MAN IS NOT A PERFECT CREATURE

There has only rarely been an occasion when, in retrospect, I feel that I have personally come to a wrong decision after a trial.  I might have been in a minority position…..after all that is why there are usually three on a bench……..but my own conscience on my individual decisions has been clear.  However there are the odd times when that condition has been strained.   One such occasion was in June. 

John was defending himself against a minor non violent non CPS charge where his defence was that he was not the driver of the vehicle involved.  He brought no alibi evidence.  He presented no witnesses.  His defence was simply to deny the allegations and   question the veracity of some documents involving the vehicle.  However he did this with passion and eloquence and a certain amount of pathos.  In the witness box he was very convincing but the prosecutor had the evidence in the form of CCTV,  a section 9 statement and DVLA verification details.  We had no option but to convict.  We had weighed the evidence.  After the pronouncement of fine and costs John who had now lost his good character immediately questioned us on the route to appeal. 

The law is man made and man is not a perfect creature.  Perhaps a judge and two colleagues will also find the weight of evidence overwhelming………but perhaps……..?

BOARDING WITH EXCESS ALCOHOL

I`m a bit beyond the age of having been interested in skate boards.  So I have  even less knowledge of power assisted skate boards.  I do have some experience of cycling; after all what`s the adage?…….nobody ever forgets how to ride a bike.  I have been known (in the dim distant past) to be a little “over the limit” but not whilst being in charge of a bike.  The law on drinking and cycling is not uninteresting.  Electrically assisted bikes (when they comply with the statutory rules) are “mechanically propelled vehicles” under the Road Traffic Acts. The offence of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs is available for the CPS, as is the related offence of being in charge while unfit.  This offence carries a  penalty  including custody. (RTA ss.4(1), 4(2); RTOA s.9, Sch 2). The offence can be committed  if  one`s  ability to drive properly is impaired – one doesn`t have to be incapable of proper control (RTA s.4(5)). So it seems that this offence is easier to commit than riding while unfit.

If  an individual is accused of  this offence the police can’t  insist on a roadside test (breath tests, impairment tests etc) but can insist it be conducted at a police station or hospital. Failure to comply is an offence carrying a fine of up to £5000. (RTA ss.7(1), 7(6); RTOA s.9, Sch 2)

Returning to the subject of a skate board and its use by somebody having tested with excess alcohol it seems that perhaps the CPS review of their decision to prosecute Mr Remi Barban was flawed.  That at least was the effective decision of colleagues at  Bury St Edmunds Magistrates’ Courtwho acquitted Mr Barban of drink driving whilst on his powered skateboard. 

Personally I`ll stick to four wheels and no drinking.

THE CUCKOO

From time to time I have remarked on the iniquity of prosecutions in the criminal courts for non payment of a T.V. license.  Recent figures are that 180,000 people were prosecuted for this offence last year.  If my personal experiences are not unusual  only a small percentage actually appear in court to defend themselves.  Nevertheless it is a daunting prospect especially since many defendants are  new to this country and unaware of the  unique way we have of funding  state financed television services.  Capita plc were contracted by BBC for this task and their contract was renewed last year. This is the same Capita which took over court interpreter services last January just weeks after buying out the miniscule company Applied Language Solutions  which was awarded a contract from Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service.  This process and who paid whom for how much and in what circumstances has to my knowledge been kept firmly under wraps.  Capita and those senior people at HMCTS and the Justice Ministry responsible for the award of the contract were  castigated by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.  Now we are told that Capita has been awarded another contract to keep track of criminals and those on remand wearing electronic tags. 

It seems that there is a cuckoo in the nest.  This organisation and others of multi billion £ s value are almost a rival fiefdom operating supposedly under control of civil servants who are often at positions of influence way beyond their competence. In the news of late have been revelations of international companies minimising their tax base by funnelling profits to tax  favourable jurisdictions.  I am no socialist but it seems that an era long depicted in fiction of  off shore multi facetted faceless companies controlling countries` economies  with little respect for anything other than profit is peeping to us from not too far in the future.

