DESCENT INTO AUTHORITARIANISM: AN EARLY WARNING

This post is about taking control.  I posted on 14th June 2018 that the MOJ were seeking to appoint a team of "leadership magistrates". I posted on  23rd July 2018 that the identities of those magistrates named above who had been appointed had been kept secret. Shortly after that July post and ministerial procrastination their names were published.  Around the same time the lobbying organisation Transform Justice had made similar comments about the secrecy with which these people had been appointed and the  iniquity of their identities being withheld. And now finally under the camouflage of these government lackeys we have, this week,  the future of the magistracy laid out before us by the Lord Chief Justice.  For ease of use I have copied the document below although the format has had to  be altered. The highlights are mine. 

 Foreword by the 
Lord Chief Justice


The Magistracy is at the core of the judicial system. It has 
been at the forefront of the delivery of justice across England 
and Wales for over 650 years. In 2018, I approved changes to 
the leadership structure and governance of the Magistracy. 
These changes brought its administrative structure into closer 
alignment with the rest of the Judiciary, and began the process 
of embedding the magistracy firmly within the judicial family.

The key purpose of the Magistrates Leadership Executive 
(MLE) is to support the governance of magistrates’ courts and represent the interests of the magistracy. Its initial task was to develop the first national strategy for the Magistracy. This strategy builds upon the governance structures and continues to develop the senior judiciarys plans for establishing and securing the future of the magistracy. I commend the MLE who led the development of this strategy. Working collaboratively with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), Ministry of Justice (MOJ), Judicial College, Magistrates` Association and involving local leadership magistrates, they have sought to consolidate the position and future of the magistracy with six key priorities. These priorities also reflect the evidence and recommendations of the House of Commons Justice Select Committee Reports on the Role of the Magistracy.

I endorse this national strategy and MLE`s responsibility to support my office and that of the Senior Presiding Judge in the development, leadership, management and support of the Magistracy of England and Wales.



Introduction

Magistrates are responsible for making decisions that significantly affect the lives of the people of England and Wales. It is essential we ensure the magistracy is committed, competent, consistent, and confident in dispensing justice 

The public has the right to expect that magistrates will: 

• be selected against rigorous criteria
• make competent independent judicial decisions in a structured and objective way
• be well trained and supported
• take personal responsibility for ongoing development via peer appraisal
• seek, receive and act on regular feedback, including peer appraisal


This document sets out key objectives that will ensure all the above is achieved.



Strategic themes

Communication

Communication for magistrates will be consistent, clear and purposeful

The magistracy is a diverse community and their engagement and communication needs will vary. The role of the magistrate is an extremely responsible one as it is part of the judicial family upholding the rule of law. It is essential that all magistrates have access to timely, relevant and clearly expressed communications, to engage and carry out their judicial role effectively.

Objectives:

1. E-judiciary email addresses will be used when communicating with magistrates.
2. The engagement of magistrates will be maintained via a structure of regular and relevant communications which avoid duplication.
3. The National Leadership Magistrate will keep magistrates updated through regular newsletters.
4. Magistrates will have access to a digital store of information via e- judiciary and will take responsibility for complying with judicial security IT guidance.
5. Leadership Magistrates will explore and trial the use of social media for positive networking opportunities.




Organisation

The magistracy will operate with clear committed governance and appropriate support Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service manage administration of the justice system through seven regions, including Wales. The magistracy operates through local justice areas as defined by statute. In February 2018, new arrangements were laid down by the Lord Chief Justice for the governance of magistrates` courts business. In October 2018, a new Magistrates Leadership Executive was established.

Objectives:

1. Work towards realising the framework for a single bench for the magistracy, with adequate safeguards and conditions to protect magistrates’ identity and sense of belonging within a local leadership structure.
2. Maintain and develop the relationship between Leadership Judges, Regional Leadership Magistrates, Bench chairs and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service on matters relating to the management and organisation of magistrates’ courts business, facilities and performance, reflecting the need of the Family Court where appropriate.
3. Leadership Magistrates and Bench chairs will be properly supported to fulfil their roles as judicial leaders.
4. Enhance the structure and relationship between the magistrates sitting in the criminal and family courts.
5. Work with the Judicial Office, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice to monitor the impact of reform and how the magistracy will progress and change in the future. Monitor how that will be effectively communicated and understood by magistrates and ensure they are properly prepared and supported for any changes.
6. Clarify and communicate the respective roles of the Magistrates Leadership Executive and Magistrates Association at political, national and regional levels. They will work together for the successful future of the magistracy.
7. Magistrates will work in a mutually respectful and supportive environment where unnecessary bureaucracy is removed.




Profile

The magistracy will continue to have a strong foundation within the judicial family and its profile will be promoted with confidence

The office of Justice of the Peace has existed since 1361 and holds a unique position within the judicial family. The magistracy represents the largest group of judicial office holders – yet there is limited public understanding about its role.

