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.