J.P.s WILL STILL BE ALL OUT AT 70

Damian Green is proposing that jurors should be able to serve up to the age of 75 and there is discussion within the Magistrates` Association whether or not there is a sign at the Justice Ministry of increasing the compulsory retirement age for magistrates from the current age of 70 to that self same 75.  Currently 44% of J.P.s are aged under 60 and only 16% are under 50 years of age.  The reasons for this profile are very simple; affordability.  Disregarding the current economic situation the sacrifices required in time and money to do the job are just too onerous for those in the younger age groups whose family and career requirements must be a priority.  There are still some colleagues who think we should be paid but that is a certain non starter and as far as age is concerned the Minister can rattle on all he wants about the magistracy reflecting the diversity of a local population but he will find it all but impossible to persuade younger aspirants to apply especially with increasing numbers of employers refusing to grant additional days off  even for current magistrates to be available for sittings and training.

With the number of Justices of the Peace set to decline significantly owing to current and future (as yet unspecified) government plans natural wastage of those 13,000 over 60s will ensure that the remaining rump will perform the limited duties   that will be required of them.  By their being relatively new to the Bench they will have no knowledge  of the days now but a memory when magistrates really did have a major part in the running of the magistrates` courts.  They will calmly and dutifully perform whatever tasks are allotted to them by Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service however distant from the court environment these tasks are performed and however much they are treated by said HMCTS merely as unpaid employees to be told how, why, when or where.

UNCHECKED CORRUPTION BEGETS CONSPIRACY THEORIES

My colleagues and I are generally law abiding citizens past, present and   in the vast majority of cases, future.  Those whose behaviour  transgresses  even to an extent which could  be described only as “inappropriate” risk removal from the magistracy.  It could be argued that the strictures for us, the lowest level of the judiciary, are much  more severe than for our senior colleagues.  The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for police.  Perhaps there was a time when “Dixon  of Dock Green” was a realistic portrayal in black and white and black and white was not just in the primitive T.V. quality of the 1950s but  the basic standards border required of those in the uniform of that period. There was a defining line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.  Nowadays, perhaps, “Shades of Grey” might be a more apt description of some behaviour of those in the blue uniform.   Indeed how many of us have not at some time been doubtful of the veracity of the evidence given under oath by a police officer? 

There has been speculation over the last few days that the death of Princess Diana (and her companion) was no accident and conspiracy theorists are once again dusting off their doubts about the police report which concluded that indeed it was an accident which caused her death.  The difference between 1997 and today is that since then there have been umpteen verified investigations into police corruption which we now seem to accept as a  normal way of life for those entrusted with our daily security from the teenage drunk to the divinely inspired terrorist.  None has so devalued the trust we place in the police service than the corruption revealed to have enveloped the investigation into Hillsborough.  And this story of high level deceit and deception  has reached a new nadir according to a report in the Independent  where it is alleged that cash from a fund for the victims` families was to be set aside to provide benefits for the police force now known to have corrupted the investigation into its own failures.

With various scandals from Cleveland Constabulary  to the Metropolitan Police Service (too many to mention)  via Greater Manchester Police and others who is to argue convincingly that everything known about the tragedy in Paris that evening has been revealed?  That is the price we are paying for all the cover ups and corruption which were (are?) allowed to continue unchecked for decades.    

AN ANOMALY

Doing any repetitive job however  rigorous, intricate, detailed, specific, taxing or complex can, over many years, lead to the burying of unusual cases deep in the sub conscious mind.  It was only during a casual retiring room discussion recently that resurrected an instance in 2010 (just after this blog began) where logic seemed to be outwith the system within which we must operate. Fortunately even then I had for some years been keeping brief reminder notes of interesting sittings.

Before us was Ronald, a white male, about forty years old.  This was the second listing.  We were told that on the previous occasion his behaviour non violent as it was suggested that he should be seen by the court psychiatrist before making his plea to a charge of criminal damage.  At 2.30p.m. we had before us a report from said professional who had interviewed Ronald that morning. His conclusion based amongst other things on the knowledge that Ronald had been in and out of the local mental health unit suffering from paranoid schizophrenia was that he was fit to plead.  His lawyer had only recently seen the court papers.  Ronald pleaded  not guilty  and we proceeded to  case management  and to fix a trial date.  Then the difficulties surfaced.  Because presence was denied Ronald`s representative  indicated that an alibi defence would be run.  Witnesses for CPS were whittled down to the arresting officer and CCTV footage a frame of which was shown to the defendant`s lawyer and which purported to clearly show Ronald   at the scene of the alleged offence.  In addition we were told the frame also showed  an article allegedly used to commit the offence.  After a brief consultation with his client he informed us that his instructions had been changed.  Ronald had now admitted presence but was still denying the charge. The problem for defence and us was that during the psychiatrist`s  session with Ronald and written into the report was an admission of guilt and a recommendation that a full psychiatric assessment be made of this person.  We retired to discuss all this with our legal advisor.  His recommendation was unequivocal. If Ronald had pleaded guilty we could have adjourned for the recommended full assessment to be made but with a not guilty plea we had no choice but to proceed to trial and any further investigation of Ronald`s mental health had to be considered by the defence; not the court. 

