MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION TEACHES GRANNY TO SUCK EGGS

Being in a position to deprive a fellow citizen of his/her liberty is an onerous task and a supposedly rigorous vetting system is in place to ensure as far as possible that those appointed are suited for the task. And that task is fast tracking to become a most capable practitioner in a wholly new intellectual activity. To ensure total compliance when in office any word out of turn in or out of court is liable to lead to chastisement.  So it is plainly obvious that Justices of the Peace can be said to have an IQ of at least 100 and a modicum of common sense.  Going by the guidance issued by the Magistrates Association it appears that my former colleagues need assistance in deciding the qualities required when voting every three years for their bench chairman.  I would use the word "patronising" as a description.  Perhaps the MA is truly reverting to form and aping the attitudes of organisations with not a lot to say and a press office to run by scraping the bottom of its intellectually deprived barrel with this unnecessary nonsense copied below.  Perhaps next it will advise magistrates of the long forgotten green cross code to assist when they are crossing a busy street or teaching grandma how to suck eggs..

  

"Electing the bench chairman is a very important decision

for every magistrate. With elections taking place in the

Autumn months we have put together some key pointers

on the qualities that bench chairmen should ideally have

to help you to decide who will get your vote.

Experience

Clearly, elections should not simply be on the basis of seniority within the bench — magistrates must look for the best person to fulfil the role. However, a bench chairman must have sufficient experience of the magistracy to deal with the whole breadth of a chairman’s work.Previous involvement with aspects of court life apart from just

court sittings is important. This does not mean all bench chairmen have first to serve as deputies, but chairing another bench committee or sitting on the management team in a different capacity would help.

Management and leadership skills

The bench chairman is a key part of the judicial leadership and management team which helps ensure the judicial business of court runs effectively. This involves working closely with the justices’ clerk, liaising with the advisory committee or training and development committee (TDC) and attending the justices’ issues group (JIG) and area judicial forum (AJF) meetings. S/he will also need to cooperate outside the bench with other bench chairmen

or various other meetings such as court user groups. To work at this level, the chairman must be authoritative and tactful and needs to be able to look at issues strategically.

Community involvement

Bench chairmen are the public face of the bench and should help to promote links with the local community, working together with the bench Magistrates in the Community (MIC) coordinator. They should be prepared to attend events and support magistrates who work in the community eg being present at the local heats of the national Mock Trial Competition. They may also speak for the bench in the media.

Pastoral care

The chairman has a pastoral responsibility for all magistrates on the bench. Together with the justices' clerk s/he should be the first person that a magistrate contacts with any concerns.

The chairman needs to be approachable, readily available and able to keep confidentiality. S/he will need to be an empathetic source of guidance to magistrates who may be experiencing difficulties either on the bench, or in their personal lives.

Grievances and complaints

The bench chairman has a specific role as a first port of call in the disciplinary process, together with dealing with grievances, ie concerns best resolved outside the formal disciplinary process. A prospective chairman should have the right mix of tact, delicacy and robustness to handle grievances effectively. S/he must act with impartiality and be seen to be impartial.

Conduct cases and appeals

While s/he is not a formal part of the disciplinary process, the bench chairman has a specific role in conduct cases and appraisal appeals. A judicious, dispassionate approach to these matters is necessary.

Communications skills

The bench chairman's role is very wide and involves working closely with those both in and outside the court and liaising with other groups such as the local Magistrates’ Association. Being an effective communicator can be a key to his or her success. S/he will need to be able to develop good working relationships with others, be robust, empathetic, tactful and relate easily to those within and outside the justice system. The bench chairman will need to be a confident user of e-mail and the internet.

Consultation

As a representative of the bench, the chairman needs to ensure he or she is aware of members’ views and properly represents them. The ability to consult with the bench on key issues is essential for anyone in this role.

Commitment and teamwork

Being a chairman need not be all consuming. Of course a

candidate will need to be able to devote the time, energy and

commitment necessary for the role. But at the same time, s/he needs to know how to delegate appropriately (eg to the deputy) and work effectively in a team. The ideal bench chairman shares responsibility and is keen to develop a good team and nurture the leadership skills of other magistrates."

ONLY THE NAME WILL BE THE SAME

There are some who opine that magistrates or retired  magistrates should not take part in activities such as blogging. Unlike the paid judiciary whose livelihoods and pensions depend upon not biting the hand that feeds them magistrates are volunteers.  They offer opinions and knowledge that often is not listened to or does not percolate through the established layers of communication.  Indeed the MOJ was so concerned to keep the so called independent magistracy under its control that last year it advertised for magistrates to be appointed "leadership magistrates". So unlike the previous senior magistrates who were elected by their peers via the Magistrates Association or from the Bench Chairmen`s Forum  and who liaised with the various judicial committees these incomers would be beholden to the Lord Chancellor for their positions and opinions whether or not the latter were truly representative of their 15,000 colleagues. Sad to relate this is just another small step towards the bowing out of the independent magistrate as chairman over the court which bears his/her name. The name will be the same but the game will not. A lone District Judge (MC) will range over our courts and trial by a jury of three will be but a historical footnote for future generations. 

