ONE NATION?????

Until a few years ago the magistracy defined “localcy” as one of its strengths.  All the actions of the Ministry of Justice and its associated agencies are based on redefining the system as “national” whilst perhaps  retaining the original label when it suits their purpose.  Of course local knowledge can be argued to be a strength for the recruitment of individuals to the position of Justice of the Peace.  Strangely or not so strangely those same officials responsible take  no cognisance of that thinking process in the appointment of District Judges(M.C.).  What is undeniable is that the box ticking approach to sentencing has probably still some way to go.  Magistrates and Crown Court Judges are increasingly referring to nationally applied guidelines to minimise their chances of being appealed.  But guidelines apply only as far as the demographics of the areas over which courts operate. 

Disqualification of offending drivers takes place mostly  in magistrates` courts. An interesting study has revealed that Smethwick in the West Midlands has the most disqualified drivers per head in Britain.  160 of its 20,194 drivers (0.8%) were disqualified in 2012.  At the opposite end of the scale Harpenden in Hertfordshire had  only one tenth of that percentage of its drivers banned; 19 of 23,347 drivers (0.08%)  

The demographics of these two towns are also at opposite ends of any measurable scale…….educational and income  levels, occupational status, health outcomes etc etc.  Are we to believe Milleband when he claims   that he`s the flag bearer of one nation politics or does Disraeli`s dictum of one nation Conservatives still hold in the hands of Cameron?

A REGULAR OCCURRENCE

I think it was an impatience with the way in which the whole paraphernalia of court and legal processes was stymied by gross inefficiencies intolerable in any properly managed organisation which prompted me some five years ago to put these  frustrations into some form of coherent English  called The Justice of the Peace blog.   Little has changed.  On December 20^th last year I posted inter alia that inefficiency within HMCTS was responsible for around 28% of non effective trials in magistrates` courts.  A day`s events a few weeks ago showed that administrative failures within my own court`s administration are the cause of more than merely trials being non effective.

The non CPS morning court was surprisingly smooth running.  Everyone who was listed duly appeared.  The lawyer for the local council was fully prepared with colleagues to back him up.  Defendants` lawyers were in place and ready to go about their duties.  Indeed such was everyone`s  efficiency that we had completed all our business by about 12.15p.m.  There being apparently no further non CPS business we thanked council lawyer for his efficiency and had an early lunch.   Turn the clock forward to 2.00p.m. and unexpectedly two more matters were listed; also non CPS but that afternoon sitting was an altogether different kettle of legal fish. 

Mrs M. was listed to appeal against a noise abatement notice.  There was no sign of said lady nor a representative of the local council the latter having apparently left the building after having appeared before my bench until 12.15p.m.  Further enquiries by our clerk elicited the information that the adjournment notice which ought to have been sent to both parties subsequent to the previous hearing had not been sent. The case was re-listed.  Our second and final matter was one of a defendant`s claim of wasted costs.  Apparently a previous hearing had resulted in a situation where it had been agreed that maladministration by the council  had occurred and the current day`s hearing was to try to come to some agreement between the parties.  The defendant`s solicitors   had been  informed that the case had been listed at our other building that very morning.  Counsel had turned up and presented herself  there on time only to be informed that there had been misinformation by the court office and that the case had now been hurriedly listed in my court at 2.00p.m.  So far so good……..She stood before us at about 2.15p.m.  H o w e v e r…….nobody in that other court building had bothered to contact the same lawyer representing the same council who had been present with a team of four assistants before my own court that morning and who would have been able to delay his departure and do his job had he been made aware of the changed situation. So a simple matter of sorting out wasted costs was compounded by probable further wasted costs only this time against HMCTS.

We enquired of our clerk the likely consequences for those admin staff who had failed miserably in their simple duties.  Unhesitatingly she told us; zero consequences.  And she ought to know.  As she said to us; for her and her colleagues such events are daily occurrences and happen as regularly as the sun rises and sets. 

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

IS IT ALWAYS WRONG TO BE PREJUDICED AGAINST A WITNESS`S EXPRESSION OF RELIGIOUS FAITH?

We take for granted that defendants will be judged upon the evidence before a court and that any prejudices held by those presiding over that court will be set aside.  And that is generally  how it should be.   Nowhere is this pillar of procedure more important than in the case of culture and religion.  It could  fairly be said that prior to 1939 this was a “Christian country” however that term was defined.  In many ways the 2014 edition of the U.K. is a very distant derivative of its pre war ancestor and the judicial progeny of this era privileged to sit in judgement of their fellow citizens have arguably a more difficult task in facing their own prejudices than their predecessors.    

