The observations and opinions of a retired magistrate. Also available my magistrate`s diary at https://amagistratesdiaries.blogspot.com/
Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.
From being a socialist orientated student to a conservative who believes that capitalism must be controlled there comes a time when the inevitable choice arises between government and the law. Before the dreadful day of 7th October 2023 the people of Israel faced that very dilemma. It is a problem there still to be solved. At grassroots that is the situation currently with the Sentencing Council at loggerheads with the Justice Secretary. Government makes the law which includes a range of sentences for every offence. As can be noted from recent events maximum sentences for what many consider the most heinous offending seem to be in short supply at the top end and rarely applied at the lower, eg shoplifting, car theft or burglary where perhaps the reluctance of police to investigate is much of the problem.
Two tier policing became the catchphrase for the ineptitude of initially the Metropolitan Police in allowing public support for a proscribed terrorist organisation and breaches of the Public Order Act to go unpunished for over a year yet simultaneously being over officious in clamping down hard on non violent suspected hate crime.
Two tier sentencing has been the phrase now employed to describe the Sentencing Council`s intention to rectify a problem others say does not exist. The controversy centres around supposedly different criteria for those facing custody from the crown court depending on their ethnic, religious or cultural minority status. Even disclosure of being transgender is included as "cultural minority". The chairman of the council, Lord Justice William Davis, has stated that guidance must not be dictated to judges by ministers. A leading solicitor has written publicly that those from "ethnic minorities" are more likely to be arrested, charged and convicted than white people; a rather non legalistic comment when one considers eg white skinned Muslims, Jews [Ashkenazi white or Sephardic sometimes brown skinned] or people of Chinese origin. The argument centres around the eligibility and of uptake of pre sentence reports where custody is an option. The differentials are put down to racism. As I was led to understand as a magistrate, sentencing guidelines were just that; guidelines and not tramlines. Section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2000 directs all courts to follow the guidelines but not to do so if "it would be contrary to the interests of justice". I have personally followed that route in court but of course fewer that 4% of offenders at the lower court receive immediate custodial sentences.
The Sentencing Council with the apparent approval of the previous government announced that from April 1st there should be certainty that pre sentence reports be made for the aforementioned minorities. Those supporting this proposed policy seem to be from the cupboard of the "progressive usual suspects". On the other hand pragmatists as I like to consider myself, seek to understand and formulate a conclusion to a situation or problem whilst "progressives" have a pre determined mindset which they apply to such situations. In 2022 statistics showed that "Asian and black offenders were 6% and 4% more likely to be sentenced to immediate custody in comparison with white offenders". But also the facts were that in crown courts over the previous five years white defendants consistently pleaded guilty [68%-77%] thus obtaining sentence reductions up to one third cf black ethnic groups [58%].
For every pre sentence report a probation officer must be available for its being obtained and presented. The staff statistics are not rosy as seen below considering the rise in the prison population: cause or effect?
Not all countries have sentencing guidelines. This paper from America might be of interest. It was 1999 that the state of Michigan initiated the American idea of sentencing guidelines and it was from that origin that similar guidelines developed in the British nations. I have no doubt that with AI so far advanced that it`s only a matter of a few years until the sentencing process itself will be AI driven with human input as a failsafe.
The bottom line on the current situation and future similar divergencies is that there will be a time when the choice is to be ruled by government or by lawyers; the devil or the deep blue sea some might say.
The Victim Personal Statement scheme was introduced in England and Wales in 2001 following a commitment in the Victims' Charter of 1996. The right to submit a VPS is contained in the Victims' Code. In contrast to other jurisdictions the right is not currently based in statute. The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales is available here. The VPS doesn`t affect the nature of the sentence on its own but its purpose is to help the judge to make a better informed decision on sentencing by taking into account the overall effect the crime has had on the victim. It follows that the quality of the statement might persuade a judge to override the level of sentence according to the guidelines. Can it honestly now be the case that the system is truly neutral when the result of an action according to the prosecution [victim] is a consideration indicating that crimes of ostensible equality result in unequal sentencing? The concept of equality before the law or level playing field is supposed to convince British citizens that long standing traditions now brought up to modern standards are the birthright of all. And despite rare exceptions we are expected to believe that the old adage British is Best applies to the forms of justice encountered daily not only through the legal system but with myriad councils, tribunals and supervisory bodies etc. In polite terms there will be little disagreement that the preceding sentence is now wishful thinking or perhaps colloquially, bollocks.
Early training as a magistrate in the years before the millenium emphasised that the so called legal level playing field between state and defendant was a pillar of justice. How compliant my colleagues and I were to listen blithely to the trainer. Equality of arms was another euphemism employed to imbibe we newbies with the philosophy that nowhere on this Earth was there a justice system where individuals were more able to be assured that they would receive a fair hearing and trial where they would have every opportunity to plead their innocence.
I think my disillusionment was triggered by the establishment of the victim surcharge introduced in the UK in April 2007 as a flat rate of £15 initially only applied to offenders receiving a fine; however it has since been expanded to apply to most criminal sentences with the amount varying depending on the severity of the sentence and the offender's age, essentially making offenders contribute to the cost of supporting victims and witnesses of crime. The current rates are available to view here. But the proceeds are not ring fenced for actual victims of crime: proceeds are pooled into a general fund used to finance victim support services in general. Unlike fines the charge is not means tested.