COVID-19 LOCKDOWN; MAGISTRATES` HEALTH OR DUTIES?

Today and for the foreseeable future magistrates of whom around 85%  are over 50 years old and over half are more than 60 will be rechecking their rotas and wondering whether they should be thinking of their own health and that of their families or whether the social good and obligation  of appearing at court has priority.  Considering all are volunteers it is impossible not to assume that many benches will consist of two magistrates and not the usual three for the next few months.  

Whilst I was active video links were in operation mainly for bail hearings for prisoners on remand.  The expansion of video links has been one of the major initiatives of HMCTS in its "modernisation" programme and has been ruthlessly promulgated by its press relations factory deep in the bowels of Petty France.  It seems, however, that such links are hopelessly bedevilled by system failure often at police stations so demonstrating the inability of defendants to be dealt with by the technology on first appearance.  The result is that an unknown number of defendants is appearing in person despite their exhibiting some or many symptoms of Covid-19. This is placing many court users in jeopardy and is particularly disturbing for magistrates owing to their age profile as mentioned above. In addition the cells in the court buildings have not necessarily been deep cleaned daily despite their occupation by multiple persons and in some cases  their lawyers. 

As I have opined recently it would be reasonable to assume that unlike District Judges(MC) who are salaried civil servants some if not many magistrates will take the path of safety and security and decline to fulfil their rota requirements.  Indeed the silence, as far as is known on this topic, of the so called six magisterial toadies aka leadership magistrates  recently appointed by the MOJ to act as torch bearers for their master is an example of their uselessness as being cast as true representatives of their brethren and confirms this writer`s opinion of their being a fifth column within the magistracy.  Considering Twitter is often the first medium of choice for many important organisations to announce policy and/or news the Magistrates Association is outstanding for its public silence on this situation or perhaps it is communicating only with its dwindling membership. 

Just perhaps there will be some unpredictable results if there is a courts lockdown. Time will tell as it usually does. 

MAGISTRATES DURING THEIR SITTINGS ORDERED TO CONDUCT TIME & MOTION SURVEYS FOR HMCTS

I have previously expressed the opinion that we are more and more being considered by HMCTS as unpaid employees as opposed to the actuality that we are volunteers comprising the lowest level of the judiciary.  This situation has arisen purely and simply because our representatives have been impotent in the face of the steamrolling  actions of HMCTS and other parts of the Justice Ministry.  The supine behaviour of organisations eg Bench Chairmen and their talking shop aptly named Forum {definition:- a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged}.  show it has no power whatsoever and is an ego trip for its participants.  Of more significance is the continuing failure of the Magistrates` Association to confront (at least in public) government with opposition to the unsaid future of J.P.s being excluded from their primary function in our courts. 

The insidious traps which are salami slicing our functions baited with the honeyed proposals of Damien Green in his letter to magistrates of 30/08/2013 serve as a warning -

"1.      How do we ensure that magistrates deal with the right cases in court?

2.  How can magistrates play a stronger role in the community?

3.  How can we ensure that Magistrates are in the driving seat of improving performance of the justice system in their communities?"

With Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service the evidence is even more stark in their attitude to us.  We are to be part of a time and motion study of the performance of SERCO; a giant  organisational amoeba absorbing all the government contracts it can stomach as a result of the almost paranoid desire of Chris Grayling to rid his Ministry of any responsibility for its primary functions at the alter of payment by results.  An interested individual  has kindly provided proof of this in  documents sent to a Bench chairman.  These are reproduced below with some redactions.

Members of a bench are being instructed to effect a time and motion study on the orders of their Justices Clerk.  The requirement is to monitor the efficiency or lack thereof of SERCO in relation to its contract to produce prisoners in court on time.  This is stretching to an unprecedented level the co-operation which has historically been essential to the smooth running of magistrates` courts. If HMCTS wishes to know if its contract with SERCO is less effective than expected it should employ appropriate people to fulfil that function. Magistrates are not on the bench for such a purpose.   They  have been hitherto ready, willing and able to function as volunteers in a unique partnership with an essential limb of government.  That HMCTS has issued such a decree is nothing short of outrageous and it risks losing what little goodwill remains between it and many if not most of my colleagues if and when the process encompasses them personally.  

Reference is made in doc 1 to the Judicial Issues Group.  This organisation started off as the Justices Issue Group and when HMCTS was merely Her Majesty`s Courts Service  before the inevitable “bigger is better” mantra for such organisations saw it digest  the Tribunals Service to become the  monster it is today.   This document is the foundation of all relationships between Justices of the Peace and those who operate the courts. This was followed in 2006 by  the paper “Responsibilities for the leadership and management of the judicial business of theMagistrates’ Courts”.   2007 saw the publication of “The Responsibilities of Justices’ Clerks to the Magistracy andthe Discharge of their Judicial Functions”.