Whatever the legal position  in my mind that was the anomaly. 

INCREASED PENALTY POINTS NOT INCREASED FINES WOULD DETER BAD DRIVING HABITS

 
It can be argued that for much  low level offending the justice system can be truncated for the purpose simply  to punish and deter.  Rehabilitation and concern for any victim can safely be considered as inappropriate and unnecessary.  Into this category of offending can be included eg the offences of using a mobile phone whilst driving and driving without due care and attention. And to some extent the government seems to agree. I posted on this topic on August 13^th.  Having had a few days to think more on this I am convinced that the reasoning behind this change of policy (with regard to driving without due care) and a general increase in some FPN tariffs   is simply to increase the “take” for the Treasury.  A driver using a mobile phone which might cost £200 - £500 is hardly gong to be persuaded to fit a hands free system or refrain from mobile use by increasing the FPN from £60 to £100.  A three point penalty on the driving license remains unchanged as it does for careless driving for which  the FPN fine is the same £100.  Convicted of careless driving after trial would cost an offender from half a week`s wages and 3 or 4 points on the license to three times that amount and up to 9 penalty points or disqualification.   

It seems as clear as day that if the government were truly in the business of promoting safer driving it would increase the number of penalty points for both those offences.  Of course the caveat to that is that the allocation of penalty points for various offences within a 12 point range might prove difficult.  The answer is simple. Increase the available points to 20 or even 24.  Penalty points could then be fixed more accurately to offence; eg five for mobile use and 6 for careless driving etc. etc.  Indeed the Spanish seem to have gone one better on the basis that the stick approach works better with a carrot at one end.  Rather than add points they subtract from a 12 pointer clean license when an offence is committed but add bonus points for those who have three years with  no offending. 

They might be seeing red over Gibralter but el espanol  are seeing very clearly about deterring dangerous drivers.

A GOOD DAY

My sitting this week was somewhat unusual.  We actually entered the court room at 10.00a.m. and next saw the retiring room at 1.15p.m.  Those unfamiliar with behind the scenes at a magistrates` court have a right to utter, “So what`s so special about that?”  What is so special is that with myriad inefficiencies in the co-ordination of all the agencies inputting to the functioning of a court to have them all operating correctly for once and allowing a continuous uninterrupted session   is almost beyond belief.  And what turned that day from being unusual to being one to remember was that the afternoon session proceeded along similar lines until we made our exit at 4.45p.m.

If every sitting for me and my colleagues was as effective as the one described morale in the retiring room would be given a shot in the arm.  Sadly that is a pipe dream.

WARRANTS OF ENTRY & UTILITY COMPANIES//SIX OF THE BEST

I`m obviously pleased that since this blog`s inception almost four years ago at WWW.THE JUSTICEOFTHEPEACE.BLOG.CO.UK it has had almost half a million  viewers.  However continuing techie problems there persuades me that a permanent switch to this site at BLOGGER will enable me to continue posting in a trouble free environment.

Amongst the most commented upon subjects in the last four years has been that of utility companies and their threats of cutting off electricity or gas supply to ordinary consumers.  In order to do so they generally must have a warrant of entry signed by a magistrate. The following six posts are on this topic and were published between December 2009 and April of this year.  

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• THEY ARE STILL THREATENING TO CUT OFF YOUR ELECTRICITY!