Level playing field or equality of arms is currently just a joke akin to the Hollywood advice, “Never bring a knife to a gunfight”. A ruinous combination of legal aid lawyers` derisory fees and increasingly raised income levels before an application for legal aid is possible, loads the odds firmly with the state and against the defendant. The introduction of the Single Justice Procedure in 2015 was an anathema to those who considered that it was a step too far in favour of the state. Between 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2023, some 3,102,392 criminal cases were processed by the Single Justice Service as the S was renamed.
Statistics on SJP are hard to come by. What can be said is that about 40,000 cases monthly are processed but the whole process is a carbuncle on the face of justice. A Freedom of Information Request of 2021 is copied below.
request-@whatdotheyknow.com Disclosure Team Ministry of Justice 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
data.access@justice.gov.
5th July 2021
Dear Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 2xxxxxxxx Thank you for your request received on 5th June 2021 in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
Since its inception; 1. How many cases have been dealt with by the Single Justice Procedure annually? 2. Of the above how many defendants in each of the years above responded with a plea? 3. Of the pleas from question 2. how many were guilty pleas? 4. Of those pleading not guilty in each of the above years since inception how many actually went to trial at magistrates courts? 5. Of those at trial per Q4. how many were acquitted? 6. How many cases brought under Covid 19 regulations have been pursued through the SJP in 2020? 7. Of the numbers per Q6. how many responded with a plea? 8. Of those in answer to Q7. how many were guilty pleas? 9. Of those pleading not guilty in Q7. how many elected trial at magistrates court? 10. Of those electing trial as per Q9. how many were acquitted? 11. How many magistrates are currently trained and eligible to be included in the approved list as Single Justices? 12. Please list the courts where the SJP is functioning.
Your request has been handled under the FOIA. It has been answered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) on behalf of MoJ.
I can confirm that HMCTS/MoJ holds the information that you have requested. However, to provide it as the request currently stands would exceed the cost limit set out in the FOIA. Section 12(1) of the FOIA means a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if it estimates the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days determining whether the department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.
The MoJ publishes information regarding the outcomes of criminal proceedings. However it is not possible to separately identify case outcomes for Single Justice Procedures (SJP) from the centrally collated Courts Proceedings Database. As such it is not possible to answer questions (5) and (10) within in the specified cost limits.
The information that you have requested in these questions would be held in individual case files for the last three years (In accordance with MoJ Record Retention and Disposition Schedules), but in order to provide it HMCTS/MoJ would have to identify the files in question and then locate them, retrieve and extract the information requested. We believe that the cost of doing that would exceed the appropriate limit. Consequently, we are not obliged to comply with your request.
Although we cannot answer your request at the moment, we may be able to answer a refined request within the cost limit. You may wish to consider, for example, reducing the time period covered by your request and / or specifying particular Courts to be included in scope. Please be aware that we cannot guarantee at this stage that a refined request will fall within the FOIA cost limit, or that other exemptions will not apply. In particular you should be aware of the FOIA exemptions that apply under Section 32 and which relate to information that is only held for the purpose of the Court Record.
Where Section 12 applies to one part of a request we refuse all of the request under the cost limit as advised by the Information Commissioner’s Office. I am therefore not obliged to answer the remainder of your questions. However, under Section 16 of FOIA It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it. Within that, I can tell you that some of the data that you have requested is held within different HMCTS / MoJ systems and we have extracted it as below. Please note that this data is taken from different sources and cannot necessarily be reconciled with other data provided.
Regarding questions (1) and (6): Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 The number of cases dealt with by the Single Justice Procedure annually since its inception. 12,660 357,006 687,645 738,028 786,546 529,408 The number of cases brought under Covid 19 regulations and pursued through the SJP in 2020.3,610
NOTES relating to the above data. • The case count is based upon the case completion date falling between each reporting period (eg. 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2015) where the initiation type is equal to Single Justice Notice. • Data are taken from a live management information system and can change over time. • Data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics. • The data provided is the most recent available and for that reason might differ slightly from any previously published information. • Data has not been cross referenced with case files. • Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.
Regarding questions (2) to (4) and (7) to (9), it has been assumed that they all relate to numbers of defendants.
Of which: COVID-19 offences 2020 4,007 437 23 3,547
NOTES relating to the above data. • SJP offences under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, allows cases involving adults charged with summary offences to be dealt with in a single magistrate sitting without the prosecutor or defendant being present. • Only one offence is counted for each defendant in the case. If there is more than one offence per defendant that complete on the same day, a set of validation rules applies to select one offence only and these relate to the longest duration, seriousness and the lowest sequence number of the offence. • Includes cases completed in the magistrates' courts during the specified time period, where no further action is required by the magistrates' courts. • Includes cases that are committed to the Crown Court. • SJP cases are identified in the centrally collated data based on the ‘initiation type’ recorded against the case. It is known that a small number of cases have incorrect initiation types recorded against them, with incompatible offences under SJP included within the overall reported counts, e.g. triable either way, indictable and summary imprisonable offences categorised under 'Other offences'. It is estimated that this accounts for well under 1% of the total defendants dealt with across the series. Where errors do exist the levels are monitored and appropriate action to understand and improve data quality are taken.