Objectives:

1. Magistrates will develop and maintain close and regular relationships with the senior judiciary as appropriate at national level (Lord Chief Justice, Senior Presiding Judge, President of the Family Division, Deputy Senior Presiding Judge), regional level (Presiding Judges) and local level (Resident, Circuit and Designated Family Judges).
2. Magistrates will discuss with the senior judiciary matters of mutual relevance, such as community events and the use of social media.
3. Promote the profile of the magistracy to the general public to ensure it is understood and respected, and will make sure that all communities are engaged.
4. Magistrates Leadership Executive will develop appropriate relationships with the media (including television, radio, newspapers and the social media) as appropriate. This will be managed in conjunction with the Judicial Press Office and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service communications teams.
5. Agreement from Ministry of Justice will be sought to establish a national steering group, develop and promote the national profile of the magistracy across England and Wales and thereby aid recruitment, increase diversity and assist advisory committees.




Recruitment

A comprehensive and sustainable plan for recruitment will be created, to increase the number and diversity of applicants, while maintaining high standards of competence

There is a shortage of magistrates and over 50% will reach retirement age within the next 10 years. Judicial Appointments Commission does not have responsibility for the recruitment of the magistracy. This responsibility lies with the 23 non- departmental public bodies known as recruitment advisory committees.

Objectives:

1. An effective judicial deployment protocol will be developed that provides a clear forecast of recruitment needs for at least three years ahead.
2. Regional and Bench leadership teams will support the induction of new magistrates.
3. Magistrates will be able to help promote recruitment campaigns, including direction to the digital recruitment pages.
4. Magistrates will share ideas to support attraction to the role and increase the diversity of new applicants.
5. Bench chairs will encourage exit interviews for all colleagues upon leaving the magistracy to ascertain aspects of the role that may impact upon retention rates.
6. Agreement from Ministry of Justice will be sought to establish a national steering group, develop and promote a national profile for the magistracy across England and Wales and thereby aid recruitment, increase diversity and assist advisory committees.




Training and competence

Magistrates will be trained to ensure they are confident and competent to perform their judicial roles to a high standard

The Lord Chief Justice has statutory responsibility for magistrates training which is delegated to the Judicial College. The Judicial College through its sub-committees, identifies national training needs and incorporates these into the minimum provision of training agreement with Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service. Training, Approvals, Authorisations and Appraisals Committees are obliged to take into account the agreement and have responsibility for identifying magistrates 
training needs and developing a plan to meet them. Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service funds magistrates’ training.

Objectives:

1. Support magistrates to be responsible for their own competence, personal development and preparation for appraisal.
2. Promote available training resources and materials across the Magistracy.
3. The Training Approval Authorisation and Appraisal Committees role in respect of training and appraisal will be strengthened and the communication links with Training Approval Authorisation and Appraisal Committees and Judicial College will be enhanced to ensure the needs of the magistracy will be met.
4. Communication links between Judicial Business Groups, Training Approval Authorisation and Appraisal Committees and the Judicial College will be enhanced, underpinning the Judicial Business Groups’ role in respect of training.
5. The professional accreditation of magistrates’ training and development will be investigated and considered.
6. IT training for magistrates will be included in the minimum provision agreement for all new magistrates and refresher training in line with the guarantee of the Lord Chief Justice and Senior Presiding Judge.
7. Opportunities will be developed, with the agreement of the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate), to share the experience and skills of the District Bench with the magistracy.
8. Different methods of delivery will continue be explored.
9. A review of the minimum training requirement for the magistracy to facilitate an identified development pathway will be requested.




Judicial Development Pathway

Magistrates will be encouraged and supported to be committed to their roles and 
expand their involvement within the magistracy

When magistrates first join the bench, they do so as a winger in the adult or family court. While some will continue solely in this role, there are a range of opportunities available within in the magistracy.

These include:

• sitting in other jurisdictions
• becoming a Presiding Justice, a mentor, an appraiser, a youth panel member, (deputy) Bench or panel chair
• contributing to committees such as Training Approval Authorisation and Appraisal 
Committees or advisory committees


Objectives:

1. Encourage and support magistrates to take on these additional roles.
2. Vacancies to be advertised transparently and through appropriate channels, with a clear statement of the role, and the skills and experience required and sufficient time for all potential candidates to apply.
3. Appropriate (and where possible accredited) training to be provided for all magistrates, including those taking on additional roles, to enable them to carry out their role effectively.
4. Produce an analysis of the transferable skills gained from carrying out each role so that potential candidates and any employer can see how they would benefit.
5. Explore ways to recognise the contribution made by magistrates, including those who take on additional roles.

