SAYING IT LIKE IT IS BUT ONLY WHEN RETIRED

Of all the prohibitions on the activities or actions a Justice of the Peace can undertake none is taken more seriously than talking to the media on the record.  The Media Guide for the Judiciary is the rod with which a J.P.`s back can be broken if it is considered that s/he has stepped out of line.  Colleagues have been removed from the magistracy for such failings.  So it is hardly surprising that just as former generals or senior civil servants wait until their pensions are assured before going public with criticisms of systems or institutions, criticisms which would have had much more significance if they had been delivered whilst the bearer was in post, Alan Bissell J.P. waited until the moment he retired from the Flintshire Bench before lambasting procedures with which he (and others) had been forced to comply.   His main outpouring was his belief that the concept of punishment had been diminished by the actions of government over many years. Certainly he would have received a letter from the Office for Judicial Complaints if he had made his remarks, which must have been co-ordinated with the press who reported them,  a few weeks or months earlier.   

Of course Grayling, like his predecessors, can and does produce volumes of statistics to show that whatever is the real situation crime is diminishing, police are not failing and the courts are more efficient than ever.  But there is one factor that by its very nature cannot be abused by statisticians because it is a negative and everyone knows that negatives are very difficult to substantiate.  And that is the increasing tendency of the Crown Prosecution Service to undercharge on assault from the summary charge to the most serious life threatening offences.  Other forms of criminality eg fraud are also undercharged but for magistrates it is assault with which we are most familiar.  I would posit that there is not a single colleague who has not sat on simple assault by beating and thought that the CPS was failing in its public duty of protection by not  using the more serious charges that the case details warranted. The reason for such dereliction of duty in an organisation which has rid itself of 10%+ of its lawyers and is operating on a much reduced budget is not difficult to find.  The other side of the same coin is well illustrated in a case on which I sat a few weeks ago.  One simple incident when a young white woman who had been observed drinking from a can of cider and shouting at her friends  pushed a  black policeman in the back shouting “black trash” was charged with being drunk & disorderly,  assault P.C. and s.5 Public Order Act racially aggravated.  She was, as I recall,  convicted by majority of all three offences and the CPS`s statistics were duly enhanced. 

Is this the best way of applying the too oft repeated mantra, “We are the party of law `n order”? I wish Alan Bissell a well earned retirement from the bench.  Long may his cup runneth over. 

WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TIN

My last sitting saw me in the courtroom for six hours.  Those unaware of the wall to wall inefficiencies to be encountered in magistrates` courts might utter, “so what”.  They would be right to do so.  The time wasted in courts presided over by me and my colleagues has to be seen and experienced to be believed.  I won`t rehearse the reasons.  Everyone bar the number crunchers and greasy pole climbers at HMCTS and Justice Ministry who behave like the three monkeys is well aware that the withdrawal of capital from the system has wrought changes which if not readily reversed will have ever lasting detrimental effects on what was once one of the  world`s fairest justice systems where in timely fashion it was almost beyond reasonable doubt that the innocent were acquitted and the guilty punished with punishment appropriate to the offences committed. 

But returning to my recent all day session;  the morning was taken up by the trial of a youth of nineteen; a refugee  from a war torn central African state, who was charged with assault.  When he was identified we asked our L/A to have him confirm his date of birth.  William Hill would have given odds on he was no more that 15 given his slight build and height of about 5ft 6 inches.  However he insisted he was 19 and CPS called the complainant, a cruiserweight to the accused`s featherweight status. African boy spoke a very educated English and displayed a certain confidence bordering on arrogance when he gave his version of events.  Severe cross examination did not put him off his stride.  The evidence, however, was so overwhelming that we wondered how legal advice had allowed him at this 3^rd listing to continue with a not guilty plea. 