• Estimates from Q3 2020 exclude a small number of cases which have transitioned to the Common Platform system in the early adopter site (Derby and Chesterfield magistrates' courts) from September 2020. • Following a technical issue during the LIBRA Management Information System refresh, a small amount of data was not included for a single day in September. It is estimated this that has resulted in a small number (less than 1%) of case disposals being omitted from the latest quarterly totals. A refresh of the data will take place next quarter. • Offence classification and categorisation as per the latest published 'Offence group classification' available at the following link (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterlydecember-2020).
• All Not Guilty pleas under SJP are regarded as going to trial. • The defendant counts supplied are sourced from the same underlying administrative system as the case counts, however they are distinct extracts taken at different points in time and as such caution should be taken when comparing absolute volumes across the series. • The defendant counts form the basis of the published criminal court statistics timeliness measures released by the Ministry of Justice. The overall counts may differ from HMCTS caseloads due to the validation which is applied to this data stream, e.g. defendants removed from underlying counts where timeliness validation checks are failed such as blank dates or dates out of logical sequence. • Published criminal court outcomes statistics released as part of the Criminal Justice Statistics bulletin series does not allow for the separate identification of Single Justice Procedure cases. As such it is not possible to produce statistics which detail the volume of acquittals for SJP cases/defendants dealt with. Also, regarding Question (11), as at May 2021 HMCTS had 12333 adult magistrates. As a matter of practice, newly appointed magistrates are not allocated until they have passed heir appraisal (threshold appraisal). This takes approximately one year and so not all of these may be finally allocated at the date of writing this letter. HMCTS management information systems do not hold data specifically regarding the number of Magistrates within their first year and the FOIA does not oblige a public authority to create information to answer a request if the requested information is not held. The duty is to only provide the recorded information held.
Regarding Question (12), I can confirm that SJP is regarded as functioning at all Magistrates Courts in England and Wales. However, the information requested is exempt from disclosure under FOIA Section 21 because it is reasonably accessible to you. The information can be accessed via the following links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_courts_in_England_and_Wales and https://www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal
For guidance on how to structure successful requests please refer to the ICO website on the following link: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/pdfs/uksi_20043244_en.pdf
Appeal Rights If you are not satisfied with this response you have the right to request an internal review by responding in writing to one of the addresses below within two months of the date of this response. data.access@justice.gov.uk
Disclosure Team, Ministry of Justice You do have the right to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning their investigation.
Yours sincerely (on behalf of MoJ),
On the topic of equality before the law the situation is becoming very clear that that supposed fundamental is now but a historic myth. Over the last few months the attitude to public disorder by police is either confused or deliberately slanted so that some miscreants are more liable than others to be arrested many for s.5 offending. As an example "speedy justice" was applied to those found guilty after the riots following the Southport murders. In addition they were punished in many cases at the upper end of the scale whilst offending non violent keyboard behaviour in some cases was more harshly treated than many observers considered it was warranted.
A highly publicised case of the MP who assaulted a constituent in the early hours is interesting. His sentence of immediate custody was appealed and subsequently suspended for two years. Surely for a person in his position the sentence should have increased on a similar basis to that of another offender whose personal circumstances and/or status are used to seek to minimise the sentence; eg the doctor on call who succeeds with "exceptional hardship" to reduce a driving ban or the father with extensive caring responsibilities whose custodial sentence over Christmas is suspended. A person in a highly responsible position with all the trappings of a good life should not be molly coddled.
Immigration is a huge topic in the western world. When our legal system seems to be operating in woke mode that perception rightly or wrongly can often speak louder than any pacifying statements from government. Below is a story from Today`s Times. It wasn`t the first of its type and most certainly not the last.
The criminal justice system might be beyond repair. With current developments demanding that circumstances unforeseen even a month ago necessitate budgetary rethinking it would take a brave [or foolhardy] observer to have much confidence in court waiting times to improve to any great extent although if some police forces continue to ignore requests for neighbourhood crimes to be investigated running to stand still might be an accurate description for the Ministration Of Justice.
It`s unlikely that more than perhaps a few fanatics would argue that Christianity in England is anything other than a religion. Of course that observation would be ridiculed if it were applied to Ireland north and the republic of, Germany where the Christian Democratic Union of Germany has become the largest party after the weekend`s general election. I suppose The European Christian Political Movement is a European political party exclusively working on promoting Christian values and of course evangelical Christians are a major source of support for both Democrats and Republicans in America. The 2021 United Kingdom census recorded an irreligious population of 25.3 million or 37.8% in England. But rarely a month goes by without a report of some woke tribunal, organisation or employer becoming newsworthy by virtue of its decisions on whether certain actions inspired by religious belief are lawful or not.
The case of Kristie Higgs, a Christian school worker who was sacked for sharing posts criticising LGBT+ teaching, reached its finale earlier this month. Anti abortion campaigners are treading a thin line. One such stalwart having been twice arrested for praying silently near an abortion clinic has successfully sued police for wrongful arrest. Although apparently inspired by their religious beliefs those cases were not political in the common sense understanding of that word: connected with the state, government or public affairs although there is an argument that every action of a government connects the individual to the state.