Census figures show that 176,632 people in England and Wales identify themselves as Jedi Knights, making it the most popular faith in the "Other Religions" category on the 2011 Census and the seventh most popular faith overall. My awareness of this religious group is confined to the understanding that its adherents do not practise their faith in any manner harmful or detrimental to others..  More to the point they don`t believe in human sacrifice or any other tenet which right minded people would find repulsive and against any concept of morality one might care to mention.  But here`s the rub……..where do beliefs, however honestly held, conspire against our concept of a just and humane society and more to the point; where do we place them within our courts system? 

 

If a Mexican appeared before us professing his belief as a descendant of Aztec priests and wishing to swear by his god  Huitzilopochtli with a consequent and stated belief in the removal from a person of his/her living human heart as his best means of eternal salvation would he be asked to affirm?  Would his testimony be regarded as tainted?  Would a self proclaimed Jew hater member of an extreme political party be entitled to the same consideration in the witness box as Joe public if such beliefs were tangential to the matter in hand?  During the recent court case of a Moslem woman who refused to remove her veil the judge was reported to have said that it would be  “"quite wrong" to be prejudiced against a person's expression of religious faith”.     If at a future time eg a self confessed jihadist sympathiser  recently returned from activities in Syria were to find himself in the witness  box would a jury be wrong to be prejudiced because of his beliefs which could or would be described  as an expression of religious faith?  

READING THE RUNES

With an election approaching like a high tide on the Devon coast the legislation flowing from the Ministry of Justice is in danger of overwhelming the defences of the legal profession and others with a vested interest.  Its current occupant Chris Grayling hopes to have  Royal Assent for his  Criminal Justice and Courts Bill before the forthcoming deluge for the Tories in May 2015. With its press office on steroids, the latest changes proposed re J.P.s` responsibilities  are reason enough to harden my convinction that there is a powerful unseen current determined to rid us completely from the courtroom.  He proposes to placate our anticipated  anger at our removal from that arena by ensconcing us as single magistrates  in a back office with no public access to  deal with more than three quarters of a million ‘low-level regulatory cases’, such as TV licence evasion and road tax evasion.  But that is not enough for the weasels advising a Justice Secretary without a legal background.  The bill also allows some summary-only, non-imprisonable offences to be dealt with by a single magistrate supported by a legal adviser out of the courtroom.  These would include:-

alcohol sales offences s.146; sales to children
drunk and disorderly
some football related offences
public order s.5
taxi touting
careless driving
no insurance

It amazes me when many(most?) of our representatives refuse to acknowledge, at least in public, this unspoken agenda being prepared for our redeployment.  The runes are in front of us.  All they require is the minimal skill to read them. 

AT A MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT// A TALE OF AN UNEXPECTED MORNING

Since January 1^st 2012 our work has been divided between two buildings; the larger for trials and video remands and the other with only three courtrooms for remand, sentencing and breach courts.  We also have two full time DJs so much to the disquiet of the whole bench only about 25% of our sittings are located in the rat tat tat bustle of the latter.  As I understand the situation this uneven division of our activities is widespread.  So at a recent sitting when 10.00am arrived and my colleagues and I entered courtroom #5 we expected the usual excuses to explain why this or that trial would  not proceed as expected.  However after some minutes receiving updates on the three trials listed we were asked to retire on the basis that some discussion might expedite matters…….court jargon for expected change of plea.  Accordingly we enjoyed our first coffee of the morning.

Kieran had decided that the last minute view of the film taken by a nearby CCTV system when he had spat in her face made it unlikely that he would survive a trial with his denial intact.  His lengthy list of previous low level criminality was a clear indication that although he was only in his mid twenties he had an alcohol problem out of control…..surprise, surprise…..along with 70% of offenders addiction was the root cause of his anti social behaviour. As the sentencing pronouncement was completed, including the bench`s disgust at his actions which showed his contempt for the officer and her uniform,  he spontaneously requested the opportunity to apologise to her as he recognised her sitting at the back of the court.   This was granted with additional advice for him to take advantage of the alcohol treatment requirement ordered as part of his sentence. 

Without further ado Jamil was summoned from the cells and pleaded guilty to assaulting his father and mother both of whom were over 70 years of age.  The facts were recorded as his having been arrested initially for  assault causing actual bodily harm.  This had been reduced to assault by beating.  After hearing the facts our expressions must have revealed our disquiet at this decision by CPS.  Undercharging on such matters is commonplace.  We then discovered that there was disagreement on the factual basis for this change of plea. Another cup of coffee and we returned to be told of the newly agreed facts on which a guilty plea would be accepted.   He had been on remand so long that his 23 week sentence meant that he would be released after about 10 days inside.   He looked impassive, his lawyer satisfied and his parents resigned as the jailers led him away. 