With his previous good character, a part time evening job at a supermarket and confirmation of his excellent grades at college we were satisfied that a conditional discharge and advice to avoid alcohol which seemed to be responsible for his errant behaviour was an appropriate disposal.  The relief on the face of his mother in the public gallery was an indication that his offending might have been nipped in the bud. 

Our afternoon was occupied by the case of a Sudanese man from the Nubian region.  He was about 60 and walked with the aid of walking sticks in each hand.  He had the classical features of his race.  His jet black skin, sculptured cheekbones and classical brow would not have been misplaced on a hieroglyph from ancient Egypt.  His authoritative manner matched his appearance.  He had previously been tried in absence and found guilty of s.4 public order and was before us with his lawyer applying to have his case re-opened.  After lengthy legal argument which I personally found particularly intellectually stimulating he failed. Post sentence we wondered just what damage he could have been capable of if he could have moved freely without his crippled lower limbs being assisted by the walking sticks occupying his hands.

The standard has been set.  I doubt that there will be another non remand session before  2014  where my all day sitting will be what it says on the tin. 

THE ARROGANCE OF A LOCAL COUNCILLOR IN BOURNEMOUTH

From Hillsborough via the Stafford hospital scandal, by passing numerous “baby bashing” cases and child grooming the authorities concerned have generally tried to avoid personal responsibility by staff members for actions ranging from misconduct to manslaughter.  These staff members have ranged from chief executives to individual professionally qualified personnel.  Blame has been placed on procedures, culture or institutional deficiencies of one sort or another.  Overseeing authority has also been reluctant to place blame where it is or has been deserved.  The recent BBC debacle has been a prime example.  So when an authoritative source names names, feathers are ruffled.  And so it seems were the  burghers of  Bournemouth. 

Since magistrates` courts had taken from them licensing duties which had been in their domain for decades their remaining function in this regard has been as a court of appeal.  And councillors in the Dorset seaside town went to the press with their anger at remarks at such an appeal.  The bench chairman had, in the councillor`s opinion, the temerity to make clear the court`s reasons for rejecting an appeal by said council.  The reasons reported included criticism of evidence given to the court by council officials. Apparently that upset a fine upstanding  local representative.  His own display of pique and arrogance by somebody who should know better was an indication of his limited understanding and appreciation of what the law is about.  The magistrates concerned will of course say nothing more in public about their decision.  Their reasons are already in the public domain.  They are above local political shenanigans.  If a council officer was deserving of criticism in the proceedings it was their duty to say so publicly. 

There has been too much circling of the wagons to protect poorly performing publicly paid council workers however senior.  If the courts cannot make known their reasons including criticism of such people we should all start learning Mandarin.

LONDON PROBATION TRUST DRIVEN BY SERCO

I would imagine that anybody reading here would by now be aware of changes being forced upon the probation service.  The underlying theme is payment byresults.  There is vociferous opposition to this initiative much of it coming not unnaturally from those professionals  who will have to undertake their work where the motivation is profit as opposed to performance.  Protagonists would argue that performance leads to profit and one cannot be achieved without the other.  That might be a sound point of view except that the statistical bases on which PBR is and will be judged  are open to much scrutiny.   Indeed considering all the controversial decisions at the Ministry of Justice since 2010 this change to the concept of probation services must rank near the top of the list.

I have been sent a programme attached to a regular newsletter for an event on 3^rd October being hosted by London Probation Trust in its new partnership with SERCO.   I will leave readers to form their own opinions but a thought does strike me that the glossier and more upbeat a programme looks the less substance is at its core.

CONFUSION ARISING FROM PROPOSED SMOKING BAN IN PRISONS

There are three constituent parts of any criminal justice system, the process of catching suspected offenders, charging and convicting them in the courts and incarcerating them in prisons. The first two components consist of many people with corresponding checks and balances to ensure justice is done with fairness to all and is seen to be thus done. However when it comes to the running of prisons in general the governor is "king" and almost but not quite an absolute monarch. Controversy erupts from time to time when it is revealed that governors have supreme  power and are using that power to release prisoners far sooner than anybody had authorised.