However since October 7th 2023 many bets are off or [to use betting companies` terms] have been politically laid off when the political affiliations of workers combined with religious fervour directly intimidate customers, fellow workers or the public in general. The wearing of badges supporting those in Gaza and blatantly the ruling terrorist organisation which is in power and/or wearing similar such indications whether in the workplace or on the streets during supposed political demonstrations has crystallised the legal nomansland where religious freedom and real manifestations of hate crime collide; not the hotch potch of police defined "non hate crime". The Guardian which is probably the most woke mass media publication in the country has a long report on such a case here.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offense to cause harassment, alarm, or distress by using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior. It can also include displaying threatening, abusive, or insulting writing or signs.
Penalties
The maximum penalty for summary conviction is six months in prison, an unlimited fine, or both
Racially or religiously aggravated Section 5 is a non-imprisonable offense with a maximum penalty of a level 4 fine
Defenses
A defense may be available if the accused can show that they had no reason to believe that someone would be harassed, alarmed, or distressed
Reform
In 2013, the government agreed to reform Section 5 to protect free speech.The Christian Institute led a campaign to remove the word "insulting" from the act
Public Order Offences incorporating the Charging Standard
8 Aug 2022 — The maximum penalty on summary conviction is six months' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both.
Last month in a little reported case at the High Court an appeal by a Christian preacher against his conviction under that very Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for causing “harassment, alarm and distress" was refused.
I can remember when most law abiding folk would find few matters supported by Liberty {founded in 1934} to be against their own consciences or a natural view of what is right and what is wrong. All that has changed. The first protests against Israel soon after October 7th [New York] and London October 8th have shown what thin line the authorities are on when religion opposes politics and vice versa. The Met Police have revealed that the first request for a national demonstration against Israel came on October 7 2023 at 12:50pm – just hours after the Hamas attack began and before any retaliation by IDF. There is a strong body of opinion that there has developed in this country "two tier" policing brought about by a perceived difference between dealing with Muslim suspected criminality and the rest the former being treated with kid gloves for fear of religious sensitivity and historical revelations of child abuse tolerated or ignored when Muslims are involved. As a result Muslim organisations, many based on the ethos of the Muslim Brotherhood [banned in Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim countries], are lobbying for a blasphemy law to prevent not just criticism of Islamic practices but of Muslims per se. This has met with some sympathy in Whitehall.
Government and its servants could be described as trying to ride two horses at once. Dr Doolittle perhaps had it more accurately in the description of the pushmepullme. Indeed currently the Ministry of Justice has recently endorsed the increase of magistrates` courts powers from six months immediate custody to twelve whilst simultaneously a government commissioned independent review concluded that short custodial sentences be abolished.
Government is about choices and politics is about how best to make those choices. In so many ways our current masters are swimming in a sea of treacle trying to make headway eyes closed guided by the loudest voices trying to assist them.
I would suggest that most readers are aware of Donald Trump`s war on woke. I make no apology for my own opinion on such actions as not before time. I would also suggest that historically this country tends to follow the social trends in USA albeit with a year or three`s delay.
Of all government departments the Ministry of Justice is perhaps the most sensitive to being on the right side of those "progressive thinkers" who fight against any relaxation of Diversity Equality and Inclusion. As surely as J K Rowling rails against the concept of trans women with penises being real women the MOJ seeks to be whiter than white [to coin a phrase] in its pursuit of the ephemeral. As far as the magistracy is concerned the watchword is local justice for local people by local magistrates. In real terms what does this mantra mean and what are its contradictions?
In real world no nonsense terms perhaps an extract from a recent Freedom of Information Request which elicited the following says it all:-
"Between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023, 8 Muslims were appointed to the magistracy. Between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024, 71 Muslims were appointed to the magistracy."
The table below is self explanatory if a magnifier virtual or actual is available.
Ethnicity of the professional judiciary is below.
Does the ratio of the ethnicity of District Judges cf magistrates affect outcomes? I would venture to suggest it does not. The appointment of District Judges or more senior judiciary does not for obvious reasons have being local as a requirement and nobody in his/her right mind would suggest otherwise.
In recent months social media posts of some MPs have elicited for those concerned some unpalatable information. Within some supervisory bodies subsequent to serious crimes a similar tale of indiscretion or worse has been revealed to an astonished public. From time to time magisterial indiscretions of one form or another have been posted here. Terrorist supporting registered medical personnel working in the NHS have been exposed on "X" yet magistrates`or applicants` on line histories are not part of any vetting such vetting as it is of candidates to the magistracy being carried out by the Disclosure and Barring Service. Other than that the MOJ does not carry out any further checks except receiving references.Even theDeputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram CBE was issued with a formal warning for misconduct for his perceived support of a terrorist organisation. To quote the JCIO "On 14 February, an article appeared in The Times stating that Judge
Ikram had “liked” a post by a barrister on LinkedIn, which read:
“Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist both in the United
Kingdom, the United States and of course Israel, you can run, you can
bomb but you cannot hide – justice will be coming for you.”