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 19. Dec. 2009. – 11:40:29

We hear a lot about "Human Rights" these days. I am not referring to our rights as human beings but to a particular consequence of The Human Rights Act of 1998. Until that became a part of the English legal system utility companies after due process including the obtaining of an entry warrant at a magistrates` court could cut off the supply of electricity at an address where there appeared to be no possibility of obtaining payment of money owed by the consumer of electric power. Depending on the diligence of individual benches the power companies` representatives, occasionally employees with some local knowledge of the situation, but usually bailiffs, could seek a warrant of entry from a bench offering only the scantiest information regarding the individual concerned and forcibly enter the premises and cut off the power supply. Since the above act became law power companies have had to comply with strict guidelines prior to going to court; eg making personal visits and attempting to talk to the account holder, ascertaining whether or not vulnerable people [elderly or young children] live in the property etc and above all sending out letters warning of the intention to seek a warrant and advising the householder of his/her human rights under the legislation. Upon making an application at Magistrates` Court a diligent bench can ask many questions to ensure that entry is warranted.....eg have there been previous attempts to obtain a warrant at the same address, has there been a broken payment agreement, how much is actually owed in unpaid bills, has there been a dispute over the amount claimed, is the person responsible for the debt still in occupation at the address or is somebody new living there, and many other other questions depending on the individual case. Only after a bench being satisfied the request is in order will or should a warrant be granted. And even so rarely in domestic cases will the power be disconnected. A pre-payment meter will be installed.

Seems quite straightforward. The householder can`t or won`t pay the bill and the supply company can`t cut off the supply unless there is a health risk. But you`d be quite wrong. Many organisations rely on their superior knowledge and menace the individual citizen into compliance when these empty threats have no basis in law and are just the tactics of a bully. It happened last week to an aquaintance of mine. He had had his place refurbished before renting it to a friend. After receiving estimated bills for part of the period he informed Southern Electric by phone and letter of the dates for which he was responsible and informed them again when his friend moved in. Meter readings were sent at the changeover date. A couple of days ago he received another bill of the same estimated unit usage and across the bill was written, "NOTICE OF ELECTRICITY DISCONNECTION"...."unless we receive full payment immediately we will have no alternative than to disconnect the supply of electricity to...."

Advised by me my friend knew it was an empty threat. But consider a harrassed single mother or father without the ability to ascertain her remedies in such a situation. Stress and worry piled on increasing hardship and other tensions. Or an elderly person on her/his own in poor health and with lonliness an only companion or somebody new both to this country and the terror tactics used by some businesses to intimidate customers. Hang your head in shame SOUTHERN ELECTRIC.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• WARRANTS OF ENTRY AND APPLICATIONS TO DISCONNECT UTILITY SUPPLY

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 23. Mar. 2010. – 17:51:54

Amongst the "extra" matters dealt with in Magistrates` Courts I have recently commented on statutary declarations.  Another common function for all JPs is deciding whether or not to grant Warrants of Entry for utility companies either to disconnect supply gas or electricity [usually at vacant or business premises] or to replace a regular meter with a pre-payment meter.  It has been and might still be the norm for these applications to be "rubber stamped" without too much investigation.

However with many colleagues in various courts all over the country I have been consulting a "good practice guide" which encourages courts to take a more inquisitorial approach to these applications in spite of the time taken when there is a crowded list.

A magistrate from a neighbouring court told me recently that when he was sitting outside his own court he was surprised at the novel questioning of the applicants by the chairman.  It had never happened when he was sitting at his own court.  In the session one application was to disconnect the landlord`s supply in a block of flats the tenants having no say in the matter.  In practice it would probably have meant no lighting to the common parts eg entrance hall and stairways. In view of the possible danger to infirm or elderly occupants falling down stairs that bench refused the application and suggested no further application be made until there was a firm refusal from the absentee landlord to pay the outstanding bill of c£300.  He also described an application to fit a pre-payment meter [always a higher tariff] to an occupier he discovered was two weeks late in an arrears payment previously agreed.  This history was discovered he reported  by the chairman`s questioning the bailiff in quite some detail.

He told me that he had never previously sat on a bench which had refused an application to disconnect and fit a pre-payment meter.  Information from that episode he said would be conveyed to his "home" court.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• SOUTHERN ELECTRIC THINKS JPs WILL RUBBER STAMP THEIR ENTRY WARRANTS

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 01. Jul. 2010. – 16:43:24

On 19th December 2009 I reported how Southern Electric, one of this country`s major utility suppliers, was sending threatening letters to overdue payers. These "red" bills had a message which was in effect pay now or your supply will be cut off. The actual wording [unless it has been changed] is "NOTICE OF ELECTRICITY DISCONNECTION"...."unless we receive full payment immediately we will have no alternative than to disconnect the supply of electricity to...." This is an empty threat and has no power. A domestic supply cannot be cut off for non payment of a bill without a warrant having first been obtained by the supplier or its agent at a Magistrates` Court. It is an absolutely disgraceful example of practices which for the most part retailers and suppliers have stopped using. But it seems to have gone from bad to worse for Southern Electric and they are still disregarding approved practice.

