DRINK DRIVING STATISTICS/YOU PAYS YOUR MONEY AND MAKES YOUR CHOICE

I have previously commented here on the unreliability of police and/or crime statistics. This does not make me a unique observer.  The scepticism in general over official statistics from immigration to sugar consumption has led to many becoming deaf to hard facts and thus allowing their opinions to be fed by prejudice. Approaching Christmas and the new year drink driving figures are of particular interest especially now that Scotland has its own reduced level of alcohol permitted for drivers: 50 mg. of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.  This is in contrast to the limit in England and Wales where the limit is 80 mg. So digging up some numbers and comments on the effects or otherwise of this differential are curious.  Of course the extent to which police pursue such potential law breakers in various areas is the great unknown.  However accepting this anomaly some incongruity is shown in the following analyses.

A recent publication by the Scottish government available here in full has the following conclusion:-  "The Scottish Government and Road Safety Scotland (part of Transport Scotland), today (16 June 2015) released new Police Scotland statistics which show one in 40 drivers stopped in the past fortnight were over the legal drink drive limit. The figure applies to drivers stopped and breathalysed between 29 May – 12 June 2015, the first two weeks of the 2015 Summer Drink Drive campaign. This is an increase compared with 2014, when one driver in every 55 stopped was found to be over the limit. Following the introduction of Scotland’s new lower drink drive limit on 5 December 2014, even just one drink could now put a driver over the limit." 

In contrast the Independent reported,  "The introduction of a lower drink-drive limit in Scotland has had virtually no impact on the rates of offending, police statistics have revealed."

While AOL newsite reports that it is the Welsh who are the worst offenders but otherwise offending has reduced.

So what is the reality?  You pays your money and makes your choice.

THEY HAVEN`T A CLUEDO

Sometimes it`s the small stories, perhaps the little read local stories that indicate more accurately than headline news where we`re going  as a country with regard to law and order.  Below are three such snippets.

Speed awareness courses are run by the local constabulary offering particular offenders the paid for opportunity to avoid three points on their license.  Even with a money making scheme like this it does offer those successfully completing the exercise an equal opportunity for rich and poor alike to buy their way out of three penalty points. I`m sure the Labour leader would approve of such a philosophy. 

It has now been established by those in horsehair headcovering that racially aggravated doesn`t quite mean racially aggravated. Irish, Scots, Welsh and in the New Year at Somerset Magistrates` Court Polish will be the context of the evidence of a racially aggravated offence.  This is a classic example of the law acting like a giant amoeba moving ever so slowly absorbing all in its path.  The extended criteria of what constitutes domestic violence is another example. From the House of Commons Library note 10/02/2015   SN/HA/6337

The new definition of domestic violence now reads:
Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass but is not limited to the following types of abuse:
 psychological
 physical
 sexual
 financial
 emotional
Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.
Coercive behaviour is: an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”
This definition, which is not a legal definition, includes so called ‘honour’ based violence, female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage, and is clear that victims are not confined to one gender or ethnic group.11

 And finally  Cambridgeshire Police are looking for amateur unpaid detectives. Where are you Professor Plum, Colonel Mustard and Miss Scarlett?

ACCIDENTAL RAPE

We`ve all had to listen in silence and with poker faces to outlandish excuses from those who have come before us.  One that stands out in my mind was the cab driver accused of using a mobile phone who told us it was on medical advice he should use it to massage his cheek muscle to alleviate the facial effects of Bell`s Palsy.   He was convicted.  However at a much more serious level this defence is hard to beat for sheer audacity. 

ADDENDUM  16the December 2015

The accused was acquitted!!!!!!!!!

MICHAEL GOVE`S CHRISTMAS OLIVE BRANCH TO MAGISTRATES

Much has been made of the estimated fifty magistrates who resigned earlier this year in protest against the imposition of the criminal courts charge.  Indeed I ceased sitting some weeks before I was officially given the boot so that I would not have the dubious privilege of having to actually make the pronouncement of that iniquitous charge. It was in his address to the Magistrates Association on the 3rd December  that Mr Gove declared the impending death of that charge. But perhaps as an after thought, yesterday in the House of Commons he announced a welcome back for those Justices of the Peace who had resigned  and who would now wish to return to the bench.  This is an unprecedented action.  It will be interesting to see just how many accept in the spirit of Christmas his offer of the judicial olive branch.

CAN WE TRUST JUDGES?

