Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.
Thursday 30 January 2014
KEEP YOUR INSULTS SHTOOM UNTIL SUNDAY
Although hardly as world changing as Halley’s prediction that the comet subsequently named after him would return at a pre determined year (although he did not live to see it) last year I posted twice {previous site host} that s.5 of the Public Order Act would be amended.
1st April 2013
In common with many within and without the legal fraternity I have principled reservations with s.5 of the Public Order Act. The punishment for being convicted is in the scheme of things relatively modest; a maximum fine of £1,000. Convictions can be based on proving words were insulting and likely to cause distress and it is within those boundaries than the controversy lies.
A essay by Philip Johnston for CIVITAS has a lot to offer for a dank and cold Easter Monday to those who feel that this country`s reputation for free speech is gradually being eroded. Leveson has really changed the rules of the game. Abolition of s.5 might just indicate that there are still some who believe in free speech.
4th May 2013
Disregard the admitted drunkenness of the offender and consider the words “a bunch of sheep - shaggers”. Do they constitute an offence under s.5 of the Public Order Act? An English visitor to Wales admitted not to the simple charge of s.5 but the racially aggravated version of such. It is not unlikely that s.5 will soon be abolished. If this case is quoted as an argument for its retention by Welsh people of a delicate nature it will be because they have forgotten the British tradition of the lampoon ....” publicly criticise (someone or something) by using ridicule, irony, or sarcasm”.
This Sunday February 1st “insults” will be removed from the sanction of s.5. Not before time the change means the offence now applies only to “threatening or abusive words or behaviour…likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”. S. 4A, which relates to the intent to cause harassment will still include ‘insulting’ in its wording.
So readers, keep shtoom on all these sheep shagger comments until Sunday.
Wednesday 29 January 2014
FINES @ BAND D & BAND E
Fines are the most
common sentence passed at court accounting for around two - thirds of all
sentences handed down by the criminal courts (66.5 per cent in the 12 months ending
September 2012). Following the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the lower courts were given the power to
impose fines in two higher bands; Band D
(where a fine is imposed as a direct alternative to a community order) can be up to 300% of relevant weekly income and
Band E (as an alternative to a custodial sentence) which can be up to 500 % of
relevant weekly income.
In the 12 months
ending September 2012, there were 816,600 fines handed down (99.8 per
cent of these being issued at magistrates’ courts), a decrease of 5.2 per cent
from the same period a year earlier and the lowest number of fines handed out
over the last 11 years. The majority of fines issued in the 12 months ending
September 2012 were for summary offences with only 6.6 per cent issued for
indictable offences. The fine rate of 66.5 per cent is broadly consistent with
that seen in the same period a year earlier and has declined from a peak of 70.3 per cent
in the 12 months ending September 2004. The decline has been due to a decline
in prosecutions and subsequent conviction for summary motoring offences – the
offence type for which fines are most commonly given. Although courts have been directed that they must consider fining as an
alternative to community and custodial penalties I have been unable to find an analysis of the
various fine levels imposed.
For the first time that I can remember my last sitting
included a case (motoring) where defence counsel pleaded on her client`s behalf
that a financial penalty be employed as a suitable disposal and not the community penalty indicated by the
Sentencing Guidelines such a sentence, if imposed, being a threat to her
client`s employment status. After some
discussion we concluded that it was indeed a conclusion with which we
concurred. Accordingly we fined the
offender at D level; £300 being paid immediately and the full four figure balance within seven days.
Official guidance is that these higher fine levels should be
paid within 18 months (Band D) and two years (Band E). Personally I consider
the timetables too generous for those bands considering the reasoning behind them and in a future similar case were such a plea to be
made would explore very very carefully an offender`s stated income where
immediate or short delay in payment is not offered.
Monday 27 January 2014
FORECASTING PRISON POPULATION
The government has, this morning, published its document “Prison Population Projections 2013 – 2019 England and Wales”. Generally it is a statistical analysis
containing in simple English the caveats, but, perhaps, if, depending etc etc
etc. The reasons for such imprecision
are of course because the inputs to the final actual numbers of those
incarcerated at any future time are almost infinite. From such bases as licensing hours to the
numbers of males born between 1995 and 2001 to the success or most likely failure of Mr Grayling`s Transformation of
Rehabilitation to the government`s efforts to secure convicted EU nationals in
their own countries, to an expansion of magistrates` sentencing powers, to……………..
