JUST A FEW COMMENTS

This morning with little legal news that I thought worthy of comment I scanned the Branch pages of the Magistrates Association`s recently revamped website.  Below are a few of the comments which might cause just a flicker of interest.

"Appraisals.

We are in discussions over winger appraisers being able to appraise Chairman in the Adult, Family and Youth Court. The Committee feel that an winger appraiser, who does exactly the same appraiser training course as a chair, should be able to appraise the competencies required, in fact are sometimes in a better position to do that as a winger.  If you have any comments or would like to get in touch, my contact details are below."

"John Hayward then spoke of developments and issues of interest at the MA. The 4 constituent parts of the MA are:

1.Its future: There must be on going debate about the future of the magistracy. The MA does not support the idea of a fixed 10-year term for magistrates. The proposal has been watered down and Lord Leveson is compiling a review that should result in more work going to the Magistrates’ Court rather than the Crown Court."

"1.    Reports:  All the reports had been sent to the MA to be posted on the Branch Pages, but this had not been done and the branch pages could not be accessed on the new MA website. Brief report were given to the meeting and members were told if they wanted the full reports to contact the secretary and she would email them out."

"·  New Magistrates' Induction Evening

• Date: 9 September, 2015 
• Time: 00:00 " 

"Our Key Tasks are:
>To provide Annual Training for Branch members
>To develop ways for members to meet socially
>To develop a social group for supplemental magistrates."

"We will all do whatever it takes to support members in every aspect of their involvement in the Magistrates' Association and the magistracy."

"Branch events

·         TBC

• Date: 1 January, 1970
• Time: 00:00" 
• 
  

"No contested nominations were received for any post ahead of the meeting."

"Miss S had the opportunity to talk to the MA membership secretary and confirm that they were altering their approach to members who were retiring by contacting them much earlier in an attempt to retain their membership. The need to retain the membership of retiring members in view of the limited level of recruitment of magistrates continues to be one of the MAs main objectives."



 "At present the membership is 279 and represents just <50% of the  Bench"

AD NAUSEAM AT THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE PRESS OFFICE

It seems the penny has finally dropped........upon the editors of this country`s national media; that the criminal justice system is crumbling at its roots these roots being magistrates` courts where over 90% of criminal matters begin and are concluded.  Since 2010 when the first court closures began there would be an occasional protest in a local newspaper serving the area and a generic response from the local M.P.  By and large national media avoided the issue.  The s*** is now hitting the MOJ fan.  Grayling`s ban on books for prisoners has been lifted but nothing else of note has taken place since Michael Gove took over his unlamented predecessor`s chair at Petty France.   The Law Society Gazette many of whose subscribers not unnaturally have a vested interest has kept the topic bubbling as its latest edition indicates but it reaches a limited audience.  National media have been relatively quiet on the topic. However, today both BBC and the Mirror have made limited headlines on the further closures planned for this parliament.  

But and it`s a big but; why have the  senior judiciary remained silent at least in public?  Are they so concerned with their pensions and their so called constitutional position?  Are they all awaiting retirement when they can excoriate this and the previous government`s emasculation of our justice system including its latest manifestation in the Courts Charge where once again the MOJ press office taking its cue from Pravda, that late unlamented organ of a not so free press beloved in its heyday by Marxists everywhere, repeats its lying mantra in the Law Society Gazette, " A ministry spokesperson said: ‘It is right that convicted adult offenders who use our criminal courts should pay towards the cost of running them. ‘The introduction of this charge makes it possible to recover some of the costs of the criminal courts from these offenders, therefore reducing the burden on taxpayers." when it has been universally denounced.

These people really do exist in a different dimension where in order to make something seem true it only has to be repeated ad nauseam. 

POLICE SHOULD WELCOME SCRUTINY OVER TINSEL AND GLITTER REALITY TV

It seems to this blogger that the more active an organisation`s press office appears to be the more it has to hide.  One could say that media exposure is inversely proportional to organisational probity. With the MOJ that was obvious to all who took an interest.  It seems that the Met Police press office is not far behind its MOJ comrades in following their maxim of the more we say the less we reveal.  However like a habit forming junkie the more that maxim is followed the less its effect.  