Very occasionally this blog has commented upon the idiosyncratic nature of a judge`s sentencing or comments at the crown court.  But when such a judge is reported by two newspapers serving the same locality on two different cases in one day it is worth noting.

It would seem to me that Judge David Ticehurst was putting his own preferences ahead of the public interest.  In this matter of burglary the non imposition of even custody suspended was a travesty.  His closing remarks reported as, "I'm giving you a chance. Turn your life round. Get back on track. Don't get back to your old ways. You're not a very good burglar anyway because you get caught." seem to belong to another age. The good judge`s apparent benevolence that day took his idiosyncrasy a little bit further along a path of irrationality that veered to the downright inappropriate when he advised an offender how to avoid the criminal courts charge.

Now  the whole legal profession particularly judges at all levels are expressing their satisfaction that the criminal courts charge is being discontinued.  Where were they all early this year when magistrates individually, on line and organisationally were expressing their views that the charge was in principle unsupportable and a carbuncle on the face of justice?  They were as silent as the grave at least in public. Shame on all of them especially when there are apparently cogent arguments re the substitution of a British bill of human rights for its European equivalent. How much faith can be placed in their hands to be an adequate replacement? Trust is built like a house......with a foundation upon which brick by brick and piece by piece  it is strong enough to withstand the many forces nature sends against it. In short; can the ordinary citizen with eg threats to the Freedom of Information Act and the Leveson recommendations  trust judges to protect us from the state`s iniquities?

 

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS WILL BE A PROBLEM

A recent post was a "hat`s off to Michael Gove" for his resolution in signalling the imminent demise of the criminal courts charge.  This action demonstrated political, moral and common sense; a combination hardly common in a cabinet minister but certainly to be valued and praised. Therefore it was somewhat of a surprise to this J.P. now on the supplementary list to read that this minister thinks that judges and magistrates could take on the role of helping offenders to overcome drug or alcohol addictions following examples of such practices in some American courts.  I will not comment on the proposal concerning judges. They are paid civil servants beholden to government for putting bread on their tables and pounds in their pension pots.  But as far as magistrates are concerned that is a totally different scenario.  On being sworn in the following oath is made by Justices of the Peace:- “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”  This undertaking served me well as it has for many thousands over the centuries. It does not seem to stand up to scrutiny within "problem solving" courts either etymologically or practically.  There are three courts available in which  J.P.s can follow that oath; the criminal court which is the basic place of endeavour for all, the youth and the family court, the latter two being optional for those with interest.  In all these decisions have to be made which are generally up or down, left or right, right or wrong although in the family court sometimes the outcomes are less clear cut. By their very proposed title "problem solving courts"  are not to be compared with the existing structure.  They could be described as counselling on steroids and as such it would appear that those presiding over them should be appropriately professionally qualified.  Indeed with drug legislation under constant review as to decriminalisation eg Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington in the USA where cannabis is legal and Portugal where there is wider decriminalisation medical intervention and supervision would seem much more appropriate than training a small coterie of magistrates for what seems a non judicial function. 

DO J.P.s HAVE THE CAJONES?

So we will soon see the back of the most ill thought out regulation involving the courts since I became part of the system.  Questions remain; will those few who have paid the charge be refunded?  I doubt that very much.  Will J.P.s impose the charge for its remaining couple of weeks?  I suspect that many Deputy Justices` Clerks are   in a turmoil realising the questions to be posed by magistrates and their bench chairmen on Monday. Their bosses; the two dozen Justices` Clerks who are hoping to climb the civil service greasy pole, will do nothing to prejudice their own positions.  There is little doubt in my mind that financial penalties will be adjusted by individual benches next week until Christmas Eve to mitigate the effects of this regulation now in its death throes.  The same will not occur in courts where District Judges preside. What a rare opportunity this presents for J.P.s with cajones to show that they really are representatives, not necessarily local, of the greater society and to defy their legal advisors who cannot condone any  decision that might be unlawful and who will make clear notes if a bench defies their advice.  

SPEEDING AT 100+ SHOULD MEAN DISQUALIFICATION

Once again a famous top footballer escapes a driving ban with mitigation that is so flimsy as to be almost an insult to intelligence.  This time it is Yaya Toure whose excuse for speeding at 101MPH was that his Porsche speedometer was designated in KPH and not MPH.  Whatever the arguments over whether footballers are worth £10 million a year anybody who owns and uses a vehicle with a continental specification should have the intelligence to know the equivalent MPH when it matters; eg  30MPH= 48KPH, 70MPH = 112KPH and by that I am not saying this defendant was not intelligent: he would have not reached his supreme position without a natural intelligence. Of course only those in court heard all that was put before the bench but IMHO that bench seems to fallen  hook line and sinker into a position of being in awe of the absentee defendant.  I despair of such thinking.  Without there being an emergency or a similar unforeseen material situation there should rarely be any occasion when a disqualification is not imposed for driving over 100MPH. 