It seems impossible for the underlying themes within those documents to be compatible with what is happening re the monitoring of performances of SERCO by magistrates who are sitting in court exercising their judicial function.

Bench chairmen have or should have a lot of explaining to do.  The Magistrates Association is as impotent as a eunuch in ancient Egypt in its dealings with this Justice Secretary and his minions so it`s no surprise that this “initiative” has, as far as I know,  not appeared in its official publication although I am ready to be contradicted.   This fiasco is further proof if that were needed that the views and/or opinions of J.P.s are of no consequence whatsoever despite the usual arguments of representation at bench or M.A. branch level.  These are totally ineffective and allow weak representatives to be overwhelmed by the government machine.  

Who is there now who is confident that the majority of magistrates` courts in 2025 will be constituted as they are now; by three Justices of the Peace?

SCANDAL OF SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE IS A BLOT ON THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE

There are few if any independent observers who would not agree that the once highly valued English justice system has been brought into disrepute; in my humble opinion of course. The financial crash of 2008/9 not only brought down institutions it systematically led to a situation where the very consideration that justice was a service to the community in its widest sense was abandoned.  In its place the costs of providing that service became the criteria by which the quality and quantity of that service were evaluated.  The rule of law and principles such as equality, accountability and non-arbitrariness were no longer to stand alone as enabling justice to be upheld as a pillar of a just and democratic society. The old adage that justice should be seen to be done seems but a historical footnote. 

While Civil Rights has been a catch all phrase from all parties to debates on justice, it remains the practical experience of a right that defines its existence and conformity with the ideals of a just society but Rights must be effective, not illusory.  Just this week we have a government which is progressing through Parliament   The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Of particular concern to many are the increased powers for police to respond to non-violent protests which would expand the circumstances in which police can impose conditions on protests, remove the need to knowingly breach conditions in order to commit an offence and introduce a broad statutory offence of public nuisance with a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Against a background of this government`s tendency to take an authoritarian point of view in situations others would have temporised is another change in legal process which has been imposed upon the justice system by diktat; the single justice procedure. 

It is no secret that there two widely held held opinions on the function of the long held positions of lay magistrates` participation in the justice system; many practising lawyers would like that system abolished and for District Judges alone to be in practice judge, jury and sentencer. On costs alone that has been rejected but in principle the second supposedly widely held opinion of governments per se  is that the lay magistracy is the backbone of our courts system  and will continue. Five years ago a major change took place in the manner in which minor non custodial cases were to be handled.  No longer would offences such as non payment of TV licenses or council tax be heard before a bench of three magistrates in open court: instead they would be heard in private by a single JP assisted by a legal advisor. The government public information  publication for the single justice procedure is available here. The historical footnote to which I referred above certainly does not apply with this form of so called justice yet opposition has been muted although the Magistrates Association unusually has in this event offered some criticism.  The number of cases progressed through this procedure is shown below.  It is apparent that the pandemic has reduced the rising trend in those numbers.

Latest statistics are that there are currently 12,333 magistrates serving c150 courts. They must have been successful in their threshold appraisal taken about a year after they have begun sitting.  I am unaware whether undertaking the SJP is a compulsory or voluntary requirement of a magistrate. I retired immediately prior to its introduction and certainly have been opposed to it from the beginning. A major criticism in addition to its being conducted behind closed doors is the behaviour of those presented with a summons to appear in such a "court".  A cause for concern is the numbers of defendants who do not enter a plea by post.  All not guilty pleas are regarded as going to trial. No figures are available for the results of such trials or whether or not the defendants appear.  It should be noted that interrogating Covid-19 offences in 2020 88.52% failed to enter a plea.  As with other "no plea entered" they would have been found guilty. A complete record is below.

To put the above in arithmetical perspective:-

2015    2.38% guilty plea    74.52% no plea entered

2016    3.1%                        71.61%

2017    3.46%                      72.21%

2018    3.45%                      72.26%

2019    2.95%                      71.64%

2020    2.17%                      70.65%

2020

Covid-19 offences    0.57% guilty plea    88.52% no plea entered

The figures for those choosing to put their summons behind the clock on the mantelpiece or with the unpaid bills in a drawer are alarming.  The chances of their appealing the decision or subsequent fine are unlikely owing to a variety of circumstances. Indeed the first time such a matter will have been brought home to them  is liable to be a debt collectors` claim or a foot in the door.  It is inconceivable that those who pushed through this so called procedure did not have advice that the tables above have shown; namely secret justice on the nod will not just garner little respect it will be ignored by those it was designed to ensnare. 