Earlier this year Scotland Yard appealed once more for possible witnesses to the Dolphin Square paedophile ring to come forward on the basis that the evidence of "Nick"  a supposed victim was credible.  Not everyone agrees.   Now another sensational report has been put about, altogether less successfully, that a serial killer might have been responsible for killing twenty four people by pushing them under tube trains.  The current Met Commissioner is arguably the most skilled operator in public relations who has held the office.  

With all the supposed true to life TV programmes on British policing from motorway cops who are now a rare sight to following police on the beat in Brighton who will themselves become an endangered species following further anticipated funding cuts I would opine that this police  PR roadshow has reached its limits.  Police forces can improve their profiles with the public more by becoming organisations which are truly open to scrutiny rather than manipulating the tinsel and glitter of  reality TV.

THE INQUISITORIAL MAGISTRATE

In France and other jurisdictions where the justice system is inquisitorial as opposed to the adversarial system in the U.K. there is an office of investigating magistrate. And as it says on the tin that person takes an active role in the investigation and court proceedings. Judges and J.P.s take an impartial role in the presentation of a criminal case and its defence. There are, however, occasions in a magistrates` court where intervention is not just allowed but necessary in the interests of justice. Frequent examples which come to mind are where a witness is being badgered by a lawyer prosecuting or defending or where the lawyer is insensitive to a witness`s abilty to comprehend a convoluted question whether that lawyer`s insensitivity is by accident or design. The cause for intervention in such cases is relatively simple to make. But matters are never always so straight forward.
Many non Crown Prosecution Service offenders are brought to a magistrates` court. Examples are RSPCA, TV licensing, transport companies [fare dodgers], trading standards [fly tipping, health and safety etc ] , local authorities [council tax defaulters] etc etc

I can recollect a case some years ago when I was sitting on one such prosecution. The prosecutor in her opening told us that her only witness, the investigating official, would read his five page statement and she would be relying on a bundle of over 200 pages as her evidence. We duly heard the official and a brief glance at the bundle showed that in addition to the official`s statement it was divided into three complainants` statements, the defendant’s interview, documents directly connecting the offender with the alleged offences and his various bank accounts over the specified period. Defence council had little upon which he could defend his client during cross examination of the official. His client who was not the sharpest knife in the drawer duly did his best under cross examination which was not approaching a Perry Mason standard. We retired to read the bundle telling those involved that we might have some questions for the defendant.

Much of the material in the bundle was totally unhelpful and unnecessary. We had to hunt for the pearls that the prosecutor had told us would be the basis for her case. We duly did find documents which appeared to link the defendant with the offence. Our concern was that they although they had been exhibited neither lawyer had pin pointed them. We decided that in the interests of justice we could not adjudicate without further knowledge and more answers. Thus we questioned the defendant in detail overruling objections from his counsel. He was found guilty. At the post court review our legal adviser anticipating the tone of the discussion assured us that our inquisitorial approach was, in this particular case, perfectly lawful. He agreed that the prosecutor was failing in her duty when she attempted to rely on a huge bundle without further probing. He added that he would have intervened if we had been overstepping the mark.

Chairmanship of a magistrates` bench is an art not a science although the drafters of the so called competences required and the resultant appraisals techniques would seem to argue otherwise. J.P.s` awareness of when sensitive questioning of a witness is useful is not in the instruction manual but it is in the interests of justice especially in an era of unrepresented defendants when there is no longer a level playing field.

ANOTHER PREMIER LEAGUE FOOTBALLER IN COURT

Once again a young Premier League footballer who is paid an extraordinary amount of money enabling him to drive an equally extraordinarily high powered car does so after imbibing excessive alcohol causing him to crash into cyclists on the side of the road injuring one of them, damaging his bike, driving off and then crashing into a nearby petrol pump where a witness called police. It seems from the sentence that this was based upon the offence of excess alcohol which would likely have been in excess of 59mg in breath.  The guidance that with multiple driving offences often no separate penalties are given but the most serious one is considered aggravated  has been in this case stretched almost to breaking point.  Omitting the offence of excess alcohol it seems an appropriate sentence would have been similar in principle except the period of disqualification would have been limited to one year. 