With a pre
determined number of prison places, even at rates admitting of overcrowding,
government will tailor the results to suit its circumstances. One notable admission from the document is
inclusion of forecasts made 3, 5 or 7 years ago. Perhaps such forecasts were so inaccurate
that their resurrection would be, at the best interpretation,
unfavourable.
Friday 24 January 2014
7 FACTS AND 1 OPINION
FACT: It has been
raining a lot over most of the country in the last couple of months.
FACT: To
undertake the backlog of road maintenance required in the U.K. would cost almost £13 billion.
FACT: Essex County Council HighwayMaintenance is a masterpiece of the policy of “overwhelm by verbiage”.
FACT: s.3 of the
Road Traffic Act 1988 has the provision, “if a person drives a mechanically
propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and
attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road
or place, he is guilty of an offence.”(my italics)
FACT: A motorist
in Colchester has been charged under the above provision of
the Road Traffic Act with splashing schoolchildren by driving through a puddle.
OPINION:What a
waste of public funds.
Thursday 23 January 2014
BIND OVER
It had reminded me of a friend`s case when I was a student. The brief details were that he was in a flat share at university and had been assaulted when an argument over bill sharing had got out of hand. His pride had been injured more than anything else and on the advice of a law student friend had taken out a prosecution against the aggressor. At court he made his case as did his now former flat mate with no other witnesses called. The chairman told him that unless he withdrew the allegation both of them would be bound over. He withdrew the allegation.
In my years on the bench I have not been party to a bind over decision. I have not received any information on such a disposal except that which I sourced myself. It is not in the Guidelines. So reading in the North Devon Journal of a man accused of assault and theft being bound over I thought it might be of interest to colleagues to read the CPS legal guidance. The Wikipedia entry copied below although not sourced seems fairly comprehensive and is a helpful narrative.
Magistrates can bind over to be of good behaviour or to keep the peace, any person such as a defendant, witness or complainant. This may happen where the case involves violence or the threat of it. Sometimes the prosecution will drop such a charge if the defendant agrees to be bound over in this way. No conviction is recorded if the matter is dealt with like this because such an order is regarded as a civil matter.
A magistrate has power to take measures to prevent a likely breach of the peace and, on evidence produced before him, may require a person, on pain of six months’ imprisonment on refusal, to enter into a recognizance and find sureties either to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour. The procedure is called ‘binding over to keep the peace’ and upon complaint by any person the magistrate may hear the complainant and the defendant and their witnesses, and if he deems fit may make the order.
Binding over is a precautionary measure, to be adopted when there is reasonable ground to anticipate some present or future danger. It is not a conviction or a punishment. It should not be applied for in respect of an act which is past and which is not likely to be repeated and should not be considered to be an alternative measure in those cases where the prosecution have insufficient evidence to substantiate a charge.
Applications to bind a person over may be made in a variety of circumstances e.g. minor assaults inside private premises where there are no truly independent witnesses, continuing domestic disputes, minor cases where it is obvious that both parties are at fault with no other evidence to support either party in their counter-allegations, etc..
The recent case reported in the North Devon Journal above seems to be a practical example of this disposal although an older case is more explicit. It is surprising that Google search produced cases in which West Country magistrates are quoted in both examples.
Wednesday 22 January 2014
POLICY IS A PENDULUM
For some reason
the minority faction AKA the Lib Dems has been very quiet over the havoc being
visited upon the Justice System by the actions of C.Grayling and T. May. Once again he who presumes himself fuehrer of
that party has allied himself with Grayling about what must be done to reduce
re-offending by the young. With yet another missive from the spin doctors
at Petty France, London SW1 we are given an insight into their plans:- “Under the plans to transform youth custody,
a pioneering Secure College will be built in the East
Midlands. The fortified school will provide young offenders with
strong discipline, while focusing squarely on rehabilitation and education. The
Secure College will have a head teacher or
principal at the core of a leadership team made up of educational professionals
and offender managers”. The complete
text is here. I am old enough to
remember what was meant by approved school and borstal. Wikipedia helps out……..
”Approved
School is a term formerly used in the United Kingdom for a residential
institution to which young people could be sent by a court, usually for
committing offences but sometimes because they were deemed to be beyond
parental control. It is similar to a reform school in the United States.