I would assume that some whether JPs or not would find nothing unreasonable in most[much] of the above. However the basis of my lack of approbation is the self declared intention of central government to take over each and every stage of the system. There are certainly some aspects of recruitment and training and observations of just what conduct is considered unacceptable for what is a cadre of ordinary citizens leading dual lives that requires deep thought and perhaps revision. But in general this document is just the latest step in a long term desire to ensure the magistrates courts are under full government control and that means controlling individual magistrates. I have highlighted in yellow the number of times reference is made to "leadership magistrates. These people are totally beholden to those who appointed them.  They are in place to further the purpose of the MOJ. I doubt they will have regard to the lack of respect afforded them by their more experienced colleagues but then they are on their way out.  All those newly to be appointed to the bench will have no knowledge and little interest in the history of the last two decades of the magistracy.  Thus they will be more easily led; a task which the Magistrates Association has failed miserably owing to its senior officers over that period being more interested in the  gongs and bling awarded for being lap dogs kowtowing to their masters. This is its reward with references to it in a single instance. The Bench Chairmens` Forum was the only national organisation that could truly be said to have been representative of Joe magistrate. Bench chairmen have three mentions in the document although their functions are likely to be limited to the individual bench from which they were elected.  

This government and its prime minister in particular have not hidden their intention to curb power and/or influence at the very highest levels of the legal system; namely the Supreme Court. The intentions re the country`s lowest courts which account for and will affect about 93% of all appearances will be to direct these courts to the aims of the government of the day for good or ill.  Three magistrates will be inhibited as never previously from deviating from the orders imposed upon them. When these magistrates are prohibited from presiding over trials which will be chaired with or without them as wingers by a single District Judge (MC) as will surely be the case just a few years from now the government will have achieved total control of the legal process. There are many lawyers who would applaud the abolition of lay magistrates. To them I say; beware of what you wish for.  That will be a further step on the ladder of authoritarianism upon which we have begun the slow climb..........or should that be the descent?  

THE END OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE IS NIGH

Having enjoyed the fruits and benefits of a Mediterranean lifestyle albeit including the facilities of air conditioning, superb swimming  and poolside overeating and drinking I am surprised that I have found no comment here or elsewhere on the MOJ`s seeking to appoint a "National Leadership Magistrate" the subject of my previous post. With so many local judicial areas advertising for new magistrates and the increasing retirements of those past their sell by date many benches will soon be constituted by those who have little or no knowledge of what once was the independent magistracy.  The Magistrates Association, a voluntary organisation paid for by subscription, at one time did actually appear to represent Justices of the Peace in their collisions with government.  It failed, however, owing to its articles of association in being a truly members` protective body akin to the BMA and individual J.P.s had no backing when faced with problems concerning their behaviour or words which were deemed to be against the ethos of their position as the junior members of the judiciary.  Indeed many would argue that they were held to higher standards than their seniors. Over my tenure Justices Clerks, their Deputies and legal advisors seemed to exert ever more influence on individuals in their judicial functions; functions which were and should still be for individual magistrates and benches collectively to exercise according to the law and their consciences. A classic case occurred at my court after the riots of August 2011. Pre sitting "advice" from the DJC was that eligible [either way] cases were to be sent to the crown court. My bench disagreed on a particular matter and retained the case. After the legal advisor had made that advice explicit in open court I told a packed courtroom that we were acting against her advice and that she had done her job as she understood it.  There were no repercussions although I`m unsure what the situation would be if a similar situation occurred today. It was the custom at my former court to hold three bench meetings annually where any relevant matters could be discussed informally. The DJC would normally be present. About ten years into my appointment at one such meeting we were "honoured" by the presence of the Justices Clerk; a man ruling over twelve courts. I recollect asking a question or making a point which brought said gentleman to his feet demanding discussion of that particular topic was not to be continued. Naturally I objected to his interference and persuaded the meeting that we should not be told by him when we can or cannot discuss an item on our agenda. Shortly afterwards became the establishment of the National Bench Chairmens` Forum. With the drastic decline in the numbers of magistrates beginning to be felt corresponding to a similar lack of influence by the M.A. and courts closing right left and centre Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service became increasingly active in the life of the average J.P. who was being treated as an unpaid employee as previously individual courts` control of their affairs was taken over, eg rota functions.  

The appointment of a National Leadership Magistrate is nothing short of appointing a government stooge to validate the extinction of J.P.s function in our courts.  An extract from my post on the topic of June 14th is copied below.  `Nuff said!

 Role Description

The National Leadership Magistrate (NLM) will be the leadership magistrate for England and Wales and is responsible for leading the development and execution of the judiciary’s long-term strategy for magistrates.  The National Leadership Magistrate will serve a three-year term.
The NLM will liaise directly with the Senior Judiciary, HMCTS and external stakeholders.  The NLM will provide a voice for the magistracy at national level and communicate with bench chairs, magistrates and other stakeholders.

