have planned strike action later this month.  Magistrates` local independence has been absorbed into direct control by Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service their representative court committees and national bodies eliminated yet the farce of a pursuit of "local diversity" is pursued nevertheless.  Two year delays in crown court trials are now commonplace with corresponding delays at the lower court and Covid being the parroted reply to criticism such response being used as an alibi for deliberate under funding of the  whole system from police via probation to prison. 

This debacle started in 2010 when Kenneth Clarke proudly declared that he was the first cabinet minister to fulfil his part of the austerity programme by slashing the Justice Department budget by 23%. Thus began the closing of half the country`s courts. And so the decline to the sorry situation today when a former occupant of Clarke`s office somehow being promoted above her competence ( contrary to Peter`s Principle) enters number 10. The history of how she and the other holders of the office have  ruined a system a millennium in the making does not make for happy reading.

After Clarke`s time in office came Chris (failing) Grayling to Petty France: perhaps the worst Lord Chancellor of modern times. Earlier in 2010 it was reported by the Daily Telegraph that an IP address associated with the Parliamentary estate had been discovered attempting to remove references to his role in the expenses scandal from his Wikipedia page. They attempted the edit to remove the information five times and later received a warning from a Wikipedia administrator. It was Grayling who proposed cuts to legal aid which were widely criticised by the legal profession. In May 2013, 90 Queen's Counsels signed a letter sent to The Daily Telegraph that branded the cuts "unjust", as they would seriously undermine the rule of law. 6 January 2014 saw the first strike in British history by barristers and solicitors in protest at the cuts.In February 2014, he introduced the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to the House of Commons.  In October 2014, Grayling unveiled the Conservative Party's proposals for reforms to human rights in order to curb the European Court of Human Rights' influence over British court rulings, whilst honouring the text of the original Convention on Human Rights in a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.In January 2015 data relating to three fatal police shootings including details of marksmen and the deceased's family were lost in the post by the Justice Department. According to The Guardian it was particularly embarrassing for Grayling as the Government was claiming it needed to access personal data to deal with terrorism and could keep it securely. The data included details of the Mark Duggan shooting incident which had triggered the 2011 England riots.

After the 2015 general election Cameron promoted Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor in his newly formed cabinet. He was praised in December 2015 for scrapping the courts fee introduced by his predecessor Grayling whose departure from office was greeted with unashamed relief by all in the legal world including magistrates who had had to  pronounce to offenders his ridiculous newly imposed court charges. The fees had been heavily criticised for, among other things, causing innocent people to plead guilty out of financial concerns. Gove removed the 12-book limit on prison books introduced by Grayling arguing that books increased literacy and numeracy, skills needed for making prisoners a "potential asset to society". The move, effective from September 2015, was welcomed by all including  the Howard League for Penal Reform and the literary establishment.  

And then followed Liz Truss. She was widely castigated for failing to support more robustly the judiciary and the principle of judicial independence, after three judges of the Divisional Court came under attack from politicians and from the Daily Mail for ruling against the government in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, who had previously suggested that, like her immediate predecessors Chris Grayling and Michael Gove, Truss lacked the essential legal expertise that the constitution requires, called for her to be sacked as Justice Secretary as her perceived inadequate response "signals to the judges that they have lost their constitutional protector". She didn`t last long and nobody lamented her leaving office.

She was followed by David Liddington who lasted six months in office and was a total waste of space.

And along came David Gauke who achieved nothing in his short tenure.

 A week after being sworn Rober Buckland in July 2019 in an interview for The Times newspaper expressed the opinion that suspects accused of serious crimes should be granted anonymity if the accusations threatened their reputation stating "let's say you are a reputable local business person who is accused of fraud. Your good name is going to be really undermined by this mere accusation. That might be a meritorious case for anonymity." In response to the interview Ian Murray, director of the Society of Editors stated said it was "absurd to suggest that in a liberal democracy we are going to create a system of justice that enables the rich, the powerful and celebrities to be protected when they are under investigation for serious crimes but the ordinary man or woman would be offered no such protections." Buckland's opinion was rejected by a Government spokesman who confirmed "this is not government policy", and the Ministry of Justice which confirmed "this isn't departmental policy" and stated that Buckland would not be giving further interviews on the subject which would now be handled by Downing Street.  In September 2020 Buckland stated on The Andrew Marr Show that he would resign only if the UK Internal Market Bill broke the law "in a way I find unacceptable".  An example of double speak from one of the experts.  Indeed he might have been following Humpty Dumpty with the latter`s assertion that words mean what I want them to mean. 

Finally until today we have Dominic Raab who in my humble opinion was all mouth and no trousers.  It has been obvious to all that he has been more concerned with his previous position as deputy prime minister following his failure as foreign secretary than accomplishing anything worthwhile other than unnecessary press releases in his time at Petty France.  

And so the story ends to begin again with more aspirants to an office which has been devalued by virtually all who have held sway since 2010 over a pillar of our democracy.