They were modelled on ordinary boarding schools, from which it was relatively
easy to abscond. This set them apart from borstals, a tougher and more enclosed
kind of youth prison.
“A borstal
was a type of youth detention centre in the United Kingdom. borstals were run by HM Prison Service and
intended to reform seriously delinquent young people. The word is sometimes used loosely to apply
to other kinds of youth institution or reformatory, such as Approved Schools and Detention Centres.
The court sentence was officially called "borstal training". Borstals
were originally for offenders under 21, but in the 1930s the age was increased
to under 23. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 abolished the borstal system in the UK,
introducing youth custody centres instead”.
I`ve always
believed that almost every type of government policy is as much dependent on
fashion as is haute couture or the car industry etc etc. They follow the swing of the pendulum; the
period is all that varies.
Tuesday 21 January 2014
TAKING THE QUEEN`S SHILLING
With the recent
government furore over barristers` withdrawal of labour and attempted discrediting
of the criminal Bar for its allegedly high incomes still fresh in its memory
the Ministry of Justice yesterday trumpeted the appointment of two Queen`sCounsel to the new Public Defender System. The setting up of this service last year was
not accompanied by the usual barrage of press releases and media interviews. It was indeed a “stealth” operation. The newly appointed QCs will apparently be on
a salary of £125,000 p.a. which seems about the equivalent of a fee income for
a QC in chambers of £200,000 - £250,000 and not a lot different from the salary
of a District Judge. Previously this lowly and unpaid member of the judiciary had the impression that when QCs decided to apply
for salaried and pensionable appointments it was as judges. Be that as it may one of the newly appointed
Public Defenders, Gregory Bull QC was not reticent in his criticism last year of the
changes (now being applied) to the Legal Aid system in this country. Indeed he was scathing in his remarks to Wales on Line
which reported in June, “He said many people will be faced with financial ruin
in a bid to defend themselves in court and the Criminal Bar as we know it would
be “decimated”. The complete article is
available here.
No doubt he will
live to regret his candour and be unlikely to repeat such remarks now he is in
receipt of the Queen`s shilling.
Friday 17 January 2014
EVERYTHING BUT THE KITCHEN SINK
On the few occasions when I am sitting in our remand court and on the 60% of those sittings when I am in the middle chair the business of actually running what is still termed a “magistrates` court” comes alive…..at least for me. Decision making is usually made with the confirmation of colleagues` opinions. Having their trust and co-operation goes a very long way to what can only be described as a successful sitting. Having them prepared with their ipads or equivalents pre programmed is of inestimable assistance. We retired only on one occasion and that for about three minutes. Verbal exchange with lawyers of both sides can be revealing. There are those defence advocates who still behave as if we are, so I have been informed, “Muppets” and who address us in such a form that they consider the result a foregone conclusion or who fail to realise that their references to “Picton” or “Povey” are cases of which we do indeed have knowledge. There are still occasions when CPS prosecutors consider that their institutional failings are a cover for adjournments.
My last such sitting had the usual mix of overnight custody cases the most interesting of which was a UK citizen arrested at a nearby airport two days previously having just arrived from a country within the E.U. She was charged with an indictable only offence allegedly committed two years previously and appeared before us represented by a very eloquent barrister. His client had been sentenced to a twelve year stretch some fifteen years ago and upon her release had then emigrated to said European state where the weather is kinder to over fifty year old ex villains with or without their ill gotten gains. We were surprised that within two days of her arrest police and CPS were confident enough to lay a very serious charge on her. Her counsel did his very best offering everything but the kitchen sink in acceptable conditions for her to be remanded on bail. Unfortunately they were not enough to allay our fears that she would, given half a chance, abscond. No doubt a judge at Crown Court has now heard his plea on her behalf. Sometimes our lack of continuity in a case can be a cause for regret but on the other hand………………….
Thursday 16 January 2014
SUMMARY JUSTICE TRANSFORMED OR BEING SQUEEZED DRY?