If prison governors are "kings" then prison warders are the "nobles" and as we learn in history kings and nobles were often in conflict as to where the power would lie. In prison it is forbidden for inmates to possess or use mobile phones, drugs, or to use networking sites. So there is no drug problem in jails.....? no criminal activity involving mobile phone contact between convicts and the outside world.....? And  of course using Facebook and similar sites is forbidden so nobody in prison does it......?

It has been said by many with knowledge that the Prison Officers Union is the last bastion of left wing union extremism where union power and not the management is in control of the work place.  Similarly it has been said that whilst drugs are illegal if they were totally excluded from jails there would be serious riots with the result that to a certain extent a blind eye is turned to the illegal supply in prisons. If using Facebook is contrary to prison rules how does a dangerous inmate access it without the knowledge of those paid to keep him secure and out of contact with the public at large?  With the government`s intention to ban smoking by all within a prison`s gates should we be grateful for its benevolence in trying to wean offenders from that most deadly weed?  The Prison Officers Association has been in the vanguard of those seeking a smoking ban in prisons. The Association is of course in favour of all the other restrictions mentioned above but its members seem a tolerant lot to the transgressors  and it`s easy to understand why; those incarcerated for long hours in overcrowded cells need little to change them from docile dependent individuals to angry aggravated  resentful objectors to their situation.  Cigarettes, for those addicted, in addition to being a currency in prison allow a sense of satisfaction when that craving is assuaged.  Take away that small amount of pleasure to be substituted by nicotine patches and it is not unlikely that life will become more intense for warders and negate any benefits accruing from the removal of secondary inhalation of nicotine.  

But governments of the current colour and that previous seem to operate as if by mantra. Human Rights law being applied to army personnel in a war situation appears to be totally incongruous. And applying a no smoking philosophy in line with current legislation on the tobacco habit in prisons is as surely a recipe for disaster as was the coalition`s West Coast rail contract, its contract for courts interpreter services, its proposed “pasty tax”, its proposed forestry sell off and a dozen other U turns.

If prisons are being run for the benefit of a quiet life for their employees as a first consideration and the protection of the public as a second I find this whole process of a smoking ban difficult to understand.

SPITTING IN THE STREET

I make no apologies for copying below  my post  earlier this year of  18^th February when I was still at my previous web address.   It is unclear from the report whether J.P.s or a District Judge(MC) presided.  I consider this a disgraceful bye law.  I can remember my late father with his health problems forced to spit in the street  before he could fumble about to find a handkerchief.  Anybody exercising his/her right to use the streets for strenuous exercise eg cycling or jogging {as I do} will at some time have to spit. 

 
Whilst I suppose being prescient on this topic has some sort of satisfaction for this blogger it reinforces his opinion of the restrictive nature that now envelops  our society.  We are not a nation ridden with T.B. and in any event in London where that disease has been imported in the main from Africa there is much more chance of infection from riding the Tube for a few stops than in the streets of an outer borough.   





Earlier this morning like thousands of others across the country with the hope of enjoying a healthier life I went jogging. And like those thousands of fellow non athletes who seek to counter the effects of a sedentary over caloried lifestyle the activity in the lower regions of the lungs attempting to produce an increase in oxygen supply provoked the action of expectoration, a reflex action of the body and not one borne of voluntary habit. I was not running in the London Borough of Enfield. The proposals of the ham fisted burgers of this area were the subject of a post here one year ago on 13/02/2012. A two line statement in a document of 176 pages entitled “Public Document Pack THE CABINET Wednesday, 5th December, 2012 at 8.15 pm in the Conference Room, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA" states as follows:-

The Council is leading on a new initiative to bid to ban spitting in the borough. If enough residents back the call Enfield will be the first council in the country to ban the habit.”