Duties and Responsibilities

1. To lead the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive (MLE).
2. To promote the efficient and effective operation of magistrates’ courts. Sharing best practice and assisting in the development and implementation of national and regional strategies.
3. To communicate effectively with the judiciary, HMCTS and other key stakeholders, whilst recognising the need to respect confidentiality, as appropriate.
4. In conjunction with the Regional Leadership Magistrates, to develop national and regional agendas.
5. To represent the views of the magistracy at national level.
6. To provide a positive role model for the magistracy.
7. Provide effective leadership in a rapidly changing environment;

WHY I WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED TO EXTEND MY BENCH SERVICE TO 75 (CONTINUED)

Given that I have unlimited time to offer my opinions here I am conscious that in order not to burden readers with what amounts to an essay or a newspaper column`s worth of diatribe I try to limit my outpourings to a reasonable length.  To that requirement the post of October 20th was an example. However there are so many other factors surrounding the magistrates courts system that I feel a further explanation is needed that justifies for me at least the title of that previous and this post.

Of  all the changes I witnessed during my tenure that which had greatest effect was the loss of all that was remaining of an "independent" magistracy.  My induction was as the end approached.  Magistrates courts committees were disbanded and in came Her Majesty`s Court Service.  That was an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and was responsible for the administration of the civil, family and criminal courts in England and Wales. It was created by the amalgamation of the Magistrates' Courts Service and the Court Service as a result of the Unified Courts Administration Programme. It came into being on 1 April 2005, bringing together the Magistrates' Courts Service and the Courts Service into a single organisation. On 1 April 2011 it merged with the Tribunals Service to form Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service.  Over a short period magistrates found themselves bound by decisions over which they had minimal input. Speaking from direct personal knowledge as an example I was on my bench`s rota committee.  We had intimate knowledge of the personnel on our pre amalgamated bench and their various abilities to be available at very short notice. We knew their ethnicities and could endeavour to ensure when possible an appropriately composed bench. We knew those who had considered themselves available all day but had strict timetables for family duties. Our dedicated justices` assistant knew most of us by name and when and where to make contact.  No centrally controlled system was as efficient. During that period the Magistrates Association had a membership well above current levels and was able to be more pro active in our interests than the years since. Individual relationships with the Deputy Justices Clerk were first rate and combined with our District Judges taking on many aspects of our training pro bono we were a very cohesive well educated group. After five years absence of course I can`t compare the current situation but certainly it is hardly likely to be an improvement. Elected Bench Chairmen were once the conduit of bench opinion to the higher ranks of the judiciary.  Sadly that forum is no more.  Instead we have so called government toads otherwise known as leadership magistrates beholden only to the senior members of the judiciary who selected them and for whom they are supposed to "lead" JPs in the "right"  i.e. approved direction whether legally or politically. The "ship" of leadership would seem to be a submarine operating by stealth to torpedo any revisionary attitudes.  Type "leadership magistrates" in the search box for more information. The M.A. has itself been squeezed to the periphery of influence.  By its charitable status it is severely restrained from most activities except education when what is most dearly required is a protective organisation like the BMA to look after its members interests when in conflict with authority e.g. Judicial Conduct Investigations Office or  perhaps offering its members group i.e. reduced cost membership  of BUPA or the RAC.  Indeed the complaints procedure against alleged wrong doing by magistrates seems well documented with ample safeguards in a document of over twenty close typed pages of the rules and processes  to be followed. However the more rules means there are more traps for those enmeshed in a situation over which most have minimal control or a great deal of expense to ensure quality representation. I have personal experience of the machinations brought in circumstances when the status quo is questioned. For all organisations to be successful and efficient there must be trust between the governors and the governed.  Magistrates are the governed and Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service is the governor and in this situation treats and regards JPs as unpaid employees. It directs and supine justices clerks impose although they of course must do their master`s bidding. With my generation retired or nearing such a point the end of its influence and memory of independent thought and action  is upon us. Soon there will be nobody left to provide an alternative narrative. The ridiculous lowering of the age of appointment to 18 is an example of how those in the senior hierarchy of the Ministry of Justice kowtow to passing influencers irrespective of the logic or the political aspirations of those proposing such changes. One such influencer is the BBC. Last week I cut and pasted a tweet from it.  Below is the "non reply" reply I received when I complained about the blatant misrepresentation re "diversity".    

Dear Mr

Thank you for contacting us about a Tweet on the BBC Radio Manchester Twitter page. We are conscious of the need for Tweets to be worded carefully so as not to mislead readers or give the wrong impression about a story. This is frequently a very difficult decision for our editors, and we appreciate that not all readers will feel we get it right on every occasion. We would like to assure you that we value your feedback on the matter. All complaints are sent to BBC senior management and our online News teams every morning and we’ve included your points in our overnight reports. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensure that your complaint has been seen quickly, by the right people. This helps inform their decisions about current and future reporting.


Thank you once again for getting in touch.


Kind regards,

Evelyn Hamp




BBC Complaints Team

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

I hope that my observations last week and above offer just a brief insight why this former magistrate is pleased to be at his keyboard and not in a courts system with almost half a million cases behind schedule most of this delay being due to the near death imposed by a thousand cuts of the MoJ knife since 2010.