It seemed only a moment after Jamil exited that Mandy was standing in his place.  She too, on legal advice, had changed her plea on criminal damage and a harassment charge to guilty.  Her history of offending was horrendous.  At 36 years of age she had three pages of previous on the PNC.  About two thirds of her convictions consisted of offences   not dissimilar to those that she had now admitted.  We listened to mitigation and noticed that three offences previously, in August last year,  she had been sentenced at crown court to twenty two  months custody suspended for two years.  Neither the CPS agent nor the defence advocate had referred to this.  We could only assume that everyone, including two previous benches, had ignored or overlooked this “minor” detail.  After some discussion we decided to send her back to crown court for sentencing on all matters including activation of all or part of the suspended sentence.   

So at a metaphorical one  minute to  midnight a morning lacking in all expectation turned out to be one where we were able to put to good use our training in structured sentencing.

OF COURTS AND CARTOONS

It has been few  weeks since the rumblings  caused by a cartoon featuring Jesus and the Prophet Mohammed worn by students on T shirts at a Freshers` Fair in January.   It has been a week since these rumblings caused an eruption  of protest owing to the aforesaid cartoon being censored before being shown to T.V. audiences in discussion programmes on Ch 4 and BBC2  because the programme hosts described it as possibly causing offence to some viewers.

Last week a defendant in crown court who insisted on wearing a full face veil (her normal garb) were she to give evidence in her own defence,  refused to enter the witness box after being informed by the judge that her evidence could only be presented if the jury could indeed see her face.  She was on trial with her brother.  After deliberating for only twelve hours the jury was unable to reach a verdict.  Both were discharged and shortly afterwards she returned to court to plead guilty.  She is yet to be sentenced.  No further action is to be taken against her brother who also had been charged with witness intimidation.  This case is the most disturbing so far that I can recollect where the veil issue has been fundamental to the judicial process.   The resultant guilty plea followed by the dropping of all charges against the brother co-defendant might be thought by some to open a can of theological,  social and legal worms. 

On 6^th October 2010 I posted as follows:-

 “The Judicial Studies Board has recently published in 45 pages “Fairness in Courts and Tribunals: A summary of the Equal Treatment Bench Book”.
Considering this guidance is aimed at judges and magistrates [and others involved in the courts system] much of it is like feeding a grown man….oops……a grown person of either or indeterminate sex…….with a spoon. However where perhaps guidance might be very useful; on the subject of face covering the message is vague. Perhaps that is at it should be. Judges and magistrates must be able to use their discretion. Society expects that discretion to be exercised wisely. The consequences are grave if that facility is found wanting. The relevant paragraphs re the veil are copied below."

For those Muslim women who choose to wear the niqab, it is an important element of their religious and cultural identity. To force a choice between that identity and the woman’s involvement in the criminal, civil justice, or tribunal system (as advocate, witness, party, member of court staff or legal office-holder) may well have a significant impact on her sense of dignity and would likely serve to exclude and marginalise further women with limited visibility in courts and tribunals. This is of particular concern for a system of justice that must be, and must be seen to be, inclusive and representative of the whole community. While there may be a diversity of opinions and debates between Muslims about the nature of dress required, for the judicial system the starting point should be respect for the choice made, and for each woman to decide on the extent and nature of the dress she adopts. Any consideration concerning the wearing of the niqab should therefore be functional and appropriate to the circumstances of the particular case. The primary question is: what is the significance of seeing this woman’s face to the judicial task that must be performed? How does the ability or not to observe her facial expressions impact on the court’s decision-making, given her particular role in the proceedings? A distinction can be made between situations where this may be useful or important (for example, when assessing the evidence of a witness, particularly one whose evidence is in dispute), situations where it is essential (for example, for purposes of identification), and other situations where it may not be of any relevance (for example, for court clerks or ushers or where formal evidence which is not disputed must be given by a witness).

Victims or complainants. It is important that people are not deterred from seeking justice or from getting a fair hearing as a result of exclusion from the court process. Where possible a woman wearing a veil should be permitted to give evidence, either in court in her veil, or with the assistance of screens, video links or, in appropriate cases, by clearing the public gallery if she is happy to remove her veil. The most appropriate course will depend on the issues in the case. As with any consideration of permitted special measures, this is a point on which a decision should ideally be reached after discussion at a case management or preliminary hearing, rather than at a final hearing in open court. A short adjournment should be given to enable the woman concerned to seek guidance.