Every so often one can read in one local newspaper or another the furore over the imminent closing of a library. When the closure is of a local hospital`s maternity unit or A & E department the noise of resistance becomes deafening. Yet about 100 magistrates` courts have been closed since 2012 with never a whisper. The reason for the silence of course is that most people have no contact with the courts system. It is a place of compulsion in one form or another and not of compassion. My own opinion has been posted here from time to time. To date, outside the specialist media, little has been mentioned of the historic changes already being made and contemplated for the future of the lay magistracy. There has been virtually no support from the legal profession to counter the increasing numbers of District Judges(M.C.) being appointed. Considering that probably a majority of D.J.s past, present and future comes from the ranks of solicitors the self serving non opinions of the Law Society are understandable. Criminal lawyers with diminishing workloads and incomes are fighting like ferrets in a sack for the limited numbers of Deputy District Judge appointments offered every year. The Bar, which rushes to the barricades when jury trial is questioned, stays silent when discussion is broached on the ethics of a single professional judge dealing out summary justice. The general press has virtually ignored this changing face of summary justice which is being squeezed dry like a lemon.
Two years ago a former magistrate founded the charity Transform Justice. Last year it published a thoughtful treatise on the lay magistracy. For some reason it was ignored until it was picked up yesterday by The Times (behind its paywall). It provides a remarkably lucid and coherent account of where we are as magistrates and how we got there. It is available here.
Wednesday 15 January 2014
SQUIRRELS, THE LAW AND J.P.s
I have in the past posted of the RSPCA and the terrier like manner in which it has harried those who have the temerity to oppose its legal zealots. Its campaign against those who have adapted their fox hunting procedures to be within the legal requirements imposed upon them are still subject themselves to legal pursuit. Last year a pensioner pleaded guilty to killing a squirrel, not of the protected red variety but a common grey pest which is related to the rat and almost as destructive, and subsequent to a pre sentence report presented to court, magistrates fined the defendant £140 and banned him from trapping squirrels for ten years. It is unclear whether the case was prosecuted by the organisation which arguably gives the impression that on occasion it cares for animals more than humans or the CPS. Be that as it may the legal question for the bench was the humaneness or otherwise of the animal`s dispatch from this world.
These animals are good for nothing except extermination, fur gloves or roadkill for American survivalists. They do no good at all in suburban gardens. Indeed they destroy plants, flowers and damage other vegetation. They can be dangerous. They invade lofts. If they enter homes seeking food they can terrify babies and toddlers or worse. Even in parks they can be vicious. The standard method of killing them is with a .22 air rifle after trapping. Squirrels have a thick hide and care must be shown in targeting the cranium which is easier said than done. I am indeed concerned about the findings in this case. I must admit to having a vested interest in this topic having suffered house invasion many years ago by one of those creatures which I eventually dispatched with an air rifle pellet to said cranium. I am not the first magistrate to be so troubled by this bushy tailed rat. A J.P. colleague who lives in Hartlepool recently had a worse experience than I.
A most authoritative document on this topic is “Review of methods of humane destruction of grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis)” published in 2009 by Scottish National Heritage. If readers have neither the time nor the inclination to read the whole paper turn to para 3.1.2 and read from there.
Saturday 11 January 2014
WHEN I WERE A LAD
Not too long ago
I was in conversation with an elderly gentleman who actually began his
retelling to me of an old story, “When I were a lad……..” If nothing else it
made me realise my grey hairs were of little significance. But I`ve been doing this job as J.P. for long
enough to note that an undercurrent of changes over the last couple of decades has
swept many along in its wake without their even noticing. I am not referring to the changes in
legislation which have salami sliced defendants` rights of innocence until
proved guilty, increased the risks to individual liberty, procedural changes
which some might think have emasculated sentencers` options and placing victims as the be all and
end all around which all else must orbit but to those attitudes and thinking
processes which drive us all unseen and unheard until……………
We had had enough
down time to consume a three course dinner never mind another cup of coffee
when we were asked to hear a late application for special measures. As is often the case in such scenarios the
CPS agent began to relate the facts until she was told by yours truly to first
make an application for the matter to be heard out of time. For a moment her composure slipped as if such
a detail were almost a foregone conclusion.
After we had noted that the case
management form dated in September (this was a December sitting) had not been marked for special measures she told
us that the complainant in this non DV assault had informed the officer in the
case in October that she wanted screens. The delay in application was for the simple reason that the CPS had overlooked the case. We allowed the application by a majority
decision and heard the substantive arguments including defence`s objections and
our L/A`s remarks to consider if witness
evidence would be enhanced by screens etc etc after which I consulted my wingers
one of whom was awaiting his first appraised sitting as a chairman. To my
surprise he turned to me and said we should ask our L/A her opinion on what we
should conclude. My reply not
surprisingly was that we were the people put here to make that decision; not
the clerk. Unfortunately that was not
enough and he persisted to such a degree that I retired the bench from the
courtroom. In the corridor I made it very clear that I was disturbed
that having been a magistrate for over five years he was still unsure of where
his responsibilities lay. Subsequently special measures were granted.