I do wonder sometimes, not having had personal experience, if benches are reluctant to impose sentences of such severity man on Clapham omnibus would receive when faced with such a defendant as this man with his eloquent advocate and public persona. 

TOP POLICE HAVE CRYSTAL BALLS

A relative of mine was recently in Salem Massachusetts, location of the infamous witch trials of 1692/3.  Twenty people were hanged for witchcraft as a result.  They were finally rehabilitated in 1957 when the State of Massachusetts apologised for the actions of its colonial law officials.  Group hysteria probably caused by  the abnormal habits of the accused ingesting the fungus ergot which can be found in rye, wheat and other cereal grasses overtook the accusers. Toxicologists say that eating ergot-contaminated foods can lead to muscle spasms, vomiting, delusions and hallucinations. Also, the fungus thrives in warm and damp climates—not too unlike the swampy meadows in Salem Village where rye was the staple grain during the spring and summer months.  Whilst clairvoyance can be likened to witchcraft only insofar as it cannot be determined by scientific rigour it appears that forces of law and order in England seem to be infected by similar processes of intellectual vacuousness.

The College of Policing, is a recently established body aiming to establish itself as a sort of Royal College akin to medical royal colleges.  These internationally reknown authorities and others similar are robust in their  use of scientific method in all their undertakings.  What can  only be derangement on the part of big bodies in blue uniforms surmounted by big heads with very small brains can lead it to pronounce on its "About" page,  "A fundamental development within the College is the use of knowledge and research to develop an evidence-based approach to policing." and yet take seriously the use of clairvoyance in investigation.

Readers might have a more descriptive way in considering how top echelons of police are being instructed in view of the above.  Perhaps they [the College] have their own in house crystal ball sergeant  who stares into its glassy interior muttering, "I see, I see, I see. What`s this all about then?".

£50 FOR BREAKFAST WITH THE MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION

  Whatever criticism has been laid at the door of the   Ministry   of Justice in the last five years there is one area in  which its efforts have generally received plaudits and that is its ability to make the best of bad news and to trumpet to the heavens whenever smoke of the good news ship appeared on the horizon.  The result has been that its press and media office with sixty nine employees able to conjure such magic with words  could form a subplot for the next series of "In the Thick of It".  The Magistrates Association in contrast has by and large relied upon enthusiastic amateurism to propagate its views to its wider audience which usually was no larger than those it considered able to assist its purpose.  The great British public was not considered worth engaging in its attempts to influence opinion.  Then everything changed a few years ago.  It was pushed, persuaded and cajoled to widen its communication structure the result being that a professional PR person was brought in to widen its voice.  One would have thought that an organisation wishing to spread its gospel to a wider audience than the parliamentarians it has on its e mail list would do all it could in opposing the most iniquitous legislation of recent years; the Criminal Courts Charge.  Chris Grayling as Lord Chancellor in the Coalition steam rollered this most un English piece of legislation  by smoke, mirrors,  political brutality and a supine senior judiciary through Parliament to become effective four months ago. 

In 2014 Jason  Hughes was appointed Head of Communications at the Magistrates Association and as such is presumably being paid a decent salary for his expertise.  His employers have decided to get into the ring with the current Secretary of State in the hope that whilst not hoping for a knock out might gain a few points to win a round or two with the backing of lawyers equally antagonistic to said Charge as well as their own contest against cuts in legal aid. So one would have thought that offering the appropriate movers and shakers it has in its sights to disseminate its opposition a healthy breakfast meeting with such people would be a useful way to persuade some to get onside.  But Mr Hughes and his employer have overlooked or ignored one small point:- asking attendees of such meetings to pay for their own coffee and croissants is akin to driving with the hand break on......you don`t get very far.  The meeting on 29th September will cost those interested £50.  It will be interesting to read subsequent reports.