A MESS OF JUDICIAL POTAGE

It seems that the entry warrants scandal still has some steam in it.  The Times today features an article on pp2 revealing a letter from Right Honourable Lord Justice Edis Senior Presiding Judge of England and Wales that instructs the granting of such warrants to cease.  See below.

Of course for any thinking reader as I assume my readers are the question that comes to mind is how did this scandal arise in the first place.  The answer to that must be considered in the light of the enormous numbers of cases documented here over the last few weeks posts.  These matters of entry warrants were concentrated over a specific number of magistrates courts as noted here on 17th January.  Only His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service would have this authority to instruct under the term of what I understood when active was THE Justices` Clerk who had delegated control of a number of courts where the on site boss was designated Deputy Justices` Clerk. As a new magistrate myself in 1998 after sitting as a winger a number of times on entry warrants I was horrified that very large bundles of warrants were passed for me to sign without examination. Subsequently I refused to participate in such a pastiche of justice.  My efforts, successful in the end, to change that atrocious practice ensured that all colleagues could participate in a systematic examination of all applicants` payment and social histories of those whose home they wished to enter to install PAYG meters.  Using the search box will open many posts over the last 10 years on this topic.

What dismays me most is the participation of magistrates whose compliance is an indictment of every single one of them.  They swore the judicial oath and when it mattered that it should take precedence over an in house instruction they behaved like sheep letting any conscience they might have had to be overruled by the fear of upsetting authority.  Perhaps now the reality of lay magistrates` subservience to HMCTS and their failure to confront that authority  will hasten the end of a system in which I was proud and honoured to be a participant.  Unknown to most observers in 2018 six magistrates were appointed by the powers that be to be leadership magistrates.  Their names were published here on 17th March 2020.   This is the official line: "There is 1 national leadership magistrate – Duncan Webster – and 6 regional leadership magistrates and 1 for Wales. All had to have been a Bench Chair in the previous 3 years, go through a selection process and have been appointed by the Lord Chief Justice for a period of time."  The names of the 7 magistrates subordinate to Webster are being withheld by the Ministry of Justice.  A Freedom of Information Request has been refused.  Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that with an impotent Magistrates Association held in contempt by many, these 7 appointees are acting as a fifth column on their benches and wider,  to influence policies and report on their colleagues,  taking such information high up the civil service and political ladders.  This insidious action is a danger to us all.  We think that justice (not policy) can be separated from the actions  of government.  That it can stand alone whatever the turmoil in Downing Street and Whitehall.  This seemingly insignificant policy ordered by government until its exposure, is a warning.  When those with judicial authority fail to be counted as defenders of that which they have sworn to uphold even at the lowest judicial level it will be only a matter of time before their senior colleagues are placed in the same or similar position. The problem for society is that unlike lay magistrates who have absolutely no excuses for their scurrilous actions except their own hubris judges have their salaries and future pensions to consider.  Be in no doubt there will always be those who would sell their (judicial) souls for a mess of potage. 

THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE IS SEEKING A TOAD

I consider the following announcement earlier today of considerable significance so I`ve stopped packing the sun cream for a minute or two to copy it below. The toady who is appointed will no more be representative of JPs than a pig is representative of farmers.  The person selected will be an arrogant bore seeking another post to justify his/her future CBE. This is just another milestone in the road to the total elimination of JPs from our court system

Expression of Interest: National Leadership Magistrate

14 June 2018 |News|Magistrates

We are now inviting expressions of interest for the role of National Leadership Magistrate (NLM).   This is a judicial process being administered by HMCTS.
There is one vacancy, with the successful candidate taking up their position on 1 October 2018.
The closing date for expressions of interest is 6 July 2018
Term length: The NLM will serve a three-year term.
Eligibility: Eligibility criteria and requirements for the role is set out in the attached role description.
Appointments Process
Applicants who would like to express an interest in this role should complete the expressions of interest form and return it to the email address at the top of the application. Forms received after the closing date will not be considered.
Interviews dates are subject to panel members’ availability and will be confirmed with applicants as soon as possible. It is likely however, that they will take place late July/early August.

References

A reference is required before the sift takes place and will be used to inform decisions throughout the selection process.

• Reference Form to be completed

Your referee should be someone who is well placed to comment on how you meet the requirements set out in the job description.  They should be able to provide specific examples that demonstrate how your skills match the qualities and abilities for this role.
Your referee will be contacted very soon after receipt of applications so please provide an accurate email address.  The deadline for return of all completed reference forms is noon on 20 July.
Please ensure you provide the name, email address and contact telephone number of your referee.
Please advise your referee that the preferred method of return is via email – hard copy returns will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances.
Please check with your referee that they do not have a conflict of interest in this exercise and that they are able and content to support you within the required timescale.  You should not nominate an individual who you know to be a candidate within the exercise as a referee.