Apparently without further ado this aspiration to outlaw expectoration is now a bye law but in the neighbouring borough of Waltham Forest. Spitting is being considered as littering and offenders will be subject to a fine of £80. However nowhere on that Council`s website is mention made of spitting being classified as littering with all the sanctions that that offence produces.

It is an absolute certainty that within a year the refusal of an “offender” to pay such a fine will lead to an appearance at the local magistrates` court where colleagues will have an interesting debate on the lawfulness of such a bye law. As for me I will continue my exercise routine and hope that my principles are not put to the ultimate test if those interfering do gooding busybodies in my borough get up to the same tricks.

A LITTLE REST AND RECREATION

I`m off now to the land of lasagne and Leonardo.....ciao per ora.  Please look in again next week.  

HIGH SPEED SPEEDING

I think it is fair to say that for most honest and good citizens, i.e. without a record with the Police National Computer, it is when driving that contact is made with the law. Aside from anything else that is why it is imperative that police officers behave with the utmost civility when stopping drivers. Probably most do but we all have heard tell when they do not. Be that as it may in 2009 153,000 defendants were summonsed to court for speeding offences. In 2010 986,700 fixed penalty notices were issued for speeding. Fines and penalty points for speeding are calculated according to income and the recorded speed. The maximum recorded speed for the purposes of punishment has been fixed for umpteen years at 110 MPH. In simple terms that means that driving at that speed attracts the same punishment level as driving at 150 MPH or more. Others like myself who have driven in countries with no speed limit at very high speeds (in my case 200KPH) will be only too aware of the changing dynamics of a car at those speeds. There is no doubt in my mind that the Sentencing Guidelines should be updated to factor in the increased performance of even the most basic vehicles including motor bikes in the last 15-20 years. 

Last week Inspector Paul Cording, of North Yorkshire Police’s Roads Policing Group, said with reference to a speeder, “This sentence is a clear demonstration of the determination of all those in the criminal justice system to keep the roads in North Yorkshire as safe as possible. Barton’s speed was completely unacceptable and utterly reckless. It is simply not something we will tolerate. He not only put his own life at risk, Barton endangered the safety of other road users. Anyone caught using the roads of North Yorkshire as a racetrack should expect to face the same punishment when they are caught”. The offender, a Mr Barton, was caught riding his bike at 135 MPH on the A1. The report indicates his driving ban was for 56 days; the maximum available. He could have been given six penalty points and been a six months banned totter if he had had six points already on his license but that was a choice for the bench which had all the facts and circumstances placed before it. In the light of such speeding offences the cut off penalty at 110 MPH surely should be amended.

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS

 

I have from time to time offered the opinion commonly held that the adage of  there being three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics is applicable to all manner of numbers offered in the law `n order debate.  That now encompasses legal aid, its benefactors and its recipients.  Figures were released earlier this week; figures which I will make no attempt to analyse.  They are presented for those who wish to draw conclusions.  For me the situation in court  is that an increasing number of unrepresented defendants is appearing at trial.  One result is that prior to CPS opening its case the defendant as usual is asked if his plea remains as not guilty and when that question seems to be difficult to answer further questioning elicits what is in effect mitigation.  The result is often a change of plea and more wasted court time.  When the defendant has required an interpreter the costs escalate.  In my experience a defendant pleading not guilty at the first listing requires to be carefully questioned to avoid a wasted second listing as above.

 

These increased delays in proceedings will I suppose eventually appear as cracked or ineffective trial percentages but it is hardly likely that  a direct association with reduced funding for legal aid  will be made….lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

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?

OFF PISTE

I`ll be off piste for a few days so look in again next week.

WEASELS OF WHITEHALL

As if there were not enough writing on the wall to warn us that the days of magistrates  in court  are numbered Lord High Executioner Grayling could not have made his intentions any clearer in his recent speech at the National Bench Chairs Forum; an organisation which is a total waste of time and effort.  It is not representative of J.P.s and is just a talking shop.  It effectively has  divided magistrates whose primary representative organisation, the Magistrates` Association, has allowed itself to be out thought and  out manoeuvred by the weasels of Whitehall whose long term plan is to have us removed from our position in the magistrates` courts.   