RESPECT!

The iniquitous Courts Charge has been a repeated  topic here since its imposition four months ago.  Indeed I left the magistracy shortly before my appointed date so that I would not be in the middle chair having to impose this insult to justice.  News media are now catching up to the reality of this injustice.  This piece in The Independent is a fair synopsis of what is happening every hour in our courts.  The letter from an ex colleague published recently in the Guardian says it all.  I doff my hat to R.Stilwell. You,sir, are an honourable man. 

STUPIDITY OR PLAIN ARROGANCE OF 161 MPH

Being a magistrate and knowing the consequences of being convicted of a serious driving matter it is not surprising that most of us have clean or fairly clean driving licenses.  I am long enough in the tooth to remember when all British motorways were as light with traffic as is now the case with the M6 Toll Road along which I recently drove in addition to about another 1,000 odd miles of motorway driving.  During these driving hours I saw not one police patrol vehicle but endured eons of 50MPH average speed limited miles where not a single person was working on the roads sometimes narrowed and sometimes not but always lined with the ubiquitous cone. The frustration grew too much for many and the instances of simple bad driving and excessive speed were all too common. It was therefore with absolutely no sympathy but with utter contempt I read today of an M3 BMW driver convicted of driving at an estimated speed of at least 122MPH on the M5.  I don`t know whether his stupidity in posting the footage  or arrogance in thinking he could get away with it was the greater of his failings but a custodial sentence although suspended was surely the appropriate disposal.

BARRISTER`S PREJUDICE AGAINST MAGISTRATES

The first time I put pen to paper in the public forum as a Justice of the Peace   was to sign an article in the Times repudiating prejudice, allegations and slurs towards the institution to which I had been appointed a couple of months previously  and which had been published a few days earlier.  During my time on the bench lawyer friends would occasionally delight in trying to  provoke me by recalling their colleagues frequent use of the term "muppets" in their references to a lay bench.  Scores of articles, speeches, advice, proposals etc from individual lawyers, institutions, policy advisors, pressure groups, politicians and not excluding Uncle Tom Tobley  have suggested with varying degrees of logic, passion and simple prejudice that the magistracy is not fit for purpose and criminal procedures in the lower courts should be presided over by a single District Judge.  Various reasons are usually offered eg cost encompassing greater efficiency of D.J.s, representative nature of J.P.s being essentially white middle class and elderly and lack of competence.  Generally those who hold these opinions argue vociferously for the right to trial by jury for the very lowest level of either way offences but see no contradiction in the single D.J. replacing a mini jury of three magistrates for summary matters. The *figures for appeals at Crown Court  against lower courts` decisions are an illustration of how often J.P.s get it right.   In short whilst there are logical reasons of cost and efficiency between a lay bench and a professional D.J. to be debated it is the old watchword prejudice which drives the argument amongst those barristers who feel they have to kowtow in court to those without a legal qualification.

PREJUDICE:- an unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favourable or unfavourable. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.

PREJUDICE:- prejudgement, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavourable, judgements toward people or a person because of gender, political opinion, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality, or other personal characteristics.

A perfect example of such self righteous opinion is that of the blogger The Secret Barrister who seeks to promulgate this decades old antagonism against my former colleagues.  Whilst his language is that of the arrogant know all his logic is that of the rabble rouser using individual failings as he sees them to castigate a majority of members of an institution. 

My own opinion presented many times here is that this government or the next for reasons of control will reduce considerably the powers of the lay bench.  Examples are already with us.  These changes will take place not because of magistrates` incompetence but, paradoxically for the Secret Barrister, because overarching government will no longer tolerate a truly independent minded lay bench over which it has little control when it comes to conscience.  The resignation of perhaps thirty J.P.s over the Courts Charge is but an example.  Professional government employed District Judges do not have the freedom to resign over "principle" .  Aye that`s the rub as the great man wrote.    

*