How can the public be certain others similar might effectively be judge, juror and sentencer sitting as a lay magistrate. The Reform Party in particular is using immigration legal and illegal and particularly the number of Islamic immigrants as an electoral hand grenade blowing apart the official sentiments and incoherence of other parties on the subject. Aside from factual information the following is advice for applicants to the magistracy:-
"Character questions. These include providing details of any Fixed Penalty Notice, past or present convictions/cautions/motor offences/bankruptcy proceedings. Has a spouse, partner, close family member or close friend received convictions or cautions which could affect your application to become a magistrate? Is there anything else in your private or working life, past or present, which could damage your credibility as a magistrate if it became known to the public?"
The last sentence is interesting. Would a Muslim candidate eg admit to being a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood; a banned organisation in many Muslim countries but not in the UK? With five MPs elected in July apparently behaving as if they are the MPs for the Gaza constituency and consequently being publicly reprimanded or reminded who their voters are how can the MOJ be confident that there is not another political scandal brewing if or when politics interferes with the legal process in magistrates courts?
From the MOJ some additional facts:-
13. Magistrates in Post
In comparison to judges, a higher proportion of magistrates are female, or from an ethnic minority background.
Sex
Of the 14,576 magistrates in post across England and Wales as at 1
April 2024, 57% were female (five percentage points higher than in
2014). There was no strong variation amongst the regions, ranging from
54% to 61% (Figure 46).
Figure 46: Proportion of female magistrates by region, 1 April 2024
Ethnicity
As at 1 April 2024, ethnic minority individuals together constituted
13% of all magistrates (a five percentage-point increase from 2014 when
8% declared themselves as from an ethnic minority). More specifically
for each ethnic minority group[footnote 46]:
Asian or Asian British individuals constituted 7% of magistrates.
Black or black British individuals constituted 4% of magistrates.
Mixed ethnicity individuals constituted 2% of magistrates.
Individuals from other ethnicities constituted 1% of magistrates.
These proportions showed some variation at a regional level, where
London had at least double the proportion of Asian individuals compared
to all but one of the regions, and at least treble the proportion of
black individuals compared to all other regions (Figure 47).
Figure 47: Proportion of magistrates from each ethnic minority group by region, 1 April 2024
Intersection of Sex and Ethnicity
Table 3.7 shows that just under half (49%) of all magistrates as at 1
April 2024 were white and female. This was followed by the white male
group with 38%, and then the ethnic minority female and ethnic minority
male groups (8% and 5% respectively).
Age
Magistrates tended to be older than judges on average, with 81% of those in post being 50 and over.
13.1 Magistrates - leavers and new entrants
The proportion of magistrates that left during 2023/24 who were
female (55%) or of an ethnic minority background (13%) were both
slightly lower than the equivalent proportion of new entrants in
2023/24, at 58% and 15% respectively.
14. Magistrates Recruitment
On 17 January 2022, an updated magistrates’ recruitment process was
launched. This update introduced a new applicant tracking system (ATS)
which collects information on magistrate recruitment across England and
Wales and includes more diversity data on applicants and recommendations
for appointment to the magistracy.
This is the second year for which ATS magistrates’ recruitment data is being published[footnote 47].
Figures are now shown on the number of appointments of magistrates,
rather than recommendations, with updated figures for 2022/23 given in
Table 3.8a.
Beginning with this year’s report, figures are shown for the number
of applications concluded on the ATS, made up of those not shortlisted,
not appointed and appointed during the year. These will be in contrast
to and not comparable with the number of applications started in the
year.
The proportions of female individuals and ethnic minority
individuals appointed to the magistracy are comparable to those already
in post.
14.1 Applications
Table 3.8b shows that during 2023-24, there were 4,025 applications made to become a magistrate[footnote 48].
Sex
More than half (55%) of all magistrate applications submitted in
2023-24 were from female individuals, comparable to the 57% of
magistrates already in post. There is some variation by region where
the proportion of female candidates for the South East and South West
are each below 50% (Figure 48).
Figure 48: Proportion of female magistrate applications submitted in 2023-24, by region
Ethnicity
In total, ethnic minority individuals constituted about 30% of all
magistrate applications submitted in 2023-24, more than twice as high as
the 13% of magistrates in post[footnote 49].
A wide variation in the proportion of ethnic minority applicants is
seen at the regional level (Figure 49), from 9% in the South West and
Wales to 51% in London. More specifically:
Asian or Asian British individuals constituted 16% of applications.
Black or Black British individuals constituted 9% of applications.
Mixed ethnicity individuals constituted 4% of applications.
Individuals from other ethnicity backgrounds constituted 2% of applications.
Figure 49: Representation of ethnic minorities among magistrate applications submitted in 2023-24, by region
Age
On average, those who applied to the magistracy in 2023-24 were
younger than magistrates currently in post. 53% of magistrate
applications were from candidates aged 50 or over, compared to 81% of
magistrates in post.
Table 3.8b shows that during 2023/24, 2,008 appointments to the magistracy were made in England and Wales[footnote 51].
Sex
Female individuals represented 58% of all magistrate appointments
made in 2023-24. The female proportion of appointments by region ranged
from 49% in the North West to 67% in London (Figure 50).
