My very last sitting was on motoring and I
learned something new. Re s.172; most
provincial police forces follow up a guilty on that charge with pursuit of the
substantive matter which initiated the procedure. That is excluding the country`s largest
police force; The Metropolitan
Police. Don`t ask me why but the motto
is that we learn something new every sitting; even the very last.....ever!
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 If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.
Friday 27 March 2015
Thursday 26 March 2015
MOBILE PHONE USE WHILST DRIVING, SOME STATISTICS AND SOME ADVICE
Our lives are ruled by numbers. Very often those numbers are translated
consciously or otherwise as risk. After
that awful air crash in France it is unlikely that there were sufficient
cancellations from nervous intending passengers for airlines to consider
reducing flights because we assume the risk to us as individuals is
miniscule. And so is the risk relatively
speaking of being prosecuted for using a
mobile phone whilst driving. About
750,000 Fixed Penalty Notices have been issued since the offence was
established in 2006. In 2011 there were 171,000 such FPNs issued for the
offence. Prosecutions in
Magistrates`Courts for the offence were 35,397 in 2011 with a conviction rate
of 91%. It has been estimated by some
that 10% of all driving convictions are for use of mobile whilst driving. Current figures are hard to obtain. Perhaps that is because of the reduced number
of tickets being issued owing to the greatly reduced number of police patrol
cars on the roads of this country and that is a direct result of the
coalition`s policy of worshipping at the temple of the NHS while policing,
courts and defence of the realm are starved of funds.
Nevertheless those who refuse a FPN
and/or plead not guilty by post are entitled for the process of summary trial
to determine their guilt or innocence. Every
court in the land spends a good deal of its time on motoring matters which is
why Grayling is so determined to fast track on - line facilities to “simplify”
such “simple” cases. As per past
experience there are always one or two defendants per sitting who have pleaded
not guilty by post to use of a mobile phone whilst driving and/or make no further contact with the court and yet who fail
to attend for trial. What complete and
utter fools these people are. Unless procedural failings are found or police perjury
is suspected conviction in absence is virtually certain. A typical case earlier
this week was J who was found guilty in his absence; fined £200 with costs of
£640 and a surcharge of £20. So my advice
to those caught using a mobile whilst driving is to pay the FPN of £100 and
accept the 3 penalty points with grace.
And if there is a hope that their case is to be one of the 9% found not
guilty at trial that can only happen if they turn up for their trial with the
limited defences available.
Tuesday 24 March 2015
MUSINGS ON TUESDAY
At
last a change in police procedure which will be to the benefit of the innocent
until proved guilty suspect insofar as police bail is to be restricted to a
maximum of 28 days. An extension to
three months can be authorised by a senior [currently of unknown rank] police officer. Beyond that the police will be required to
argue their case in front of magistrates in open court. It will prove interesting to discover what
the threshold will be for a bench or DJ to approve an extension and if so for
what period.
During a period in which we were told
that every new law would be accompanied by the repeal of those now outdated the
Justice Ministry has excelled even its own well rehearsed reputation for the
spewing out of new “this” and reformed “that” by this announcement of new
legislation much of which is completely unnecessary.
Whilst the digitalisation of pleas to minor
motoring offences eg no insurance
(sic) is not the primary reason this
initiative will certainly be another nail in the coffin for magistrates`
current responsibilities in a court environment.
A recent survey on the attitudes of judges provides some insight into the inner opinions of a hitherto closed group
of high level civil servants. The very
high response rate makes the outcomes very interesting reading.
Monday 23 March 2015
THE THEATRE OF A COURTROOM
Sometimes those who appear before us
either through ignorance or arrogance or a combination of both do nothing to
help themselves despite the best efforts of their representatives who have
their foot on the accelerator of remorse when their unmanageable clients are holding
heavily on the handbrake.
Gladstone was such a man. He was 24 with a long history of offending, unemployed
and by three women he had fathered four
children the oldest of whom we were told was six and the youngest four months
the mother of whom was pregnant yet again.
Six months previously whilst on a suspended sentence order now expired
he had committed two offences (one of which was either way) within twenty four
hours against the above mentioned girl friend.
A previous bench had sentenced
him to supervision and two requirements for those matters. He had been before
the courts twice since for breach of these requirements and each time the
original sentence had been revoked and he had been re sentenced with more
stringent requirements. He stood nonchalantly
in the dock with a knitted hat on his head, his hands in his pockets and his
jaws chewing gum at a furious rate. From
the bench it was remarked that some might think his action and appearance might
suggest he had little respect for the court.
His lawyer motioned him to take off the headgear, take his hands from
his pockets and to remove the gum. He
did what was advised with a clear indication of his contempt for those in
court. Lawyers generally go through the
motions seeking to mitigate the results of their clients` behaviour. Our Mr Rumpole displayed all his legal
eloquence as was his duty culminating in a plea that he be given that one more
chance to turn the behavioural corner. The
court probation officer was asked by the bench if he knew why a curfew had not
been suggested in previous PSRs. He replied
that as far as he knew Gladstone had explained his difficulty in compliance
with such an order insofar as he would not have been able to visit his then
pregnant girl friend with whom he did not share accommodation. Horace R confirmed that as per the situation just
described by the probation officer his
current relationship with his aforementioned pregnant girl friend precluded his
client`s compliance with a curfew order.
Apparently he lived with his mother whose house was some distance away. When
he concluded that the bench should consider a fine or a conditional discharge
in these unusual circumstances three experienced magistrates strained their facial
muscles so that their innermost emotions could be kept under control. Those
who describe our courts as a form of theatre have a point. All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They
have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts.