It is nothing short of scandalous that magistrates, the Magistrates Association, notwithstanding belated reservations, and the so called unelected  toads known as leadership magistrates ( use search box for details) have acquiesced in this process.   What we today consider fundamental pillars of justice cannot be taken for granted and must instead be subjected to a continuous process of revitalisation, dialogue, and improvement. Only when this apology for justice is removed from our courts will be re-assured that this government is at least attempting to row back from its apparent proto authoritarian behaviour. 

ADDENDUM 13th July 2021

Further statistics on SJP are available in table below

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2021-07-06.28183.h&s=%22magistrates%22#g28183.r0

MAGISTRATES AND MEDALS

On November 30th 2009 when this blog was but  a fortnight old I wrote what is copied below.  The MA forum to which reference is made was withdrawn about two years later because the powers that be considered it was giving members too much vocal power. But at this time of year when memories of my father in law`s generation and its mementos awarded as participants in that wartime struggle are so recent  we have recently had so called "leadership magistrates" imposed upon the hierarchy of those who influence and control the magistracy.  They were appointed by the Ministry of Justice initially with their names withheld  at the same time as true elected magistrates representatives indicated by the Bench Chairman`s Forum was disbanded. Of course these "influencers" to use the modern term have no thought of any future honours which might be available in the future. 

"My late father in law served in Burma during WW2 and like many of his generation never talked about his experiences until a year or two before his death when my son, his grandson, was still in short trousers I suggested he give him his medals to show future generations that his grandpa was a hero like others who had been given no choice in 1939 but willingly accepted a citizen`s obligation to fight for his country. To my surprise he told me that he had never bothered to apply for them. He hadn`t won an MC or been mentioned in dispatches; he had just done his duty and didn`t expect any recognition. With some reluctance he wrote to the Ministry of Defence and the service medals were duly sent to him. I still hold them in safekeeping for my son.

How different today.....senior civil servants expect a gong just for doing their job for a few years and low level employees in the M.O.D. expect and receive bonuses although how such a conglomerate can justify and calculate a "bonus" escapes me however many verbose attempts are made by those ensconced in the same sweetie jar. It seems the same glittering virus has infected magistrates especially the very small vocal minority who post on the Magistrates` Association private Forum where in a poll 83% were sympathetic to the idea of a JP`s long service medal. The pressure was such that it even reached the recent AGM of the Association as a proposal. Thankfully in that arena sense ruled and it was thrown out. Are the days now gone when, as in the case of JPs, voluntary work had its own reward without bits of metal to be worn demonstrating ostensibly what a good chap/chapess"? 

TOADY:- BE OBSEQUIOUS TOWARDS

Many more illustrious observers than I have pointed out in recent days that the government is seriously considering restricting the powers of the judiciary as a result of the shenanigans over parliament`s control of its proceedings during the Brexit debacle of last year. Those constitutional high flying legal eagles on and appearing in front of the Supreme Court certainly are well able to offer their own arguments when push comes to shove but where the legal system truly impacts upon the general population is at the magistrates courts and it is within the confines of this institution that the ravaging of our supposedly world renown justice system is there for all the world to see if it were interested and that`s the point; within and without "justice" the policy is make do and mend. When I was appointed in the 1990s magistrates controlled within certain boundaries the process. And that is when government began to extend its power. Beginning with the 1997 Labour administration and accelerating fiercely with the Coalition of 2010 and the following years of Tory rule. Magistrates were increasingly removed from positions of influence and began to resemble those in Pong Yang or Beijing listening with feigned rapture to the words of their great leader.  But until a couple of years ago there was still a couple of avenues where the untrammelled opinions of my former colleagues could be expressed by elected representatives on the Magistrates Association  and the National Bench Chairmans` Forum.  But that was still too much independence for the liking of an ever increasing authoritarian tendency at Petty France.  And thus was born the idea of "National and Regional Leadership Magistrates". These would be  toads allowed their own self aggrandisement to overcome any reticence that they would be lap dogs of the MOJ. They represent nobody but themselves in their path to public recognition at some future time with some magical letters after their name.  Their whole ethos is an insult to their 15,000 colleagues who serve their communities at the whim of their masters at HMCTS often being treated as unpaid employees instead of worthy individuals giving up their time and offering their varied expertise and histories in a worthy cause. For more information a post from 2018 might be of interest. 

For the record those appointed are listed below. 