Magistrates in buildings where there are no longer remand, breach or sentencing courts; those now having dedicated venues, spend at least half an hour per three hour sitting on down time if averaged out over a few months if my typical court is anything to go by.  And that means there is slack in the system…..we all know why but that`s not for today.   

“It’s utterly absurd that three magistrates should spend their time rubber-stamping foregone conclusions in simple road traffic cases.’  Thus spake Grayling.  So in those traffic courts where it is not uncommon for a bench to discover improper procedures or errors of one sort or another two J.P.s will be superfluous whilst the third sits in an office.  That`s enough to get rid of two thousand of us.  Next stop will be T.V. license courts where 3,500 prosecutions are brought weekly.  As sure as night follows day we will be told that these also require only a single magistrate to rubber stamp the decision.  That`s reason enough to sack or allow age related natural wastage to dispense with another three thousand magistrates.  He was quoted also as stating that, “that with a falling number of cases coming before the courts there needs to be ‘smart’ ways of deploying them”.  It cannot be more plain even for the chairman of the M.A. who refuses to believe what is staring him in the face that the long term for J.P.s will involve mainly non court activities.  There might be the solace of sitting as wingers to District Judges(MC) in trial courts for those newly appointed J.P.s  who would know no better. Combined with  natural wastage of  a relatively old cohort of current magistrates   mass resignations which would inevitably follow would fit tidily with the change over to a fully professional judiciary in the lower courts; a judiciary beholden to government and owing to its age and background less financially independent of government decree that the current senior judiciary. Of course that is exactly what government wishes to see happen.  The directions to DJs  and sentencing results after the August riots of 2011 are proof of that.

The weasels of Whitehall are on game and set; only the match remains to be won.

T.V. IN COURT

For a long time I`ve argued in favour of the televising of court proceedings in England. Scotland has been broadcasting trials for some years albeit on a very selective basis.  Two years ago  SKY TV began live coverage of the Supreme Court. Today  the go ahead has been given to widen the coverage of legal proceedings initially on a restricted basis.  So for the first time in many months I doff my hat to a proposal from the Ministry of Justice.

AYE; THERE`S THE RUB

“We have a case of assault in a domestic context”.  These are the opening words  I usually use when pronouncing the bench decision after a trial of assault where the defendant and complainant are or were individuals in an intimate relationship although by default the term applies more widely eg father to child or sister to sister in law.   The important consideration is that there is no offence of “domestic violence” although that is the generic term widely used to describe acts ranging from assault which is a summary only offence to murder. And perhaps that is part of the problem for a problem there certainly is.

Much legislation by the very nature of our system of government is enacted for or by political pressure whereby a government of the day seeks to gain favour with the electorate.  To quote Wikipedia, “The first known use of the expression "domestic violence" in a modern context, meaning "spouse abuse, violence in the home" was in 1973”.  It is no coincidence that by this time the “women`s movement”  had become firmly established  subsequent to widespread use of  oral contraceptives and the drive for equality in all walks of life including the marital home.  Thereafter efforts to promote that equality have been part and parcel of  the  parliamentary as well as economic process. Much of the evidence used in DV training for J.P.s is derived from studies in the state of Michigan U.S.A.  where it was concluded that victims suffered over 30 episodes of violence prior to informing police.  It was only about a decade ago that the Metropolitan Police decided to investigate cases where there was little hope of the victim being persuaded to appear in court. My memory of the training sessions on DV is that the trainers considered that we should bear in mind that when a case appears in court it is as the tip of a violence iceberg.  That philosophy might be appropriate if government had legislated for DV  per se.  Instead we have it under various levels of assault as mentioned earlier with the context as an aggravating factor.  The result is that we must IMHO disregard statistics and find only on the facts of any case on which we are sitting.  This inevitably results in acquittal of some who might have been found “not proven” north of the border.