I have firm
memories of my own first five or six years on the bench. Generally the middle chair`s occupant was a
confident, articulate and when necessary
a dominant personality. My contemporaries of the period and I were always aware when we
were occasionally listed with chairmen
who were bereft of these qualities. Perhaps
modern selection is fundamentally of a different (poorer) structure because I
remember in court when I were a lad…………………
Thursday 9 January 2014
LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE
I had first sat
with Jane three years previously when she had only been in the job a few
weeks. It was obvious to me then that
she would be a first class magistrate.
And so it was a pleasure not long ago to note on the sign in sheet that
she and I constituted a two person bench that morning.
By the time I had
poured myself a cup of tea she was already in the retiring room with two copies
of our court list. “I haven`t ever sat
in a council tax court,” she said as I sat down. I expressed my surprise and wondered what the
odds against such an omission could be.
Council tax courts (and related business rates courts) are generally
greeted by colleagues and me with little anticipation. 99% of the time they are truly a case of
rubberstamping applications brought by local councils of liability to pay the
tax. Sitting in such courts can sometimes be
frustrating but the legislation allows us virtually no powers to intervene
except if there appears to be an abuse of the process or the council fails to
show that there is actually an outstanding
amount for which the defendant is indeed liable. I explained the process in general to Jane
and she resigned herself to an uneventful hour ahead. Our legal advisor appeared and told us that
before we could get to the bulk list there was a defendant appearing to contest
the liability order for her owing business rates. Accordingly
at 10.00a.m. we entered court.
The defendant was
an elderly lady who, we learned, had recently sold her optician`s business;
lock, stock and barrel including the
freehold premises which had been vacated some time prior to the sale being
completed. It was around the vacant
period that the dispute revolved. After
some forensic analysis by the bench it became apparent that not only did the defendant
not owe a penny in business rates; she had actually overpaid by a four figure
sum. In spite of all this the non lawyer
representatives of Capita plc, the outsourcing monolith which collects these
taxes for councils, gave us looks of astonishment when the pronouncement was
made. It seemed they were unused to
losing an application. At our brief post
court review our L/A inquired whether we wanted to report them for
contempt. He had overheard them
exchanging derogatory remarks as to our sanity…..”Are they barking mad”? We decided to let those sleeping dogs
lie.
Wednesday 8 January 2014
TREATMENT; NOT PUNISHMENT
We all know that
tradition tells us that there are seven deadly sins……no more; no less. Judeo Christian morality is based upon ten
commandments……not nine or eleven and it is a much quoted maxim that there are
only seven stories in
fiction and that all others are based upon them.
In similar fashion of there being very few basic tenets underlying criminal
activity alcohol and/or drug dependence account for around 70% of all crimes
committed. Considering the cost in tax
payer pounds and individual misery for those and their families involved it is a blight on our society that the most that can
be said for government policies is that at least they don`t exacerbate the
problem. Every day in every magistrates`
court benches are faced with impoverished
and often homeless alcoholics who commit petty theft with or without violence to
achieve
their requisite daily level of inebriation.
The probation services offer various alcohol treatment programmes but as
is well known abstinence, the only long term treatment, requires a willingness on behalf of the drinker to embrace lifelong sobriety. Only too often that willingness is lacking
and repetitive criminal behaviour does what it says on the lid; it
repeats. A perfect example of society`s
impotence in this regard is reported in the Grantham Journal but every local newspaper features similar stories
with unfailing regularity. And like the
proverbial iceberg most crimes with an alcohol input go unreported and undiscovered somewhere in the myriad
of government statistics.
The Mental Health Act allows forced
confinement to specialised units for those whose behaviour is a danger to
themselves and/or others. There are many
provisions within the legislation to ensure that use of this onerous power is
justified. On appropriate occasions this
allows certain offenders to be deviated from the criminal justice system to the
NHS. I am firmly of the opinion that
similar provision should be available for those suffering from alcoholism when
that affliction brings them, as it so often does, into conflict with law and
order. The initial costs would be but a
drop in the ocean compared with the long term savings of pounds and
people.