    

LAST CHANCE SALOON FOR MAGISTRATES

Regular readers might have noticed that there are two topics which appear to have more than their fair share of space of late in my weekly outpourings: the Single Justice Procedure and warrants of entry for utility companies.  The latter particularly is of personal interest because the criticisms beginning to arise to a wider audience inside and outside parliament have been apparent since I first sat as a winger in 1998.  The arrogance of various chairmen now known as presiding justices in passing a heavy bundle of documents towards me with instructions to sign and the encouragement of clerks now known as legal advisors to "press on" was against my very nature of inquiry and fair play.  However after some years research and persuasion with the assistance of a legal advisor whose ideas of justice were akin to my own my bench adopted the Best Practice Guidance as posted here 27th May 2015.   It appears that this example was not followed elsewhere.  Indeed like so many cover ups by supervisory authorities in this country, whether of errant police officers, bullying health authorities or childcare organisations to name but a few, the MOJ tolerated and in fact encouraged this practice of nodding through warrants of entry to cut power or installing of PAYG meters to those who could least afford the extortionate charges to feed those meters. The iniquity of this policy can be seen in the table below. The anomaly of the numbers refused in 2019 cf 2020  and beyond certainly points to a directive from on high to change whatever policy was previously operating.  In all probability from my own experiences this was likely to have been pressure from the gas and electricity supply industries and their bailiffs. 

YEAR        GRANTED        REFUSED        TOTAL

2019        277,142                1,824                278,966

2020        221,494                43                     221,537

2021        332,277                36                     332,313

2022        367,084                56                     367,140

In the period between July 2021 and December 2022 a total of 536,214 warrants was applied for by energy suppliers.  Of these the vast majority (536,139) were granted while 75 were refused. Assuming that such applications in my experience were held about once a month  simple arithmetic shows that each magistrates court in England and Wales on average processed almost 200 cases each month in that period. If my experience is a guide such courts were held either just prior to the main business of the court for that session or as first business at 10.00am.  In any event to facilitate the inspection of 200 warrants and to question the operatives sent to court in their applications to ensure their compliance with the aforesaid Guide would take a complete session of a court and that would add to the costs.  So once again His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service sacrificed justice for cutting costs. This disgraceful state of affairs might not consume the debating time of our politicians as much as rape prosecutions or barristers` fees but  it has arguably a much greater effect on the poorest members of our society.  The government response is that in order to grant an application to enforce a right of entry a JP must be satisfied that there is a right of entry, admission is reasonably required and the requirements of the Gas Act or Electricity Act have been complied with.  The legislation [according to the government`s interpretation] does not require the energy supplier to demonstrate they are acting as a last resort in seeking a warrant to install a prepayment meter to avoid disconnecting supply. 

Assuming my comments on time involved dealing with the volumes as above it is fair to say that individual magistrates must be held responsible for failing in their duty as per their oath of office:  “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”  They truly have lost what little independence they have been left with since the turn of the millennium.  They have no body around which they can unite and offer their views on matters affecting them.  Instead they are considered as unpaid employees and when HMCTS says "jump" they not only jump but they offer to jump higher.  Their so called "leadership magistrates" are so enveloped in their abilities in using their tongues to lick unpleasant places that the MOJ keeps their identities secret from their colleagues so that they can act like stooges on any council in Hong Kong, Beijing or Shanghai.  Truly those who connive in this aberration of so called justice are nothing less than  MOJ toadies and the sooner this facade of diversity of local citizens for diversity in local justice is replaced by others with a true sense of duty the better.  This means that advisory committees must be instructed by a new cadre of civil servants who realise that unless changes are made the clamour of the legal profession for lay magistrates` replacement by District Judges (MC) will be unstoppable.  Indeed the magistracy as it has been known since WW2 is now in the last chance saloon. 

ADDENDUM  19th January 2023

On 17th January Mike Freer at the MOJ wrote to Sir Bob Neil re warrants of entry sought by utility companies.  This included the chart below.  The numbers of warrants granted and refused by magistrates courts is very revealing. Those requested at Portsmouth MC numbered 193,394 of which only 10 were refused. The next highest was at Basildon MC where of 61,117 applied for not a single one was refused.  However it must be borne in mind that HMCTS concentrates such activities at specific courts.  That does not explain the enormous differences in the numbers. 

Unfortunately resolution could not be increased

QUEUING FOR JUSTICE

"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. This dictum was laid down by Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England in the case of Rex v. Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256.  It is remarkable that this landmark ruling arose out of a minor collision case where the fine was just £10 with costs. Yet the King’s Bench issued a rule nisi and ultimately quashed the conviction merely because the deputy clerk was also present at the deliberations in the chamber of the Sussex justices. A century on from that case can it now be said with any conviction that the above dictum is still applied where justice is dispensed?  I would answer in the negative.  It could be answered that the essence of the word justice in the above context  is applicable only in the courts.  Of course forms of justice and authority are applied in many aspects of society. It is not for nothing that the supervisory body for the control of courts is His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service.  The list of tribunals and therefore the scope of control of HMCTS is so extensive that I challenge any reader to be acquainted with all of them listed here.  Can it be said without fear or favour that all the proceedings in those tribunals which are this country`s form of  the management of conflict and control  in a myriad of situations offer a form of justice which is seen to be done?  The Justice and Security Act (2013)   extended secret procedures into the main civil courts. Closed hearings are not unprecedented. Cases in the family division of the high court relating to child custody and divorce issues are regularly held in camera to protect privacy. However it is in the field of military intelligence that the use of closed court sessions can be most justified.  But secrecy has been endemic in British government thinking for generations; perhaps more than in any other western nation. When the open justice door has been closed once it enables its closing on future occasions when arguably the primary reason has been diluted. Currently it is the Single Justice Procedure introduced in magistrates courts in 2015 which has now reached the eyes and ears of the mass media. 