However of all criminal law making  DV must come as high a priority as any when  a party becomes a vote seeker in 2015 which is a good reason why Theresa May, the Home Secretary, last Friday announced that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) will inspect the performance of police forces across the country, to identify where improvements need to be made to ensure effectiveness of the police approach to domestic violence and report back in April 2014.  But it is not just the police in the dock.  The CPS and its associate the Witness Service have much to answer for also insofar as those agencies have been entrusted with the task of actually bringing the evidence before a court where that evidence seems likely to lead to conviction and is in the public interest.    And as the Bard might have considered when writing in his will that his wife should inherit only his second best bed…….. “Aye, there`s the rub”. 

JEREMIAH, J.P.s, CHRISTMAS & TURKEYS

What can magistrates do, outside of courtrooms, to help reduce crime and re-offending, and make communities safer?

This is the headline on a page in the members` area of the Magistrates` Association website.  This page is unavailable to the public. The headline itself is an introduction to a request for ideas or comments on ideas already submitted for the Justice Ministry to explore in depth.  To quote directly from the web page:-

"Great things already happening

The following are some of the great examples of where you are already using your knowledge and experience from the bench in your communities, to improve the criminal justice system.

• organising mock trials to explain sentencing to the local community
• visiting local schools to explain the legal system to young people in an innovative and exciting way
• you play an important role in making sure the police are using out-of-court disposals correctly

What you can submit

Ideas can be as innovative as you like (they could even involve us changing the law), the only ground rules are that they must:

• involve magistrates outside of the traditional courtroom role
• be compatible with your core role as judicial office holders
• (in these chastened times), not mean significant extra cost.

What we will do next

We will take the top 5 voted ideas and work with you to develop them further, either to include them in our forthcoming consultation on the role of magistrates or collate them into a best practice guide for local areas."

There are those, magistrates official spokesmen amongst them, who would look at the above as evidence of the government`s continuing commitment to the role of Justice of the Peace.  I beg to differ.  By apparently prioritising our position outside its natural habitat; the courtroom, it appears to be preparing the way for us to be removed from that habitat and to be induced to accept a position as functionaries wholly involved in an environment distanced from those very courtrooms where we currently preside inter alia over procedures, management, trials and sentencing.  We are judicial  turkeys being prepared for Christmas by being offered tasty distractions to peck at whilst preparations are being made to wring our judicial necks.  

If I were female I would sign off this post as Cassandra.  Since I`m not how about Jeremiah?

THE WORLD WE LIVE IN

Magistrates just like many especially in public service have to use the sensitivity of a spider`s leg to guard against false accusations of sexism,sizeism,fatism etc,and the bete noir of them all, racism.....Perhaps I should rephrase that, the bane of them all and the one ism that has caused the death of tens of millions and misery for millions. However like the unbridled prescribing of anti biotics the wider the term is bandied about the weaker is its application.

And so it was a couple of months ago when a  colleague was about to relocate to Wales and confided in me that after she had told a person summonsed into the courtroom from a support unit in our court office to go back from where he came from [the particular office] and get the correct information a complaint of racism was made insofar as the individual was Estonian and the implication was that he should return to Estonia. It is scarcely credible that this nonsense was taken seriously and that my colleague had to explain herself. Of course the matter was dropped and the complainant was pacified. But that we have come to such a state of intellectual fear in this country where even the most straightforward of remarks can be so misinterpreted and worse still the complainants are afforded the status of having been verbally abused to placate those who would foster a culture of perpetual conflict amongst us; not the perpetual conflict envisaged by George Orwell in "1984" but the perpetual fear of causing offence resulting in silence instead of comment and inwardness in place of social contact.