I sit on a bench where I personally [with colleagues] deal with applications about once every three weeks from utility companies. Our strict inquisitorial approach to such suppliers or their agents when applications are before us for dis-connection, or as is most likely, installation of a pre-payment meter has been extremely worthwhile insofar as they usually appear with most of the information and answers we require to ensure as far as we can that not a single case of entry could have been avoided. That is all but Southern Electric who still seem to think that all they have to do is appear before a bench of magistrates and say, "at 1111 Main High Street, the occupier owes £xxx and here is a warrant of entry for you to sign." Last week that is exactly what took place except of course these scanty details were on the information document presented. The agent was unable to supply any real information at all, answer any question on detail and in one case confirm the identity of the account holder. He was told politely to get lost and not to return until he had the information available for each warrant as might be required under the agreed Best Practice Guidance on this topic.

Millions of households are in difficulties paying gas and electricity bills. That is no excuse for Southern Electric pursuing such payments by threatening actions which can cause such distress and which they know they cannot carry out against these vulnerable people . 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• CUTTING OFF SUPPLY BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND OFGEM`S POSITION

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 16. Nov. 2011. – 08:07:39 

I had thought I had written all that had to be written about utility companies and J.P.s and their previously long held attitudes that in order to secure a warrant to enter a customer`s home or business to disconnect supply or fit a pre payment meter all they had to do was to turn up at court and ask for the bench to issue such. At my court owing to pressures made to our senior staff this is no longer the case and many of my colleagues are now following the Best Practice guide. By so doing this ensures that warrants are not showered upon the companies` bailiffs like legal confetti. But thanks to information from commenter Tianc there is much more to be said on this topic.

Ofgem is the organisation which regulates the electricity and gas markets in Great Britain. As such it stands between suppliers and consumers. It is or should not be allied to either side of the market in energy. “Colleagues” is a word that could be defined as fellow officials or workers in an organisation, business or profession. Colloquially I would assert that the connotation of the word denotes those whose objectives are similar or collaborative.

On 16/08/2010 a letter was sent by OFGEM to “Holders of Gas and Electricity Supply Licences, consumers and their representatives, consumer bodies and other interested parties”. That letter addressed the recipients as “Dear Colleagues”. Pedantic I might be but that form of address in a letter which can be accessed here in the circumstances to be outlined gives perhaps some cause for concern that the poor consumer who pays for everything at the end of a long supply line is an afterthought. The essence of the letter is the increasing distribution of smart meters. With these in situ remote changes can be made to a customer`s supply. Tariffs can be changed including changing to pre payment meters and supply can be cut off. Pre payment meters are a bone of contention; when fitted they are designed to use a portion of the payments made to collect unpaid balances. It is a source of disquiet to some colleagues that J.P.s` legal powers are not those to authorise debt collection in these matters. What is of more significance in OFGEM`s letter with regard to cutting off supply is that nowhere do they discuss the current legal requirement for a magistrates` warrant of entry to be issued before forced entry can be made. If remote disconnection is contemplated, more likely for business rather than domestic premises there is an important question as to how the application is to be investigated prior to any direct action by the supplier unlike the current position with the requirement of a personal appearance at court by applicant to be questioned by the bench on the particulars of the application. If there is being contemplated a diminution of the guidance particulars as currently being increasingly practised every day in every magistrates` court in England & Wales that will be a very bad day for individual consumers.

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• APPLICATION COURTS MUST SCRUTINISE DETAILS

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 26. Jan. 2013. – 17:06:43 

It seems that some utility companies still can`t get into their corporate heads that it is only under very limited circumstances that they can switch off the gas or electricity to a domestic property. I have posted here more than once on warrants of entry and indeed that subject is the source of very many page views to this blog.

Recently for the first time this year I sat in such an applications court and the representative of a major utilities supplier presented us with two dozen warrants of entry the wording of which subsequent to the stated intention of fitting pre-payment meters was that the company retained an alternative of cutting off supply. This was of course after his repetition of the “human rights” mantra including words to the effect that the company would not disconnect. Usually the applicant will state in open court that any households with a vulnerable* person will not be amongst the applications. Despite some initial observations from our L/A we scored through the offending words re disconnection, initialled at the side and then signed off the warrants.

There is no doubt in my mind that including in the warrant words as above is no more than a threatening posture. Such actions will only cease if all colleagues take a similar forensic action and closely question such applications according to the Good Practice Guide.