However secrecy and control have been utilised in another form by HMCTS with regard to the magistracy in particular. In London where I sat, for decades magistrates were involved in the control of their courts through a committee of  magistrates, at least one of whom had to be a district judge and mayoral and other local authority nominees. Not only did it own its courthouses and associated property but it also acted as a paying authority in its own right.  The magisterial member(s) was chosen by the whole bench and was usually the bench chairman him/herself chosen by his/her colleagues. In 2018 that position was reduced almost to an honorary position appealing to those who saw opportunity to advance their goal of  being appointed MBE or OBE at some future time.  They have been supplanted since 2018 by so called leadership magistrates; toadies to surreptitiously spy on their colleagues, leak propaganda to them, nudge them in various HMCTS directions...............?????   We just don`t know because the MOJ refuses to disclose their current identities or the benches on which they sit apart  from Duncan Webster JP,  OBE.   My post of 14/06/2018 was perhaps the first time this topic was aired publicly.  The identities of the original cohort I posted on 17/03/2020.  These names were apparently subsequently removed from publication. This is what Mr Google has to say.  The Parliamentary Justice Committee had its doubts on this innovation. 

There is no doubt that there are occasions when secrecy is paramount for a nation`s security.  Rampant Edward Snowdons are a danger to us all.  But within a civil population the erosion of open justice is a threat which must be taken more seriously by the supposed "great and the good"  although it could be argued that it is they who are driving forward this diminishing of our civil rights.  The most senior judiciary who are more concerned with their pensions perhaps than the finer points of citizens` rights under the law seem to break their silence only when their financial futures are securely within their bank accounts.  The axiom, If knowledge is power  then  secret knowledge is secret power.”  is probably drilled into the head of every Justice Minister and worker in Petty France.  Control! control! control!  A glance at any broadsheet headline or ten minutes on Twitter is an indication of where so many societies are heading.  For once we should be last in that long queue of aspirants. 

MAGISTRATES: ESTABLISHED 1361// BEST BEFORE 2023

I have remarked in the past about the press and PR department at the Ministry of Justice.  Its output volume in my opinion varies inversely with the quality of the progress being attempted in resurrecting what was once upon a time more than the fairy tale justice department it now is; when news, information and outcomes were true, sincere and to to be considered a great benefit of a society in which we were lucky to live.  Along with many other attributes and qualities of leadership there really was a spark, a light, which allowed Britain to be considered "great".  It wasn`t military or empire; it was we the people and our antecedents over the last century who inherited and nourished to the best of each of our abilities a desire to be our best for our families and for each other. It generally included, with some few exceptions, those we elected to power on all the levels from parish to Downing Street.  There was corruption and malevolence of course but it was recognised, faced down and life went on but not anymore.  The output from government departments was generally informative and consequently trusted by those to whom it was directed:  not anymore.  In May 2023 a Freedom of Information request was made to  the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

"Utilisation rates averaged 64% across the magistrates courts in 2010. Courtroom

utilisation is the time a courtroom is used, against the hours that a courtroom is

available for use. The Government's aim that year was to increase utilisation of

courtroom time to at least 80%. What is the current utilisation rate?"

That request was refused on the grounds that 

"The Magistrates’ Courts are undergoing a transition to a new data and information system called Common Platform. Each court has a system (either legacy, or Common Platform when transitioned) for viewing the availability of its rooms and reserving them. There are some measures available centrally to show the total number of available court rooms, but at present the detailed records of actual use needed to calculate the utilisation rate sought are not available.

However according to Nick Goodwin CEO of HMCTS in his recent blog:- "Last year, with thanks to HMCTS colleagues, judges and justice partners,  we sat over 100,000 days in the Crown Court and in March 2023 we sat the most days in a single month (10,033) since July 2015. Our internal management information (MI) shows that productivity - sitting days per working days - increased in the second half of the last financial year, to average rates not seen since 2015/16, with November 2022 (443) the highest since November 2016. These are incredible achievements – particularly when you consider the operational volatility of the last 12 months – and I’m very grateful to everyone who has contributed to it."

The reality of court efficiency is indicated by today`s published figures of courts actually in use.  