Figure 50: Proportion of female magistrate appointments made in 2023-24, by region
Ethnicity
In total, ethnic minority individuals constituted 16% of all magistrate appointments made in 2023-24. More specifically:
Asian or Asian British individuals constituted 7% of recommendations.
Black or black British individuals constituted 5% of recommendations.
Mixed ethnicity individuals constituted 3% of recommendations.
Individuals from other ethnicity backgrounds constituted 1% of recommendations.
By region, the proportion of those appointed who were from an ethnic
minority background ranged from 8% for the South West and Wales, to 36%
for London (Figure 51).
Figure 51: Representation of ethnic minorities among magistrate appointments made in 2023-24, by region
Age
Of all the magistrates appointed in 2023-24, 59% of them were aged 50 or over.
Do we have confidence that the quality of appointees will be assured? Can we be certain that an emphasis on diversity inclusion and equality will not be detrimental to that quality?
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has been a topic here on more than one occasion. It oversees all quangos and government bodies authorised and controlled by the Ministry of Justice. Rarely are the professional judiciary the subject of disclosure within this authority although from time to time District Judges and tribunal members or coroners are called to account. Generally their failings have been on a procedural level rather than on the personal. More senior judiciary rarely appear on this site. Perhaps that is because they are so well trained and ensconced in their profession that personal or procedural errors are as rare as hens` teeth. There is of course a nagging doubt that within the elevated investigative process of possible misdemeanours of senior judiciary a behind closed doors form of retribution is involved. Be that as it may for 14,576 Justices of the Peace the buck stops at the JCIO recent decisions of which might lead to some raised eyebrows at its scope and consistency.
The sanctions available to the JCIO are as follows:-
Take the case of Nargis Alsadiq. There seems to be an unexplained delay in her being thrown out of the magistracy. Such paucity of reporting can lead to wild speculation. Was she being protected by those around her? We, the general public, will never know. How long had she been sitting in judgement on her fellow citizens? We are not privy to such knowledge. Was her earlier judicial performance trustworthy? We will never know.
Mr Joseph Lindo ex JP had also failed to meet the minimum number of sittings required. From my own and colleagues` experiences the onerous [to some] time commitments necessary to meet a minimum level of the hurdles placed before aspiring JPs can hope for selection should have been at the forefront of the appointment committee. He too has been dismissed.
I find it difficult not to have some sympathy for Daniel Barker JP. Having been in a similar situation myself with a colleague assigned [headmistress by profession] to appraise me as a winger and whose manner was overbearing and condescending I cannot but be mindful that the report is but a summary. Were his colleagues approached by him or the investigator? We`ll never know.
The report on Valerie Humphrey tells us nothing of her history. Once again the most common cause for removal is non fulfilment of minimum sittings.
A formal warning of misconduct was the sanction employed against Jonathan Dannatt JP. Some might consider he got off lightly.
Formal advice for misconduct was then result of multiple occasions of social media activity by Kirk Master JP. According to the report he "confirmed that he did not refer to his judicial status in any of the posts". Some might query the less severe outcome for him cf MMr Dannatt above.
Ms Justine Dyson JP lives to sit again another day. Does her receiving a light tap on her knuckles square with others? There are many investigators and decisions on different cases are not comparable or sometimes compatible.
Finally today Mr Edwin Hastings-Smith JP is able to continue offering suitable announcements and/or pronouncements from the middle chair. It seems inconceivable but obviously wasn`t for a presiding magistrate to allow his tongue to run wild as his did.
Generally 15-20 magistrates are removed annually from the bench. The above is just a recent sample. But some decisions leave this observer just a little bewildered. Inconsistency seems inevitable. Anonymity is the order of the day for those sitting in judgement. Are thresholds varied according to the rank of those under investigation? For presiding magistrates it seems obvious to me at least that a missing sanction could be demotion to status as winger for a fixed period. Similar results for misdeeds are common in other professions. But then the Ministry of Justice thrives on the virus of secrecy which is transmitted to so many supervisory bodies in this country as we are well aware. Secret processes, secret processors, secret decision making in so many aspects of our society are gradually being exposed to a public previously kept in the dark until an awful calamity is revealed having happened as a direct result of that secrecy. Certainly innocent people won`t be murdered, die unnecessarily, be unjustly imprisoned or be aggrieved by magistrates failing to live up to the rules they have accepted on appointment. Sometimes the greater the emphasis or wordiness on or within a judicial or quasi judicial process is inversely proportional to the common sense required for that process to be based on simple logic and/or fairness. The arguably arbitrary judgements of the JCIO are symbolic of much that could be improved in many aspects of the decisions made by those who rule over our daily lives as citizens.
There was a popular TV programme some years ago about looking through the keyhole. Perhaps the JCIO needs examination under a legal microscope.
Failings of many public bodies have been filling air waves of broadcasting, pages of print and gigabytes of digital media for years. I would surmise that these failings have increased greatly this millenium although that opinion is possibly to have originated from whistleblowers and investigative journalists less likely to have been intimated by the authorities than in previous years. Indeed just last week Sir Julian Hartley the newly appointed chief executive of the Care Quality Commission admitted that the public could no longer trust safety ratings when choosing a care home for elderly relatives. The point I have posited previously is whether the failure of such bodies should be blamed upon the ineptitude of those who appoint the overseers.