Sifting

All applications will be sifted by a judicial panel, who will consider the information provided in your application form and in the reference.  A decision will be taken on whether your application should progress to interview stage.  You will receive a letter advising you on the outcome of the sift.
No feedback will be available for this stage.

Interview

If you are shortlisted, you will be invited to an interview with a judicial panel.  Details of dates and location will be sent with any invitation to attend.
The interview will consist of the panel seeking evidence from you against the qualities and abilities for the post.
You will receive a letter (via email) advising you of the outcome of your interview, should you be invited to attend. It is anticipated that you will be informed of the outcome of your interview early/mid August.
If you are unsuccessful at interview, you can request written feedback.  You should make this request to Kelly.dyke@judiciary.uk within four weeks of the date of the letter informing you that you have not been successful.  We will aim to respond to your request within 20 working days.
If you have any queries in relation to the administration of this process, please contact legal.operations@justice.gov.uk.

---

Role Description

The National Leadership Magistrate (NLM) will be the leadership magistrate for England and Wales and is responsible for leading the development and execution of the judiciary’s long-term strategy for magistrates.  The National Leadership Magistrate will serve a three-year term.
The NLM will liaise directly with the Senior Judiciary, HMCTS and external stakeholders.  The NLM will provide a voice for the magistracy at national level and communicate with bench chairs, magistrates and other stakeholders.

Duties and Responsibilities

1. To lead the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive (MLE).
2. To promote the efficient and effective operation of magistrates’ courts. Sharing best practice and assisting in the development and implementation of national and regional strategies.
3. To communicate effectively with the judiciary, HMCTS and other key stakeholders, whilst recognising the need to respect confidentiality, as appropriate.
4. In conjunction with the Regional Leadership Magistrates, to develop national and regional agendas.
5. To represent the views of the magistracy at national level.
6. To provide a positive role model for the magistracy.
7. Provide effective leadership in a rapidly changing environment;

Person Specification

Essential

1. Be a bench chair or have been a bench chair in the three years preceding the recruitment campaign.
2. Be eligible to remain a serving magistrate during the full term of office.
3. Be able to put aside necessary time for the role.
4. Have an ability to build effective relationships with bench Chairs, other judiciary and agencies, such as HMCTS, Probation, CPS and Advisory Committees.
5. Be a team player.
6. Have excellent communication skills.
7. Understand current issues affecting bench management
8. Be comfortable with basic aspects of IT (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, eJudiciary) and interpreting magistrates’ court performance data and similar reports.
9. Have an ability to perform under pressure and support others under pressure.

Desirable

1. Experience of other leadership roles within the magistracy or externally.

 This role will require a very significant investment of your time and frequent travel will be necessary.

WHAT IS THE "SENIOR MAGISTRACY"?

Yesterday the Lord Chancellor made the following statement in reply to a question in the House of Lords,

"I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She will be glad to know that daily work is going on between my officials and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, the senior judiciary and the senior magistracy (my bold)  to make sure that we can progress more cases through both the magistrates and the Crown courts. Of immediate importance are magistrates court hearings: I want to see more of them come forward. We can do a lot of them virtually, and I know that the work being done by my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing, together with my Department, will help improve the speed of the delivery of these important cases."

My simple point is what is the senior magistracy?  My suspicions are that I know what it is not likely to be and that is the various chairman of the various benches known as the bench chairmen`s forum.  Not likely because these people are elected by their colleagues and the last thing government wants to hear are the opinions of the 15,000 people who are currently appearing in court when requested and able.  It appears that a representative of the Magistrates Association was involved. In all probability this so called discussion with senior magistracy consists in addition with the six magistrates appointed within the last two years by the senior presiding judge himself appointed by the Lord Chancellor. One might comment that if the LC can appoint judges` representatives as being "senior" why not these "leadership" magistrates. The difference is that magistrates are volunteers and not paid civil servants beholden to government for their incomes, career progression and pensions. These leadership toads represent nobody but themselves. We all know in all professions there are those who seek prominence and adulation and stand in line for their gongs at some future time. Such people are not representatives of the rank and file of my former colleagues. It is just another small step in the planned elimination of magistrates from presiding as they do over the vast majority of court sittings in the lower court. Nobody seems to notice and nobody seems to care.  For further posts on "leadership magistrates" type those words into the search box.  

BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES

Many interested parties have wondered what has become of so called "leadership magistrates" appointed as the toads of the Ministry of Justice three years ago the T word being used of course in its pejorative form although whether the current incumbents have thick or poisonous skins is beyond my ken. All that is known publicly are their names and regions although that information had to be dragged out of Petty France.  Further details will be found on this site by typing "leadership magistrates" in the search box.  These folk are not representative of magistrates. The only representative JPs are those elected to be chairman of their bench or representatives to the Magistrates Association the latter body annually appearing to lose its credibility to influence the MOJ.  The latest example is that it did not know exactly how many magistrates were currently on the MOJ list.  To be fair the MOJ until very recently did not know either.  It so happens the number was 1,000 less than previously accounted for. It seems that now those MOJ lackeys representative of nobody but themselves and obviously expected to initiate or support MOJ policies has finally been exposed to the public in today`s report in the Law Society Gazette from where I have taken the extract below.