RESPECT

If ever anything has demonstrated the absolute incompetence of Chris Grayling it is this morning`s announcement of the  scrapping on Christmas Eve of the criminal courts charge.  I don`t think that a change of this nature so flawed in its concept has been sent to its demise in such a short period of operation.  Michael Gove......RESPECT

NORTHERN IRELAND IS DIFFERENT!

Magistrates`Courts in Northern Ireland are run by District Judges.  Recent history in that province has seen the death, literally, of at least one J.P. and the institution per se. With that in mind I have reported here from time to time some strange or unusual court decisions there.  However merely to fine a drunk driver who was more than five times over the legal limit and not to have imposed a community penalty never mind a custodial sentence suspended or otherwise is breathtaking [no pun intended]. 

Considering the recent abortion decision perhaps decision makers in Ulster are on the road to the 21st century in their thinking.  But with sentencing as above there is still some way to go.

MUM`S THE WORD

There are  some people, J.P.s and politicians, who, for their own unknown and illogical reasons, still refer to or hanker after local justice for local people. The reality is that this concept can now only be referred to as a historical situation to be equated with transportation to the colonies. It is a dead concept; an outdated concept; a concept no longer with us.  There are however some diehards. I recollect reading a report a few years ago of a bench chairman proudly remarking that he and his colleagues living in the same small town and knowing a defendant enabled them to operate the law more equitably than otherwise would have been the case.  I wonder whether that included perhaps chatting to said individual or others before or after the hearing.

Recently barrister Mohammed Faruk was reprimanded for being over friendly to jurors at Basildon station after a recent trial.  His copy book is now forever blotted.  Unfortunate for him but what about the situation in courts where members of the bench have no private access? Where all court users enter and exit through a single portal.  How many ex colleagues have perhaps uttered a brief word or two in all innocence  to a person prior to or subsequent to a court appearance? With the magistracy being the most politically correct organisation and group of people I have ever encountered I would suggest at all times "mum`s the word".

CURFEWS AND PMQs

It is rare for a decision in a magistrates` court to be the subject of a question to the prime minister during PMQs  but that was the case earlier this week.  Cases such as this occur daily.  

On 11/10/2015 on the topic of curfews  I posted, "The imposition of a curfew with electronic monitoring is considered as a sentence involving loss of liberty. It is described in Sentencing Guidelines to be used, “where the punishment of the offender and/or the need to safeguard the public and prevent re-offending are the most important concerns”. However there is surprisingly little “guidance” on when and to what degree it should be imposed save for the statutory limits; a maximum of 16 hours daily and for not greater than 12 months duration. For sentencers the attractions of such a disposal are that it can be imposed without a pre sentence report or without an offender being legally represented and more significantly it can therefore be imposed immediately after a guilty plea or found guilty after trial. In the terms of CJSSS it is Criminal Justice Simple, Speedy and Summary.



Before such an imposition a court will always consider an offender`s lifestyle eg family obligations, employment requirements, type of residence and any other considerations brought to its attention including perhaps travel arrangements previously made and/or paid for insofar as their possibly having a bearing on the proposed terms. It is a matter of judgement of the court on the weight put upon any objections made. In our current position it is rare indeed for my colleagues and me to be allowed to use our judgement so proscribed are many decisions.


Similar judgements have to be made when an application is made in court for curfew conditions to be altered. I`m sure that most J.P.s have heard , as I have, many tales based on the old adage, “I need to go to a funeral. My grandma has died in Ireland, Poland, Lithuania….etc etc” or anywhere far enough away to require some days and nights away from the registered address. Holidays, pre and post booked, are another reason often cited to alter the curfew. And of course those imposed before and including Christmas and new year will bring pleas of once in a lifetime family re-unions etc. "  On 5/11/2015 I followed up on the topic of varying a curfew.