In the retiring room we considered that a
long and onerous curfew would be a just outcome. We called our L/A who after some hesitation
told us that owing to expiry of the original SSO when the breaches were
committed such a disposal was not lawful.
Now my memory might be a bit confused on that detail and if that explanation
is wrong I hold up my hand. The upshot
anyway was that we had to start again.
We decided to impose a custodial sentence suspended for a year for the original either way
matter with a very onerous curfew. A similarly suspended concurrent shorter custodial period was imposed
for the summary offence. After pronouncement
Gladstone indicated he wanted the curfew address to be that of the mother of
his youngest child and mother – to - be again, against
whom his activities had brought him to court in the first place. We ordered that the address on the court
list......his mother`s house, be the location of his home curfew. He seemed irritated.
Thursday 19 March 2015
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST AND PROSECUTIONS INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
On 3rd March I posted on the
subject title “Are Some DV Prosecutions Politically Motivated?”. I chose those words with some care on the
assumption that protocols and methods employed at my court are typical of
others and on the basis that there is now very little independent action possible within
the magistrates` courts system and what is generally good for the goose court is
equally good for the gander court.
At my court we have what I suppose can be
termed a DV co-ordinator who liaises with the other organisations inputting
into the system; CPS, police, probation and who produces annual reports. CPS as is widely known have a distinct policy
on domestic violence. The section on
public interest and withdrawal is of particular interest. The position of the police has changed in the
last 15 years from taking a passive attitude to being able to apply for a 28
day exclusion order from the marital home for a suspect who has not even been arrested for any offence. Probation Service
has formulated many programmes within supervision and community orders in
attempts to change the mind set of those convicted of violent offending within
a domestic context. And to cap it all
new legislation will be debated in the next parliament vastly expanding the
parameters of what actually does constitute the term “domestic violence”. I list all these factors to demonstrate that
there is rightly or wrongly an overt political will determined to show that
action must and will be taken to punish DV perpetrators. One would have thought that all the input on
the subject would be available to our legislators in order to provide a
statistical basis for the promised new legislation. According to the response from the Ministry
of Justice to a recent Freedom of Information request one would have been
mistaken. The question submitted was;” Please inform me of the numbers of those
charged with assault under the domestic violence protocols at magistrates
courts in England and Wales and acquitted at trial for last five years for
which figures are available. Please also supply numbers of acquittals as above
as percentage of those charged. If possible also supply the reasons for
acquittals eg cracked or ineffective trials, vacated trials .
The reply received was, “Your request has been handled under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I
am afraid that I am not able to confirm whether the Ministry of Justice holds
the information you have requested. On this occasion, the cost of determining
whether we
hold the information would exceed the limit set by the Freedom of Information Act and, as a result, I am afraid will not be
taking your request further. In this letter I explain why that is the case and
I also provide you with some advice as to how you could refine your request so
that we may be able to answer it. The law allows us to decline to answer
requests under FOIA when we estimate that it would cost us more than £600 (equivalent to
31⁄2 working days’ worth of work, calculated
at £25 per hour) to confirm whether the department holds the information requested.
It may help if I explain that the MoJ
Court Proceedings Database holds information ,on defendants proceeded against,
found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. This
database holds information on offences provided by the statutes under which proceedings are brought
but not all the specific circumstances of each case. It is not possible to
separately identify from centrally held data the relationship between victim
and defendant; hence it is not possible to separately identify which offences
proceeded against at magistrates’ courts involving assault between adults
constituted a domestic violence offence. This detailed information is not
reported to Justice Statistics Analytical Services due to their size and
complexity. In this instance, to
determine if all of the information requested is held, we would be required to contact all the courts in England
and Wales and ask them to search individual
case files for all offences involving assault between adults to establish the relationship
between the victim and defendant, in order to determine whether the offence constituted a domestic violence
offence. To assess whether we collect and can collate the information you require, on
the scale that you have requested, would therefore exceed the ‘appropriate
limit’ set out in section 12(2) of the FOIA. You can find out more about
Section 12(2) by reading the extract from the Act and some guidance points we
consider when applying this exemption, attached at the end of this letter. You can also find more
information by reading the full text of the Act, available at ttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/12
and further guidance http://www.justice.gov.uk/information-access-rights/foi-guidance-for-practitioners/
exemptions-guidance . Whilst you could narrow the scope of your request in
order to try and bring it within the cost limit, for example by requesting
information for a particular magistrates’ court, I would like to take this
opportunity to advise you that it is very likely that any information that may
be held which would determine whether an offence constituted domestic abuse may
be exempt from disclosure under the FOIA under the terms of Section 32 (Court
Records). Therefore it is likely that any subsequent narrowed request asking
for domestic violence conviction rates or statistics could be refused under
Section 32.
I
am sorry that on this occasion I have not been able to answer your request. You
have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details can
be found in the ‘How to Appeal’ section attached at the end of this letter.
Disclosure
Log
You
can also view information that the Ministry of Justice has disclosed in
response to previous Freedom of Information requests. Responses are anonymised
and published on our on-line disclosure log which can be found on the MoJ
website:"
Following that reply the questioner
replied as follows,” Considering that
every judge and magistrate in England and Wales has specialist training in
domestic violence and particular protocols must be followed for every case and results reported I find your
answer that such statistics are not centrally collated quite astonishing. Only
a few months ago government spokesperson discussed the likelihood of new offence
of assault within a domestic context. How can such legislation even be mooted
when conviction rates under current legislation are unavailable as per your
reply to my FOI request?"
So I ask again:- are some DV prosecutions politically motivated?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)