 "A  three-year Strategy for the Magistracy drawn up by the Magistrates Leadership Executive lists six objectives to create a ‘comprehensive and sustainable’ recruitment plan. These include exit interviews for colleagues leaving the magistracy and getting agreement from the ministry to set up a national steering group to raise the national profile of magistrates." [My bold]

Thus a further decline in the once was independent magistracy is taking place, as the war time comedian Arthur Askey used as his catchphrase, before your very eyes. 

LEADERSHIP MAGISTRATES ARE MOJ TOADS

Whenever there is talk on line, in the press, on TV and in Parliament of magistrates and their diversity or lack thereof, keyboards and throats get on their metaphorical high horses and proclaim how diverse the magistracy is in almost all aspects of gender, age and ethnic origin.  They try to be so transparent as to be free to the wind.  But when it comes to policies that affect magistrates courts those weasels in Petty France and Fitzrovia are rather less likely to be what you see is what you get organisations. 

For many decades the Magistrates Association has existed and I suppose still exists as an organisation of paying members of the magistracy to be their representative in dealings with government in its widest form.  At its peak about a decade ago or so there were around 30,000 magistrates of whom about 80% were MA members.  Now numbers of JPs have halved and the MA membership is a much lower percentage putting great financial strain on that organisation.  It has even stooped to the level of doing some dubious deals with probation providers to raise capital.  Nevertheless its clout with government has been reduced to a whimper.   A couple of years ago advertisements in appropriate media were placed by the Ministry of Justice for the appointment of a "national leadership magistrate" notwithstanding that there was already functioning an organisation The Bench Chairmen`s Forum which consisted inter alia of the chairmen of all the benches in England and Wales.  Considering that each chairman is the result of a bench wide election one would have thought that as a collective their opinions had merit. After the appointment of the aforesaid magistrate further ads appeared inviting applications for seven positions as regional leadership magistrates. I posted on this as early as  14th June 2018 . Last week a pressure group,  Transform Justice, also posted on this topic.

These people are the toads of the MOJ.  They represent nobody. Perhaps they are seeking long term non financial benefits  eg gongs.  Perhaps they consider themselves to be superior to their colleagues. One factor of which there is no doubt is that their identities are secret; SECRET in this supposedly age of openness. Copied below is yesterday`s  written question to Paul Maynard The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice and his answer. 

This action of withholding the identity of these lackeys is nothing short of an affront to open government.  Their names should be published forthwith and as the old adage said "if they find the kitchen is too hot for them then they should bugger off".  

MAGISTRATES NEED SUPPORT

Like many other Justices of the Peace when I began sitting in an actual court as a new appointee I was informed of the advantages of joining the Magistrates Association.  For a fairly small outlay I considered it a no brainer. I had in my professional life reached the rarified heights of being on the national council of the professional organisation which looked after the interests of its members including me.  Only later did I discover that the MA according to its charitable status did and does nothing to protect or support the individual member. The two magisterial colleagues, however,  who were our bench`s representatives on the MA council seemed to enjoy their position and persuaded many to attend the occasional lectures sponsored by the organisation. About seven years into my tenure I attended MA headquarters with a couple of colleagues having accepted an invitation to explore ways in which members could use their expertise in their commercial/academic/professional lives to the MA`s advantage.  I offered some suggestions and never heard a word subsequently. Around this time a colleague on another bench began a forum to which all magistrates were invited to participate.  I was an early joiner. Owing to dogma or personality clashes that independent forum was closed and simultaneously a new forum was opened under the auspices of the MA and regulated by volunteer colleagues. It was a well run platform where colleagues who had to be members of MA could vent their spleens as many were happy to do.  I was an early participant in that area also.  After being the recipient of rather unpleasant posts in 2009 I stopped my commenting and began blogging as an anonymous independent JP.  Some two years or so later the MA withdrew this forum. I tell this story to illustrate the MA`s tendency to choose secrecy over openness when there is that choice to answer or avoid criticism. 

It is well known that the number of magistrates has reduced in the last decade from around 30,000 to less than half that number; 13,000 today. Corresponding to this reduction has of course been a rapid drop in membership of the Magistrates Association. Added to this there has been a drop in the percentage of magistrates joining the MA. Latest figures extrapolated from the membership subscriptions filed in the MA accounts indicate that perhaps about a quarter of sitting magistrates have chosen not to become members of the Association. The accounts suggest that the MA`s income from members` subscriptions has fallen from over £926K in 2014 to £472 in 2018/19.   No exact figure can be given because the number of members does not appear to be published. Of course if I have been careless in my research no doubt a comment will be made by those who hold the secret in their grasp. 