Monday 6 January 2014
BARRISTERS AUX BARRICADES
I have no idea if
my own court has been disrupted this morning by the non participation of members
of the Criminal Bar Association. I would
estimate that solicitors comprise about 70-80% of defendants` representatives at
Magistrates` Courts so the disruption if any is likely to be minimal. I have not received any notification from the
Deputy Justices` Clerk so the morning sitting will likely have been as normal. No
doubt I will hear the full story when I next sit. The
tale at Crown Courts all over England
& Wales
is of a different level. Hearings have
been disrupted by the absence of defence barristers. This is an unprecedented show of unity by
people who by their very calling are independent practitioners. There is brief but comprehensive opinion by
Jon Mack in the Spectator.
Friday 3 January 2014
DUMB AND DUMBER IN PETTY FRANCE
Sometimes it is
almost impossible to overestimate the incompetence of the civil servants
lurking in the corridors of Petty France London SW1 where the Ministry of
Justice is housed. The current Secretary
of State is fond of grandiose press releases.
Just over a year ago there was the second reading of The Prisons(Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill.
In view of the obvious problems brought about by prisoners being in
contact with associates in and out of jail banning mobile phones seemed a no
brainer but just as banning drugs in prison is a laudable objective those
involved in running prisons are well aware that initiating methods to stop all
drugs getting to convicts would wreak havoc beyond their control. The ministry
has now decided in its wisdom that the technology required to jam mobile
signals is too expensive to justify its introduction the implication being that
a year ago the costs involved were not too expensive or that they cannot do
simple arithmetic. Whether or not this
is just a smokescreen for objections by the Prison Officers Association I know
not. There is a fairly full report in today`s Independent. After HS2 undercosting,
West Coast Mainline debacle, rumoured mothballing of as yet unlaunched aircraft
carriers this is just another example of highly paid people who should be on
the dole instead of leading pension proof existences wrapped around in tax
payers largesse
I scratch my head
in bewilderment at the efforts of those queuing
up to offer their advice to the Rt Hon The Secretary of State for Justice aka The Lord Chancellor. There was a children`s film called "Dumb and
Dumber" a few years ago. Perhaps those
employed at our expense are striving to show that real life in the civil service can be
dumber than the movies.
Thursday 2 January 2014
BROKEN EGGS//BROKEN JUSTICE
Not having been
in court for a couple of weeks and with other matters on my mind I had not
intended to post today but………………
On Monday morning
January 6th there will be no barristers undertaking criminal court work. This unprecedented action is a
direct result of the Justice Ministry not taking seriously the determination of
the Criminal Bar Association to show that enough is enough in government
underfunding of legal aid by the salami slicing of barristers` incomes over the
last fifteen years. By the manipulation of statistics, national
and international, the government has attempted to demonstrate that criminal
barristers are taking an undeserved level of income from the limited pot which
funds legal aid. For years those defendants
entitled to legal aid have been steadily reduced by heightening the legal
hurdles before which aid is triggered ie offence outcomes must be serious
enough to warrant representation irrespective of the defendants` abilities to
represent themselves. In addition the
eligible income level of defendants above which representation is refused has been steadily reduced so someone on an average
income is likely to be excluded from the system.
Thus faced with embarrassing
headlines in next Monday`s newspapers and T.V. news programmes what does an embattled Justice
Secretary do? In order to protect his
own hindquarters today he publishes figures on barristers` incomes so full of caveats
that they are almost meaningless. This
government has been shamelessly inefficient and myopic insofar as its control
of justice in all its forms is considered.
It has presided over scandals
within the privatised prison service, unnecessary election of Police and Crime
Commissioners, fraudulent suppliers of prison services including tagging and offender
transportation to courts, the abolition of a respected probation service, a
total incompetent restructuring of interpreter services for courts, an
emasculation of the Crown Prosecution Service and
those are just generalisations. Moral
within all parts of its justice empire is at an all time low.
I doff my hat to
the Criminal Bar Association for its proposed actions. Would that the Magistrates` Association considered
similar action. The destruction being
imposed upon our system of justice; a system which has evolved over 800 years
and was an example to the world is being
destroyed before our very eyes. Like the
proverbial omelette, the eggs of justice once broken cannot be re-assembled. Shame on those whose actions have brought
about this tragedy.
Tuesday 31 December 2013
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.
“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 31st 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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)