JURY MEMBERSHIP SHOULD BE LIMITED

The issue of religion when its tenets come into conflict with our legal system were rare indeed before the mass immigration from Pakistan.  Occasionally members of the Plymouth Brethren or similar Christian sects would demand that they be excused from certain civic functions or requirements.  Apart from events across the Irish Sea such matters were of little consequence to the mass of the population such were the low numbers of such congregations.  There were and occasionally are news reports of some difficulties Orthodox Sabbath observant Jews have with regard to Saturday working.  Legislation in the last twenty years has reduced the numbers of such cases to a handful.  But with three million Moslems now settled here many bringing with them attitudes to religion and society not seen here since Victorian times we read increasingly of occasions where these attitudes seem incoherent to western thinking with its more relaxed approach to religious doctrine whether Christian or Jewish in all their variations.  Stories of Moslem supermarket check-out staff refusing to price up pork products might or might not be apocryphal but certainly there is a current situation that rarely reaches a mass audience.  One such was the refusal of a niqab wearing witness to reveal her face in court.  Personally I never had to make a decision in such circumstances but it is not unlikely that across the country ex-colleagues have been confronted with such situations which of course don`t reach the national press owing to the reduced reporting of magistrates` courts` cases. However when a religion orientated collision happens at a crown court there is a much greater likelihood of publicity.  And so it was recently at the Old Bailey.  The end story is one of compliance by the juror in question but my point is that it would seem not unlikely that similarly minded such individuals  have been, are or will be future jurors.  In such circumstances how could such a person contribute to a reasoned logical discussion on a defendant`s guilt or innocence?   With an almost unfettered system for selecting our peers to sit as jurors in judgement including even those who are not British citizens or with little command of English, is there not a very strong argument for this open door policy to be re-considered?

SOMETHING ROTTEN

I have blogged previously that it is the small generally unreported actions and incidents within our organisations public and private that give a clearer indication of what kind of people we are or becoming.  Most such happenings are behind closed doors or are considered to be insignificant at the time.  When, however, large public organisations are indeed involved the signposts to our destination as a country seem to emit a thousand flashes. Such IMHO is the brief story of the police chief of Northumbria.

She was taken before a panel on a charge of misconduct or gross misconduct. And what were the elements of such a serious a matter for any police officer let alone a Chief Constable..........?  In essence she was accused of shouting at some officers. There are some who would say that an essential characteristic of a person in any such senior position should be one of apparent equanimity    under all circumstances.  That is a matter of opinion and is not one to which  I myself  have always adhered.  However what is truly bizarre about this whole sorry episode is that having been cleared of all charges Police and Crime Commissioner Vera Baird said: “I have written to Mrs Sim, who remains a serving officer although she has recently announced her retirement, and directed her to apologise to two officers named in Mr Bennathan’s report before she leaves the force”.  Presumably there was the hint of some unpublished sanction if she spent her last few weeks in office and failed so to do. Try as I might I cannot see that in this case justice was done and seen to have been done.  It`s a mess.

There are increasing unpleasant odours from the upper echelons of police and other organisations especially health and children`s  services.   Is it the case that they are less often now  to be swept under the proverbial carpet or is there truly something rotten in the state of England.   Certainly it`s not unlikely there was  in the state of Scotland and its Labour Party details of which I`m certain will percolate to the surface over coming months and years.

AN HONOURABLE MAN

Well! At long last it`s a pleasure to see the end of Grayling`s tenure at Petty France. There is much to his successor Michael Gove to be admired.  He was an outstanding journalist with The Times who made his opinions perfectly clear.  There was very little that was grey in his column; it was written clearly in terms of black and white. And so it was whilst he was in charge of education.  Many of his initiatives were anathema to the teaching unions but IMHO that enhanced his dedication to a role of putting the child first second and third in his priorities to allow gifted children from deprived backgrounds to rise as far as their abilities could take them echoing his own achievements from being adopted in Aberdeen to a place in cabinet.

As new Secretary of State for Justice/Lord Chancellor he will be forced to  apply pruning shears to an already emasculated justice system. He seems to be an honourable man; a term that would have no place in the description of his predecessor and this observer would hope that unlike him he applies himself without resort to breaking the law and lying to us all. 

HUMBLE PIE

Don`t you just love seeing “know it all” politicians and commentators eating humble pie?

LIABILITY ORDERS, COSTS AND THE HIGH COURT

It`s not all that often that routine matters at magistrates` courts end up at the High Court.  On the other hand all J.P.s will be familiar with the almost rubber stamping exercise ensuring liability orders are made against those failing to pay their council tax.  I use the term rubber stamping advisedly. From my earliest days on the bench I was told that we had no powers to investigate the accuracy or otherwise of a  council`s claim.  On being approved to occupy the middle chair I realised that for the handful of appearances in such matters it was judicious to allow their self representations to be made at least for a limited period thus allowing them to let off the head of steam built up.  Occasionally when it was required interrogation of the prosecuting council officer was helpful and more than once irregularities were revealed which at the very least persuaded that officer to ask for an adjournment so that discrepancies and/or such irregularities could be further investigated. Needless to say many legal advisors were anxious that the bench should not overreach its powers. 

The case mentioned above was occasioned by an appeal against a council`s addition of legal costs to the outstanding tax due.

Many tens of thousands of the poorest in society are now required to pay a small portion of their council tax for the first time in accordance with changes in the benefits system.  Many do not even appreciate just what it is, why it is raised, how it is raised or its purpose.  Many don`t care.  As with the limitations on what a bench can do when faced with claims from the now defunct Child Support Agency I would suggest Justices of the Peace, especially those recently appointed,   use whatever    powers they have to see that justice is done and seen to be done  even when it means invoking some disquiet from the solitary figure the back of whose head views large in their field of view.