*

Industry Vulnerable Customer Safety Net

In September 2004 the Energy Retail Association (ERA), the dedicated trade association for the six major UK energy suppliers, published a report on the issues of debt and disconnection in the energy sector following a challenge from Ofgem to industry to develop measures to protect vulnerable customers from being disconnected. This report presented the definition of a vulnerable customer which member companies will seek to abide by, that “a customer is vulnerable if for reasons of age, health, disability or severe financial insecurity they are unable to safeguard their personal welfare or the personal welfare of other members of the household.”

References to ‘customer’ in the Standard Licence Conditions refer to the bill payer. The ERA has stated that industry’s intention is to protect all those who are vulnerable and at risk from disconnection, which has prompted the inclusion in its definition of vulnerability that the bill payer must also be able to safeguard the welfare of other members of the household.

In order to ensure that genuinely vulnerable customers are not excluded from the definition the ERA has also produced guidance to suppliers on identifying vulnerability, noting five separate circumstances which, if applicable, could lead to energy suppliers determining that the customer is vulnerable. These are:

1. A customer is caring for an elderly person in the household;
2. A permanent member of the household is disabled and unable to support themselves or has a long-term medical condition;
3. A carer, social worker, health visitor or physician has indicated that a member of the household may be vulnerable;
4. Households on a low income/state benefit with young children; or
5. A customer dependent on medical equipment that is operated by electricity e.g. a stair lift, electric wheelchair, defibrillator or dialysis machine.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• UTILITY COMPANIES STILL DON`T GET IT

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 25. Apr. 2013. – 12:24:56 

Blog analytics show that among the most visited pages on this site by what I assume are non legally minded viewers are those concerning entry warrants by utility companies or, as often is the case, by bailiffs appointed by them.

As a newbie magistrate I was concerned at the rubber stamping of such applications without so much as a cursory inspection of the warrants` terms or inquiry in any individual case. To a certain extent that situation has improved and more of my colleagues are taking an inquisitorial role in their questioning of such applications. There is no doubt that since the requirement to send out “human rights” letters many utility companies consider that there is no other investigation required on their part prior to an application to install a pre payment meter for those who have an outstanding debt. Searches here will produce many previous posts on this subject. I had thought that the “message” was beginning to get through to the companies and their representatives; this court applies the principles enshrined in the “Good Practice Guide” for utility companies. I have been over optimistic.

A bailiff before our bench not so long ago was simply that; a bailiff. Unlike the companies who employ their own staff to make application and who have visited every address on their list of warrants this person had absolutely no knowledge of any individual case except that some were domestic and some commercial and that each owed a certain amount which in one case was less that £150. She had no knowledge of when any previous payment had been made, denied that a person opposing in person a warrant being applied for on the grounds that she was making arranged payments to clear her account had indeed been on a payment arrangement scheme, All she had to support her applications was an address, sometimes without an occupant’s name and an uncorroborated outstanding amount. In addition the warrants` wording was such that an application to cut off supply not exclusively on health and safety grounds was included. After some brief discussion we scored through the offending words where required and returned unsigned about half the applications.

I would hope that colleagues throughout the country are being thoughtful enough about individuals` rights to be strong enough to consider carefully such warrants even in the face of some legal advisors` impatience to get on with the morning`s list.

GIVE AND TAKE

It is well known that the louder the noise emitted by politicians, especially those of a ruling party, the less important is the content of the announcement. Mathematicians would term it the law of inverse proportionality.  Well; surprise, surprise………without much fanfare and in just a few lines the Ministry of Justice has announced that in the year 2012-2013 £287.4 million was spent  in redundancy payments to all those surplus staff who were clogging up the justice system by their inefficiencies.  The Justice Ministry admitted that since taking office it has reduced staff levels by 10,000.  Oh!.... And whisper it quietly but the  self same ministry has spent over half a billion pounds on consultancy fees in that last accounting period of 2012-2013.   

The full report is here and the information above is buried deep within. 

MR MAGOO AND THE MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION

On July 30^th I posted that Justice Minister Damian Green was to address a meeting the subject of which would be “Reforming the Role of Magistrates”.  Amongst my observations I wrote, “Of one thing we can be sure: this so called “event” will be for his purpose; not for ours”.  I won`t blow my trumpet at more than a whisper because anybody with half a deaf ear towards politicians in August would have come to a similar conclusion.