Witnesses or defendants. Similarly, a sensitive request to remove a veil may be appropriate, but should follow careful thought as attending court itself is a daunting prospect for witnesses and may affect the quality of evidence given. The experience of many judges has shown that it is often possible to evaluate the evidence of a woman wearing a niqab, hence the need to give careful thought to whether the veil presents a true obstacle to achieving justice. Where identification is an issue, it must be dealt with appropriately and may require the witness to make a choice between showing her face or not giving evidence. Again, special measures may be available to mitigate the difficulty.

Advocates. The starting point should be that an advocate wearing a full veil should be permitted to appear wearing her veil. The interests of justice will be paramount and you may need to consider whether, in any particular circumstances which arise, the interests of justice are impeded by the fact that the advocate’s face cannot be seen or (if this be so) the advocate cannot be heard clearly.”

A further ramification of this cartoon controversy is that the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate and devout Moslem Maajid  Nawaz who supported the publication of the drawing has been at the receiving end of death threats and a concerted attempt to oust him as his party`s 2015 general election candidate for   Hampstead and Kilburn.  Until the horrific murder of  Lee Rigby by a self confessed “soldier of Allah”  such threats might have had only little significance for those threatened. That now is not the case.  Statements from police  that returning British Moslems from Syria are liable to face arrest  have probably ramped up the threat level to those of that faith who  speak out against their co-religionists` Saudi sponsored Wahhabism.




The secularism of the country`s legal system is under threat.  Courts offer those whose religious beliefs preclude their taking an oath on a holy book eg Orthodox Jews,  the opportunity to affirm.  I do not think I have ever sat on a case where a witness of Arabic appearance, identity or name ever declined the Koran in preference to affirm even when that witness has given evidence of activity contrary to his faith.  That is perfectly understandable.  Many who swear by the Gita, New Testament or the Hebrew Bible also admit to practices against the tenets of their religion`s founders.  Perhaps the thinking and philosophical processes which initiated the Protestant  Reformation of the early 16^th Century and subsequent divisions  or the breakaway from Orthodox Judaism by reformists in the mid 19^th and 20^th Centuries  have yet to reach sufficient momentum to allow those Moslems of similar inclinations to have the courage and/or will  to follow a similar path. 




For every Justice of the Peace his/her next sitting could be that which delves deep into the way s/he considers that secularism must defeat the type of narrow mindedness which followed the Reformation and killed tens of thousands of Christians across Europe just because their understanding of Jesus Christ and His place in their society was in opposition to that of their fellows who believed in the same saviour.  Colleagues in Leicester found themselves in just that situation in 2010.  There are likely to be other unreported examples.  With the repeal of insulting language as a basis for a s.5 charge I hope that those who might  feel offended in future will come to understand that the country of  Hogarth  and Peter Brookes via Blackadder and TW3 exists in its current form from the very freedoms allowed those purveyors of occasionally offensive social humour.

MEDIA COMMENT BY MAGISTRATES

I have commented more than once of the Senior Presiding Judge`s advice to magistrates that they should not blog.  His advice is also that we J.P.s should be circumspect in our public comments to the media.  Where then does that leave my J.P. colleague Abid Sharif who has made a great deal of noise in the Daily Mail after having had the dreadful experience of having been burgled?   His comments might be echoed by many on or off the Bench but should they have been made?

EXOTIC POLICE CARS OF THE PAST: AND THE PRESENT?

This week sees the return of  the police series based upon the activities of a police inspector whose patch is Northumberland and Durham in the mid 1960s.  There`s nothing better to evoke a past era on screen than the director`s choice of cars of the period; more than any other prop,  well chosen vehicles inform  the viewer immediately that  they are being taken to times past.  George Gently drives a 3 litre Rover  and his sergeant an MGB and laterally a Ford Corsair.  The scenes around the police station have various police Ford Zephyrs parked. 