When it comes to the constitution of magistrates courts about 10% of criminal cases are presided over by a professional District Judge the remainder by a bench of three Justices of the Peace. At the turn of the millenium there were about 300 courts, 30,000 magistrates and about 100 District Judges [MC]. Currently there are 150 magistrates courts and 14,576 magistrates an increase of 2,907 since the start of the Magistrate Attraction and Recruitment Campaign in January 2022 which is thought to have cost up to £2 million. Of the increase in numbers, 786 were re-appointments following changes to the Mandatory Retirement Age. There are around 300 District Judges a limited number of whom can earn up to £180,00 p/a although an average is £143,000. In 2023 District Judges and their deputies sat on 17.56% of cases at magistrates courts.
Lord Justice Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts {2001} indicated that that there could be a marginal reduction in costs if magistrates were superseded by DJs such margins increasing if legal advisors were also dismissed. Similar soundings are currently being undertaken at Petty France. But for the present, in 2023 there were 1.37 million cases undertaken at magistrates courts and at 30/9/2024 there were 327,228 cases outstanding. Since 18th November last year magistrates have had the power to sentence up to 12 months custody for a single offence. With such an onerous responsibility how can we be certain that those on the bench are competent for the task? During my 17 years on that bench, the majority as a presiding magistrate, I was appraised twice; once as a winger during a sitting by a presiding magistrate colleague of my own bench and once from the well of the court by a presiding magistrate from another bench as I was active in the middle chair for a full sitting. There was another occasion when three well dressed middle aged men sitting at the back of the court over which I was presiding spent a whole sitting taking copious notes the whole time. Who they were or for what purpose I knew not then and am non the wiser now.
For the Judicial College Activities Report Summary of expenditure 2022-2023 £19 million was the total allocated for judicial training. There is not a single sentence on what was allocated to the continuous training of magistrates. Current figures are unavailable but ten years ago a Freedom of Information request provided the following:-
I would like to know:
1)how much was spent on the training of lay magistrates by a) the Judicial College and b) HMCTS (nationally or locally) in 2014/15
2)and the annual cost of training for District Judges and Deputy District Judges (both magistrates' courts) for the same year.
Answers
Question 1(a)
I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for and this is provided as follows:
Training Development Committee£22,700
Bench Chairmanship Course£37,540
Family Panel Chairmanship £4,500
Magistrates Association Grant (for joint training projects)£10,000
TOTAL£74,740
Question 1(b)
The Judicial College does not hold information that you have asked for as it belongs to HMCTS. Each Magistrates’ Area Training Committee (MATC) is asked to produce an annual training plan and agree funding with its local HMCTS delivery director.
Each MATC is required to provide a range of information on an annual basis to show what training it delivered during the year, and how much money was spent. So, I can advise you on a discretionary basis and outside the scope of the FOIA that from the reports that each MATC is required to provide, there is a collated figure of £632,201 for the period 2014/15. Unfortunately, one MATC did not advise the actual figure spent on training but has since confirmed it was within its budget of £43,921. This figure was included in the collated figure instead which means the total is not exact but very close.
Question 2
I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for. It is not possible to fully separate the budget figures between the DJ(MC)s and their deputies as some continuation training events are attended jointly. Where it is possible to show separation it has been done.
Deputy District Judges£28,000
District Judges & Deputies (joint)£122,000
Total £150,000
A 2019 parliamentary report of the House of Commons Justice Committee highlighted the fact that there was inadequate funding of continuing training for magistrates. It is highly unlikely that that situation has improved.
The question now is for how much longer can this country continue to appoint lay magistrates whose competence cannot be assured when financially professional judges sitting without the need for legal advisors are possibly cheaper. The idea often heralded by senior judiciary and their masters in government is that local justice for local people is a time honoured tradition which works well, so why change it. It might have worked well when towns and villages were often isolated owing to the insularity of 19th century England, the limitations of local assizes and the limited jurisdiction of itinerant judges. Entering the second quarter of the 21st century with pounds and pence being counted even more assiduously by the necessarily most parsimonious government since 2010 it would not take much financial persuasion if the government were to effect yet another U turn on magistrates by restricting their court powers and relegating them to back up District Judges as JP wingers do for Crown Court Judges at appeals against the lowers courts` verdicts or sentences.
Recruitment rates for the magistracy are published in the annual Judicial Diversity Statistics, found here. As of 01 April 2024, there were 14,576 active magistrates in England and Wales,
an increase of 2,907 since the start of the Magistrate Attraction and
Recruitment Campaign in January 2022. Of these, 786 were re-appointments
following changes to the Mandatory Retirement Age. The next set of
statistics for the period April 2024 to March 2025 will be published in
July 2025.
Almost two years ago the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police warned all who cared to listen that there would be monthly improvements in the Met`s handling of misconduct cases. It seems that unsurprisingly there has been kick back an example of which is the case of Sergeant Lino Di Maria. It seems there is hardly a supervisory body in this country which has not been shown to be unable or unwilling to fulfil its prime function in ensuring that those where there is a responsibility to expose for misconduct or failure are actually punished. The media generally are interested in the mackerels and not the spratts. However it is within the "spratt" communities from architects to zoologists that the noses of misconduct sniff the possibilities of evading professional restrictions for devious purposes.