This type of decision often leaves an open goal for lazy reporters and sub editors to score easy headlines and in this case  for an MP to have thirty seconds on PMQs.  But there is an underlying concern that benches are too easily swayed by smooth talking lawyers.  There is no "loophole" in the law.  To remove the option of a variation in a curfew is akin to removing a right of appeal against sentence. The problem as is often the case in such matters is the application of such a right and the ability of J.P.s to deal logically and with dispassion on all that comes before them. 

GOVERNMENT, RACE AND JUSTICE

Everything you ever wanted to know about race and the criminal justice system.

JUSTICE MINISTRY Spending Review 2015

 

      Access here.

                                                     

PUBLISH AND BE NOT DAMNED

Justices of the Peace are notoriously reticent about criticising their own bench and its officers or the magistracy in general.  Even in a closed environment eg the retiring room I had often thought that some colleagues were afraid to speak their minds in case critical comments reached hostile ears.  I had and have some sympathy with this reluctance to be able to speak freely and frankly without fear or favour.  Certainly bench meetings are circumscribed by the agenda, bench chairmen rarely deviating from official policies and the presence of senior civil servants; namely the regional justices` clerk. With recent upheavals and the possibility of more to come in the operation of magistrates` courts and the consequences for witnesses and defendants   I  invite ex colleagues to submit such information and comments to which they would be fearful to have their names attached and they will be published here with anonymity assured the content of course not being abusive or libellous. 

COURTS INQUISITORIAL OR ADVERSARIAL? VICTIMS AND A QUESTION UNASKED

The so called "treatment" of complainants and to a lesser extent witnesses as "victims" within the context of court proceedings especially those in the crown court has been  an increasingly vocal feature of victim orientated  organisations and charities many of which have been founded in the last thirty years. The Leveson Inquiry and the ramifications of the revelations surrounding Savile have accelerated the pressure from those organisations for changes to pre trial and trial procedures themselves.  One such organisation The Criminal Justice Alliance  put forward its own programme of reform earlier this month.  In essence it proposes that a truly victim centric system of justice be imposed upon the current "elaborate, ritualised and – in many respects – archaic system".  Whilst there are few who would deny that there are some aspects of the whole process which lend themselves to reform the concept of a victim orientated justice system is contrary to the historical concept that the state as a disinterested third party dispenses justice equal for all without fear or favour.  This idea along with other social changes instigated by the post war Atlee government gained a concrete base in 1949 by the first legal aid scheme in the Legal Aid and Legal Advice Act 1949 with a focus mainly on divorce and matrimonial problems.  Prior to the cuts initiated by the coalition criminal legal aid accounted for a little over half the total costs.  Those cuts effectively demonstrated that the state was taking a step back from enabling there to be a level playing field where prosecution and accused or plaintiff and defendant could have their cases argued by our adversarial system.  In 2001 victim impact statements were allowed to be read in the crown court but are not taken into consideration when sentencing is decided by the judge.  Although many victims and victim based charities are affronted by this the arguments against such statements are substantial.  Indeed over the last five or so years I had many occasions in which I had to ask prosecutors to temper their language; namely that a CPS witness was to be referred to as a "complainant" during a trial and became a "victim" only  when a guilty verdict was brought against the accused. Occasionally there was an objection that s/he was a victim per se. I rejected such observations.
 

It seems that a fundamental aspect of the whole process has not been put under the microscope; the adversarial system itself.  I have posted here before now that I believe, in the current situation of increasing numbers of unrepresented defendants in magistrates` courts, that the chairman of a lay bench must be prepared to take an increasingly inquisitorial approach enabling the truth to emerge where relying upon inept prosecutors and/or those inarticulate unrepresented defendants  could lead to miscarriages of justice. In like fashion perhaps we need to assess whether the uniquely Anglo Saxon system of crown court  legal jousting would better outcomes for complainants by being replaced by the continental system of an inquisitorial bench.  That question is rarely if ever asked never mind being answered.

JUDICIARY & GOVERNMENT ARE EQUALLY MYOPIC

I had thought that there would be little to mention for a while at least on the criminal courts charge.  I was wrong.  Another judge in the crown court has made public comment.  This just reinforces my post last week about the Lord Chief Justice.  There are about 650 judges (excluding recorders) sitting in our crown courts. I presume they have some sort of representative body.  Where was it when the Ministry of Justice issued its intention to initiate this charge?  Was a decision taken that it would have been unconstitutional to make any reservations known?  Were there any reservations at that time? This whole mess brings the judiciary into disrepute.  It does nothing to uphold confidence in government when we learn today that British built anti submarine planes scrapped before they were commissioned in 2010 are to be replaced by American made aircraft for the very same purpose and that French and Canadian such aircraft last week had to be flown north of northern Scotland searching for a Russian submarine.