Over the years police forces have splashed out on various high powered cars for their high performance capabilities.  It is hard to believe now but in 1964 whilst Sergeant Bacchus was tearing up theA1 in his MGB the Metropolitan Police were cruising about in Daimler Darts.  MGAs, MGBs, various Jaguars and assorted Rovers and BMWs have been bought for constabularies up and down the country.  Arguably their excessive costs could be justified by the circumstances of their times.  Cars used by everyone from fugitives to families were progressively becoming faster.  An expanding economy released vast increases in government spending including the modernisation of the police.  Police numbers, until the recent redundancies,  were twice the level of the 72,000 in the 1960s. With spending restricted on all aspects of the law `n order departments it is somewhat surprising, that even supposedly on loan for display only,  a McLaren Spider 12C decked in police livery is the feature of a publicity shoot.  The McLaren Spider 12C has a 3.8 litre twin-turbo engine with 600 brake horsepower, surely enough to make even Jeremy Clarkson quiver. A police spokesman confirmed the car was on loan from McLaren for the motor show and would not be used on the roads.  With previous history to go by what are the odds some bright spark will suggest the car joins its predecessors patrolling on the M1?   

EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP SHOULD BE “EXCEPTIONAL”

Drivers who accumulate 12 or more penalty points within any three years are liable to a mandatory disqualification for a minimum of six months. This is a powerful deterrent to repeat offenders. Legislation regarding disqualification for totters allows magistrates not to disqualify or to reduce that period only if they are satisfied having regard to all the circumstances that there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction the most common of which put forward is the potential effect of the disqualification on the offender; namely that exceptional hardship would result.
 
Magistrates should know all about exceptional hardship as it applies to driving disqualification……….or at least their legal advisers ought to know. Practice suggests that the loss of employment by itself is unlikely to satisfy the “exceptional” test. Some judicial guidance can be found in the Scottish case of Brennan-v-McKay (1996) 1997 S.L.T. 603. A taxi driver reached 12 penalty points on being convicted of speeding. He claimed that he would be likely to lose his job and be unable to obtain other work and this would have a substantial effect on his family. The High Court of Judiciary held that the justices were entitled to conclude that exceptional hardship had not been demonstrated. Whilst it was not an invariable rule that exceptional hardship would only be established where persons other than the accused and his immediate family would suffer it was ruled that it was necessary to demonstrate that there were other circumstances associated with loss of employment which might involve reflected hardship of a serious kind on the accused`s business, his family or his long term prospects [per Lord Hope in Brennan-v-McKay].
 
It is important to note that offenders may not put forward the same circumstances which have been used either for not disqualifying or for reducing the length of the totting up disqualification within three years of conviction {sec. 35(4)(c) RTOA 1988} It follows that detailed court records must be made of the exact circumstances which justified any finding of exceptional hardship.

However the Sunday Times in an article on this subject a few years ago threw some doubt on those assumptions. As that newspaper is now behind a paywall no link can be given but amongst other things it quoted the following although there was subsequently some dispute as to the statistical analysis employed.:-

31,110 drivers disqualified for reaching 12 points in 2009
11,228 is the number of drivers reaching 12 points not disqualified in 2009

From the above figures more than 26% of drivers accumulating 12 points were allowed to continue driving under the exceptional hardship guidance. From my own experience I find that ratio astonishing. The conclusion on the surface appears to be that misplaced application of the guidance is possibly being applied. Perhaps more formal guidance is required from our lords and masters.
 
Wales-on-Line reported a recent case  where the exceptional hardship argument was successfully applied. The organisation Brake offered its own reflex - action comments as it usually does in controversial road safety matters excoriating the bench with its  vitriol of metaphoric tar and feathers. Spokespersons of HMCTS are well versed in the art of spinning comment often lacking accuracy or knowledge. In the report s/he demonstrated her/his ignorance being quoted as saying, “Magistrates can use their discretion to not enforce a driving ban if doing so would cause exceptional hardship, such as losing a job (my italics) or the ability to care for a dependant. A fine will still be enforced”. It is precisely this error which leads perhaps to misplaced decisions in the retiring room.
 
If possible unemployment alone succeeded as a reason of every exceptional hardship application the deterrent of disqualification from driving would disappear overnight. The motto is that those for whom a driving license is of utmost importance should ensure their driving  behaviour remains within the law.

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.

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.

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.   

7 FACTS AND 1 OPINION

FACT: It has been raining a lot over most of the country in the last couple of months.

FACT: Rainfall in Colchester December 2013 = 10cms

FACT: Rainfall inColchester January 2014 =  7.75cms

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. 

BIND OVER

As is often the way an inquiry from a friend about a subject that s/he assumes that one knows intimately often demonstrates that even so called experts or professionals like yours truly have a gap in their knowledge. And so it was recently when my old friend Jean telephoned to tell me her son had been bound over for one year in the sum of £100 at the local magistrates` court. After brief preliminaries I made what I hoped was a good excuse and promised to call her back later that day.

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. 

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.

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.