Humpty Dumpty, that well known wall sitting English egg, is famous for his saying, "words mean what I want them to mean."  Now the government watchword could be stated as,  "we won`t collect statistics that are not of benefit to us".  In similar fashion the MOJ has tied itself up from head to foot in the sacred "D" word Diversity.  Like the RAF where we discovered last week that white would be pilots were refused training contracts on the basis that members  within the D ethnic groups were given preference the MOJ does similar but manages to keep all that information secret about the selection of new magistrates. Those interested in criminal law can hardly have missed the publicity over the last year or so where MOJ advertised at a budget of £1 million for 4,000 new magistrates.  This in itself was a self inflicted wound.  The statistics were crystal clear in 2010.  Thousands of JPs were due to retire over the next decade and beyond.  No attempt was made to replace them on the basis that since the then new government was intending (in private) to close half the magistrates courts JPs` numbers could be allowed to to wither on the JP vine.  The result is that there are now less than half the number cf 2010.  Hence the urgency to recruit in a similar fashion to the desperation to return police numbers  to the 147K in 2010 since more than 20K were lost similarly.  The result of the scramble for JPs is a humiliation for the MOJ. Latest figures show that 1,204 were appointed of whom 147 or 15% were considered "ethnic minority".  A FOI request last year asked inter alia, how many of new appointments of BAME identification considered themselves Muslim on application?  This was refused as was an appeal against that decision....."The response to the original request confirmed the information requested is not held. This is because the local Advisory Committees of Justices of the Peace (ACJP) are separate public authorities for purposes of the FOIA".  Perhaps an investigative journalist would be able with the means available to fish out this information which is likely to be somewhere in the bowels of Petty France.  If diversity is so important there can be no limit to the public knowing absolutely if eg born again Christians, Muslim extremists, Buddhists and others resolutely opposed to imprisonment are being appointed by incompetent Advisory Committees  in their rush for a magical ratio to suit their diversity prejudices.  

There are pressure groups trying to push such an agenda. "Transform Justice" began life a decade ago to do what it said on the tin.  Certainly much change was and is needed but it seems the gallop to a world where if Diversity is not attained all manner of tribulation will descend upon us, is becoming its watchword as Climate Change has become for many. The first couple of paragraphs in its current blog describing its latest initiative, appear to complain of the extent to which applicants to the magistracy must jump through many inquisitorial hoops to prove they are suitable for the post. To actually praise for once the MOJ the application process on line is a model of thoroughness and does seem to offer applicants the initial testing to consider if the position is worth pursuing.   The writer, herself a short serving former magistrate,  seems to be trying to justify positive discrimination in the selection process.  Positive discrimination is unlawful in the UK but positive action isn’t. What this means is that employers [JPs are not considered in law as employees but are treated by HMCTS as if they are unpaid employees] can choose to select candidates from under-represented groups as long as they are as qualified for the role as other applicants. Organisations are not allowed to recruit a person purely on the basis of his or her age, disability, gender, race or religion, regardless of their ability to do the job. This would be committing discrimination under the Equality Act. It is also unlawful to set quotas to recruit or promote a specific number of people with a protected characteristic.  It is highly likely that the RAF broke the law in its pilots` selection process referred to above. 

My post of 25th April 2023 concluded as follows, "It might be intolerable to many but the facts on the ground lead to magistrates being recruited from those financially able to  to bear the burden of volunteering.  With the loss of thousands of experienced old hands in the last decade it is, in my opinion, that the intellectual, self assertive and  independent  qualities which made the magistracy such a fine unique feature of the English justice system  are gone forever.  The result is that the day when Justices of the Peace are led out to pasture is just that little bit closer now than when I retired in 2015." 

I have no reason to change that opinion.  Indeed recent events have no doubt increased the pressure within the MOJ and from many legal practitioners, notwithstanding the judicial yes men who must hold their peace until retirement, that a lay magistracy no longer gives value for money {cf  salaried civil servants AKA District Judges (MC) if they would function without a clerk}  nor holds the public`s confidence.  I now must agree that the magistracy is not fit for purpose.  England and the legal establishment should come clean with the English public that the days of relying on unpaid volunteers to administer 93% of court cases belong to a bygone age.  Perhaps the top of magistrates` coffin should read "ESTABLISHED 1361 BEST BEFORE 2023"  

PARADOX OF PERSONALITY OF HMCTS TOADS

On 14th June I posted on the MOJ`s search for a "national leadership magistrate". Since then all but one regional leadership toads have been appointed. 

If there are any doubters that the end of the magistracy as it has been known for over 600 years is on the horizon they should re-examine the political history of the organisation and its ancillary duties over the last twenty years.  I made my first of many comments on the demise of an independent magistracy almost as soon as I began blogging as Justice of the Peace in 2009 (at a now defunct site). This total potential control by HMCTS surely points to the eventual wiping out of the Magistrates Association as a point of influence. But what kind of person signs up to be a government lackey?  I can only assert that those with the attributes to be politicians or regional leadership magistrates are the very people whose personalities indicate that they should not actually do those jobs. I term this the paradox of personality.

AND FOR 2014?