CRIMINAL COURTS CHARGE: REQUIEM

For those interested in how our highly respected intelligent and public spirited M.P.s discuss matters of interest and how a mendacious government minister  tries to cover his arse there is no better place to spend five minutes than reading this week`s House of Commons debate on the criminal courts charge and if that isn`t sufficient try reading yesterday`s report of the the Justice Committee of the House of Commons. I think that`s enough until next week.
 

POWER OF WRITTEN WORD

On November 17th I alluded to magistrates` courts reporting in local media.  And as is the way of coincidence two local west country newspapers yesterday  published short reports of of such proceedings which, whilst brief and in one case apparently incomplete, demonstrated the sometimes hard to fathom decisions of two local courts.  It is more than likely that those reading these reports will take more realistic impressions of such things than viewing  any so called expert on T.V.  

LEST THEY BE JUDGED

In my earliest days in the middle chair I can recollect my thoughts at the time of how much respect I had for judges; especially those at the top of the profession.  Their accumulated knowledge and wisdom in addition to the power they exercised appeared to be, from my low level function, quite extraordinary.    But as time went by and my own confidence and knowledge increased that respect began slowly to diminish.  When some of the  judiciary threatened resignation over their pension situation  a further degrading of their position infiltrated my mindset.  In 2012 the Senior Presiding Judge issued so called "guidance" ordering J.P.s not to blog or cease forthwith. My opinion of that "guidance" was blogged on 10/08/2012 at my previous site. It goes without saying but say it I will that my impression of senior judiciary took a further downward turn especially when it transpired he was just blowing inordinate amounts of hot air.  Leveson and his enquiry proposals which threatened then and still do, the freedom of the press was IMHO another judge who seemed to have lost his sense of direction.  Now fast forward to yesterday`s press conference by the Lord Chief Justice.  If ever their was a public indictment of the inadequacy and shallow thinking of a person in his position it was in his own replies to questions about the criminal courts charge. 

CLIVE COLEMAN (BBC):

Can I just ask you specifically about the criminal courts charge? Fifty magistrates at least have resigned already because they consider it to be extremely unjust and unfair. They tell stories about defendants who are making a commercial decision whether to plead guilty or not based on the size of the charge they would have to pay in respect of that decision. The Government are committed to review within three years. The Magistrates Association want that review to take place immediately. They want the charge to become discretionary. It is causing a huge amount of concern. What is your view on that? 

 

 

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:

When the criminal courts charge was mooted, we pointed out that the only sure area where money would be raised would be from those who commit crimes by way of motoring offences, those companies that commit environmental offences and some rich individuals and those who also have substantial means. It was unlikely ever that if anyone was sent to prison he would ever be able to pay it. I think that the reality of what we said at the time has turned out to be correct. The charge, I do not believe, is raising much money and it does seem to me that although in principle it is right that the financial penalties at the end of a case ought to reflect the ability of someone to pay, the whole thing has to be looked together. If I can give you by way of illustration, for example, at the end of a case there is the victim surcharge, the possibility of paying the prosecution’s cost, there is the question of compensation, the question of confiscation. All of these issues need to be considered in the round. We have gone, as quite often happens in the justice system, from adding charge after charge after charge without looking at it in the round and I think it has all got to be looked at in the round. There must be a case for defendants who can pay and others making the contribution but it has got to be looked at in the round.

 

CLIVE COLEMAN:

So it should be means tested. 

 

 

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:

I do not know. I am not saying that. I am saying that you have got to look in the round at all the financial impositions that are imposed and actually come up with a proper solution of how a court should approach it and obviously one of the considerations must be the means to pay. There may be other considerations but I would not want to prejudge a proper look at the whole thing. When something has not gone correctly, I think the best solution is to look at the problem that has arisen and the problem is a much wider one. 

 

A complete transcript is available here.

It appears that the Lord Chief Justice with all his experience, knowledge and supposed wisdom has confessed to his own incompetence in being unable to predict the consequences of the policy or his inability to persuade Whitehall and the minister of their folly.  Nowhere in his reply does he make the point in principle that justice accessible and available for all, irrespective of ability to pay,  for complainants and defendants alike is a pre requesite   for a just and humane society. Indeed he endorses the very opposite.  The assumption must be that he believes in the policy in principle.  That, in my opinion, is a disgrace!