Increasing involvement by HMCTS in training and general control of magistrates` activities might be a reason for the missing quartile. MOJ supervision of appointed and unelected so called leadership magistrates is a further indication of the slowly eroding influence of the MA.  Magistrates are sorely in need of a protective and supportive organisation to represent them against the often soul destroying investigations and/or complaints by colleagues, Justices Clerks and the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office where every year dozens of magistrates are struck off for failing their sittings requirements or worse. The need is there but the will is obviously not. 

A relevant post from June 2015 on MA attempts to increase its income is  available here. To provide the MA`s raison d`etre  further information from the horse`s mouth of the MA  can be accessed here. 

THE IDENTITY POLITICS OF THE MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION

IDENTITY POLITICS: 

"a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics".

"sometimes referred to as identitarianism, is a political approach and analysis based on people prioritising the concerns most relevant to their particular racial, religious, ethnic, sexual, social, cultural or other identity, and forming exclusive political alliances with others of this group".

I doubt many will argue with the above definitions.  The term has been in use in various forms since the 1960s or 1970s, but has been applied with, at times, radically different meanings by different populations.  It is likely that as with so many now popular labels this one originated in America and primarily as a vehicle for black Americans to vocalise the rights as citizens they felt had been undermined by the white majority. In such a diverse society it quickly became a useful tool for Hispano Americans, native Americans and others.  At the heart of the disconnect felt by those groups was the realisation that the prejudices of white America were withholding the equality owing to them by the Constitution and that previous methods of securing their rights whether in education or one man one vote had been less than successful. It didn`t take long for the argument for such representative activities to  become a totem for the Left.  Initially black Britons aped their American examples in language, dress, culture and politics. Rarely were there any black groupings on the Right of the political spectrum.  With the immigration of over a million mainly poorly educated Muslims in the 1970s onwards they too saw the radical Left as their natural political home. And what a paradox that was and is: a large minority group holding often beliefs more suited to the middle ages in close alliance with agnostic or atheist gay supporting abortion on demand so called "progressives".  That this retrograde division of society has pervaded so many of its institutions is a cause for concern.  The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a statutory non-departmental public body established by the Equality Act 2006. Paradoxically this respected organisation set up by a Labour government is currently investigating that very same Labour Party for alleged antisemitism. There are however myriad groups steeped in the philosophy that must argue their separate cause whether it is the National Black Police Association or Muslim Women Network. 

The image at the top of the page was published earlier this week by the Magistrates Association, an organisation which is proving itself increasingly ineffectual in its contacts with this and previous  governments which had and have their own agenda with regard to the running and organisation of the lower court system.  

PEERS

"a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status".

There is no doubt that in today`s context  the above current definition is not strictly applicable. The jury system of "judgement by one`s peers" does not follow the above.  Jurors are not appointed or selected by the above criteria; they are or are supposedly a random selection of people whose names appear on the local electoral register.  Magistrates no longer belong to a "local" bench as they did during my time on the bench. Now there is a national bench which allows any magistrate to sit anywhere in England or Wales.  Thus the whole ethos as written at the top of the page by Paul Brearley JP Chairman of MA LGBT + special interest group is a chimera, a phantom, a non existent entity dreamed up by a failing body seeking to cause division in its ranks. 

The appointment of so called "leadership magistrates" by the MOJ has not exactly helped the MA in its attempts to have a leading role in directing the future of its members.  Indeed it has followed the aforestated examples of sub dividing its reducing membership into those groupings as copied below from its website. 

The MA LGBT+ Group was launched in February of 2020. 

We are in the process of launching groups for BAME magistrates and magistrates with disabilities. 

For more information on the Young Magistrates Special Interest Group (YMSIG), please email ymsig@magistrates-association.org.uk .

For more information on the MA LGBT+ Group, please email LGBT@magistrates-association.org.uk

For more information on any of the other groups, please email info@magistrates-association.org.uk 

So now if a member is a transvestite, bisexual or any sexual derivative imaginable the MA has a place especially tailored for the individual. I suppose any magistrate can double his/her/its involvement if his/her/its construction serves within several boundaries. It follows that there could be established eg a group for disabled BAME magistrates or LGBT disabled BAME magistrates. Or heaven forbid there could be a right wing group of aet. 40+ white male magistrates. The list goes on and serves to demonstrate the ridiculous morass into which the Magistrates Association is sinking. Indeed a vector diagram would be useful for them. Such divisions are destructive especially in an organisation which is bound by a common oath and which has a single objective:-  "I... swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, in the office of Justice of the Peace and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God."

It is not unlikely that many will disagree with my opinion.  To those I will say only that the history of "diversity" is relatively short and that time will tell if the divisions caused by its excessive propaganda and propagation have helped or hindered a the construction of a cohesive society such a society being essential to all our well being. 

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.