There were many arbitrary decisions made by public bodies during the pandemic that passed by most observers but this decision re Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council’s refusal to renew the licenses of six taxi drivers during the Covid-19 pandemic does seem to be inconsistent. It is extremely unlikely that the matter will be taken any further owing to the high costs which would be required. The eight year old age restriction of taxis does not appear to be founded on inspection. And to quote the report, "But Mr Justice Linden suggested that the district judge’s ruling could logically mean that “anyone who was able to show that they could not afford a new vehicle could argue for an exception” and warned this could “risk inconsistent decision making and thereby undermine the policy of the council.” It hardly needs pointing out but who is to say that "the policy of the council" does not need some undermining.
Yet again a criminal behaviour order [CBO] has been reported in local press media. They can be obtained against anyone over the age of 10. For a CBO the threshold is that the person has engaged or is likely to engage in behaviour that is almost certain to cause harassment, alarm or distress and that the CBO will help in preventing it. They are one half of the regime introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to replace the perhaps better-known ASBOs when those orders were abolished in England and Wales. The other half of the regime is the civil injunction. They are issued on the civil standard of proof: i.e. more likely than not as distinct from the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt or sure. They are effectively displacement orders about which I have railed for years. Indeed I sat on the very first case ever brought. We rejected that application as it had not been presented according to the legal requirements. The MOJ is reticent on numbers requested or applied but figures showed that in 2016 932 CBOs were issued following conviction, an increase of 35% on the previous year. Subsequent attempts to seek current numbers were refused under Freedom of Information Act cost restrictions.
In an age when increasingly service of important documents by mail is unavailable and e mail is the single method employed it is refreshing to know that landlords can legally send essential tenancy documents in the post. Whether this decision at the Appeal Court will be known by many tenants and landlords remains to be seen as will the argument of non receipt, lost in the post be acceptable cause for action or inaction.
And final snippet today is the duly and patiently awaited result of an application that the judges involved in the sad case of Sarah Sharif are to be identified. The original decision of anonymity has been castigated here and in many places where much higher levels of legal brain power have been applied. There are so many aspects of our legal, quasi legal systems and organisations whose workings are held to be not suitable for public knowledge that any dictator would relish as a wonderful base on which to control this country. With political extremes likely to be every day conversation in 2029 this is a timely reminder as in the Metropolitan Police that when in doubt let secrets out.
I assume by now that my reader has watched or read at least some of the goings on yesterday in Washington DC. Today on the news I watched our prime minister in typical lawyerly tones admit that there was much amiss with the process of investigation and outcomes of the failure to predict the intent of the killer of those three children in Southport and his other crimes on that awful day. The presentation was flat and very boring in comparison with the re-elected POTUS #47. I asked myself , "does presentation or rhetorical ability matter?" "Does it have any bearing on our voting intentions or implications for our democratic systems?" In my humble opinion the answer must be in the affirmative. The follow up therefore could be does such an ability signify competence for the chosen job; namely as a democratically elected person to further his/her political intentions and the answer to that must surely be in the negative.
There are amongst those who are all too ready to believe what to most are outlandish theories covering many walks of life. In broad terms their refusal to face fact is based on a lack of transparency from the authorities or personnel associated with the matter in question. So it could be posited that the flames of conspiracy theories are fanned by the very people who are trying to negate those who in our tech age can spread their rivers of poison to an ocean of those whose political or psychological make up renders them susceptible to all manner of mumbo jumbo. Nowhere is this more true than in the justice system because when there appears to have been drawn a curtain over some legal or illegal process additional crumbling of that pillar of our democracy takes place whether it is further shunning of local elections and/or political vacuum filling by rabble rousers. The case of Mr Justice Williams and his banning of the publication of the identity of a fellow judge and the names of those involved in the aforementioned apparent incompetence pre the Southport murders must be considered to have left a gap in the minds of some who are all too willing to fit their own theories to the known facts. A well reasoned article can be accessed here.
Perhaps the most ridiculous belief for a diminishing coterie of the unhinged is the "flat earther" There are still those who do really believe the Earth is flat. The reality of such unscientific nonsense is not confined to our age of instant information true or false; it was demonstrated in January 1875 at the trial at the Essex Assizes. A little light hearted relief might be of interest.
Belief in the outlandish is perhaps part of the human condition. There is no doubt that Aristotle was and is a towering figure amongst the billions who have lived in the last two millennia. But it took a practical man of science, Leonardo, to lay the foundations of inter alia engineering, anatomy and perspective in art to push aside theory for experiment to form the basis of much of our understanding of the modern world.
Often it`s been said that what happens in America happens in Britain a short time later. Are we on a timeline which validates such an observation? Those who seek unjustifiably to prevent public knowledge of the many drivers and levers, controls and artifices which determine the structure of our society are themselves the propagandists and initiators of those who would undermine them like the person in his ignorance on a tree branch trying to get down by sawing away the very item which is keeping him alive. Is the re-election of Donald Trump a rallying cry for reform within our society or a warning of what`s ahead?