A couple of days ago he made that speech.  Amongst his comments were, ““However, four out of ten defendants sent to the crown court for sentencing received custodial sentences that could have been handed in the magistrates’ court - we need to look at why this is happening and if we need to do more to make the best use of magistrates. We need to keep the right cases in the right court if we are to have a modern justice system in a fair society.” On 7^th December 2010 I posted on former Justice Secretary Jack Straw`s  speech on exactly this subject.  It doesn`t require intervention from Damian Green or any other politician for this change to take place.  It merely requires advice from legal advisors who are sometimes afraid to deviate from the safe road of conservatism in not upsetting a preset apple cart.  My colleagues (especially those with some years service) could also be a little more assertive and not be reticent in using our existing powers to the maximum.  Of course the obvious change to make; a change which has been avoided for decades, is to remove a defendant`s right to choose mode of trial in either way cases.  Some effort has been made in this direction with the recent new guidelines on “allocation”  but the bull must eventually be grabbed by the horns in the face of inevitable and illogical objections by lawyers.

With his remarks on single magistrates overseeing low level traffic offences and “low level” shoplifting  it is plain to see that the minister is less concerned with justice than he is with his preferred expedient solutions attempting to save  money offered to him by the same Whitehall advisors who gave us Capita plc to provide court interpreters amongst other wonderful innovations in court eg restricting the availability of court ushers so that legal advisors are up and down like jacks-in-the-box chasing all over the building for offenders, lawyers, witnesses and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.  

It is quite clear that underlying this speech is the government`s desire to remove Justices of the Peace from the courtroom and put a rump magistracy out to graze in the fields rubber-stamping traffic offenders, overseeing out of court disposals by police and taking part in local schemes of rehabilitation and/or arbitration between victim and offender.

If those in the Magistrates Association charged with the interests of their members cannot see the writing on the wall now  they should join Mr Magoo  at the optician`s  and have their rose coloured spectacles surgically removed.

ROAD HOGS

We all know the phrase, “an accident waiting to happen” which generally means that an unpleasant or unnecessary event or events is highly predictable. At a time when many of the agencies providing input to the magistrates` courts are running on empty the last thing the government will want to see is an increase in the numbers coming to court to plead their case instead of taking their FPN (fixed penalty notice) like a man ought to do. This not quite the wild west where a man must do what a man must do. The idea of FPNs was and is to stop people clogging up the courts system pleading to minor offences. Indeed these FPNs assumed such numbers that the pendulum has, to sum extent, swung the other way owing to the not unexpected tendency of police to use them inappropriately. But, saith Grayling, thou shalt knoweth that thou shalt heed my words for come Friday August 16th in the year of Our Lord 2013 such FPNs shall result from traffic offences currently dealt with by summonses; namely driving without due care.

With reduced numbers of police cars patrolling the motorways of England and Wales those in the habit of eg hogging the middle lane when traffic levels are low or those seeking to allow their front bumpers to make illicit contact with the rear ends of those in front will be sent FPNs and a notice of penalty points for driving without due care. The evidence will likely be from patrolling police cars with video recording who won`t need to go to the time and trouble of stopping errant drivers or CCTV. All this is liable to increase the numbers who feel they are not guilty and will therefore opt to have their day in court mainly as unrepresented defendants. Of course time will tell but as in so many other recent initiatives this to me appears to be a quick fix to a problem which goes much deeper. Reduce the numbers of on the job police officers and sort the resulting problems as cheaply as possible.

As a matter of personal experience I recently drove about 600 miles on the motorways and A roads of the west and north west of Scotland and saw perhaps three times as many police patrols there than on 800 miles of recent motorway driving in England.

A LITTLE FED UP

Last month, two weeks after confirming an extra sitting, I turned up for that sitting to be told I had not been listed. Eventually a court was found where I could be of some use because it was admitted the back office had made another mistake and a colleague had been cancelled in error. At my next but one rota`d sitting upon my arrival at 9.20 a.m. the legal manager expressed surprise that I was there. My intended court had been cancelled the previous morning although I had been confirmed the day before that. I had received no phone call, text or e-mail. Speaking to colleagues it seems that at my court such errors are far from unusual.

Does the fact that our previous highly experienced judicial liaison officers who jumped ship before being pushed were replaced by lower graded staff in January 2012, have something to do with it? Is my court particularly inefficient? The proverbial optimist within me is beginning to feel a little fed up.