Year end time for many including this blogger is a time of reflection and that reflection can often be self serving. Fortunately or otherwise I have looked back at posts {at my previous site} I wrote exactly one year and two years  ago and reproduce them below.  I am  no fortune teller and I certainly do not have crystal balls but it does seem that I was not too far out in my simple predictions.  I have absolutely no enthusiasm for the magisterial year ahead of us.  Of all my sittings for next year fewer than 15% will be as a chairman in our remand, sentencing or breach courts arguably the very courts where our skills are most tested.  I am of course not alone with a year of reduced sittings ahead.  They are an indirect or perhaps even a direct  result of government policy  to reduce “unviable” courts and buildings.  The manipulation of crime statistics and the 200,000 cautions (excluding motoring offences) handed out in the year to March 2013  are a contribution to our reducing workload.  Having flagged up (for the last time) once again the possibility of increasing our sentencing powers to 12 months custody the government duly laid that possibility to rest.  Defendants` right to choose mode of trial has not been removed.  District Judges(M.C.) [149]  and Deputy D.J.s do not grow on trees; they are appointed and number 310 in total i.e. more than one per magistrates` court and they undertake an increasing majority of the courts previously presided over by Justices of the Peace.  Such is government determination to ensure that in the lower courts a professional judiciary will be beholden to its directive as it was after the riots of August 2011 when the vast majority of cases was allocated to District Judges.

On the basis that half a glass is better than no glass at all and enthusiastic or not I wish readers a Happy New Year.

DECEMBER 31^st 2012
“At the end of another year and the beginning of a new one thank you to all who give some of their leisure minutes to read and/or comment on my criticisms, observations and occasional praise of the goings on within our system of justice. 2013 is unlikely to differ greatly from its predecessor except that there is a very small chance that magistrates` sentencing powers will be extended to twelve months custody. Aside from that there will be publication of yet more dubious statistics on everything associated with criminal activities and their remedies attempting to justify whatever policy the author is driving forward; scandals involving one or more of the newly elected police commissioners and the enforced resignation of yet another chief constable. Unrepresented defendants and in particular those requiring the services of an interpreter will continue to cause holdups in court lists. Either way offences will continue unchanged and yet more District Judges(M.C.) will be appointed. The Magistrates` Association will become increasingly irrelevant to the activities of the ordinary J.P.s who will still be lauded by the Justice Secretary whilst others behind him plot their eventual demotion to involvement in “neighbourhood justice”.

So it`s good news from him and good news from me.”

DECEMBER 31^st 2011
"Exactly 365 days ago I wrote, “This coming decade heralds the greatest changes in the magistracy in a century. We are at a crossroads. Either our powers will be enhanced by increased sentencing powers and the abolition of a defendant’s right to choose mode of trial or we will be reduced to winging courts of presiding District Judges thus reducing our numbers at a stroke and sitting on minor motoring matters. This government and probably any other does not see us in terms of local justice any more than a hospital is local. A hospital or a court is part of a network of such institutions and its purpose is to provide a designated service of the highest quality at the lowest cost. If magistrates and their representatives have not realised this by now they should wake up before the tsunami washes them away. In 366 days my bench will absorb two nearby benches. Those who don`t want or cannot adapt to the changes have only one future and that is as ex magistrates.”

There was indeed in the last year passing mention of our powers being increased but that will not happen. A government which is so obviously increasing its reliance on paid District Judges to do what had previously been our job is not going to enhance our sentencing powers. The scandal of DJs sitting in judgement alone on trials is one that the legal profession generally ignores. It is a silence that should shame the Bar Council and Law Society every time one of their n umber talks about trial by jury and its inalienable part of English justice. The Magistrates` Association is still plugging away at the concept of “local justice”. Nobody in Whitehall gives a fig about local justice. They might use the words as a chess master uses pawns to be sacrificed for the greater good. My bench like many others from tomorrow will consist of almost 400 members. In practical terms we will be sitting with strangers at least half the time. With sittings reduced for many of us by 20% or more I have yet to decide whether the new arrangements will be a plus or minus for our function of doing justice and being seen to do so. At least one colleague I know of from my original bench has retired years ahead of time citing the impending changes as a contributory factor. Apparently the Ministry of Justice has factored in a 10% premature retirement rate of J.P.s for this year solely due to the changes. Judging by the tone of letters from our new Bench Chairman I wonder whether HMCTS is leaning heavily on us. My impression is that with an apparently weak willed bench leadership we will be considered ever increasingly as “employees”. My impression is that recent J.P. appointees generally have little of the spirit of independence that is so obvious in more long toothed colleagues. The more`s the pity. I`ve been told that in many respects including magisterial opinions I am a dinosaur. Those species survived 200 million years and would by now have been the dominant species but for a wayward asteroid.

So thank you for giving this dinosaur a few minutes of your valuable homo sapiens sapiens time. Enjoy the amber liquid and try to keep the flag of magisterial independence flying high".