THREE OF A KIND

I am one of the fortunate people who can experience a Christmas New Year period as a time for reflection and relaxation. Having some years ago had quite extensive training in traditional hatha yoga and latterly in transcendental meditation not only can I attempt to control psychological and physiological processes it does not take much effort to allow a certain amount of introspection to enter my consciousness.

Sometime after Christmas after talking with an ex colleague  I was thinking of the significance of a bench split in its decision and its consequences at the close of a trial for sentencing. I would hazard a guess that over the years no more than 10% of the trials on which I  sat led to such a division in the retiring room. That minority was probably equally split between both majority guilty and not guilty. Of course nowhere is it recorded whether the verdict is or is not unanimous. The bench makes a collective decision and that is how it is likely to  remain and that is why we are a bench of three and IMHO a fairer method of judicial fact finding than a single individual however well qualified. However while I was active when it came to the same bench sentencing I noticed that there was and presumably is no set pattern and certainly no guidance from anybody. Some former colleagues who were in the “acquit” minority quite logically, when opining on sentence using the correct structured approach, made clear that their situation led them to a minimum tariff whilst others declined to be involved. There is a third group which in acceptance of the bench decision of guilt undertook the exercise without prejudice and partook in the usual manner.

That period of introspection has led me to the conclusion that there is no right or wrong approach morally, judicially or legally with any of the three situations as outlined above. Others might disagree.

REALITY T.V. COP SHOWS AND THE CUTTING ROOM FLOOR

Fictional television shows about police and policing have been a staple part of the home visual entertainment diet since T.V. became the country`s prime means of information and communication. From “Dixon of Dock Green” over half a century ago through “Z Cars” in the 1960s via “The Bill” and “Prime Suspect” our fascination with the genre is unending. Combine that fascination with the techniques of fly on the wall reporting and we have "Forced Marriage Cops". It follows other similar see it as it happens reportage of police involving motorway patrols, city crime cars, police in helicopters, police in boats, police, police, police. One common thread in all these is the supposed control by the programme makers of the final edit. Whether or not payments are made to whom or for what amounts of cash I am not privy but constabularies and their police authorities have sanctioned this warts and all approach and so must believe it is to their advantage that the public has a supposedly unexpurgated picture of what their police forces must put up with in the course of their often dangerous and unpleasant duties. So what happens when some of the uniformed participants act in such a manner that critics, some in their armchairs some more knowledgeable, believe that their officers behaved unprofessionally? Perhaps those who make cheap programmes involving out takes might find the cutting room floors of the involved production companies a source of rich material.  Whether such images would reach our screens is another matter. 

IT`S NOT WHAT YOU SAY; IT`S WHAT YOU MEAN/SOME PERSONAL HUMOUR

How often in general discussion do we ask for a remark to be repeated because although we heard what was being said we hadn`t actually been listening.  Having sat in court for so many years I find that I have subconsciously perhaps trained myself to listen to everything that`s being said. As I was watching a weather forecast on TV the other night the presenter began by saying, "Most of us will have a wet and windy night." Speaking to my wife for both our sakes I remarked, "Not me I hope."  

TORY ARROGANCE INFLATES JEREMY CORBYN TO AN EMBRYONIC ALEXANDER KERENSKY

It seems irresistible to Justice ministers to laud cherry picked aspects of the American justice systems which offer an excuse for the failure of rehabilitative measures in this country to reduce the prison population.  They are happy to ignore, at least publicly, the binary procedures in the USA where federal, state and county jurisdictions are simultaneously operational.  They also conveniently overlook that many appointed positions in this country are elected positions in America.

The latest idea of those such clever folk at Petty France London SW1 is to charge local authorities prison costs for every one of their  residents put inside.  The minor matter of determining residency of prisoners I suppose is tucked away in some internal briefing note`s footnotes. The fiasco otherwise called the transformation of probation services initiated by the worst Lord Chancellor in living memory reincarnated as the Leader of the Commons, Chris Grayling,  which  played a major part in the continuing high numbers incarcerated and re convicted, is not something we`ll hear too much about from those spinning for Michael Gove.  It takes no insight whatever to realise that wealthier mainly Tory voting boroughs would be less likely to be funding such a scheme than poorer inner city Labour councils who would have their council tax resources put under even greater pressures than currently is the case.

Perhaps the 69 weasels posing as communication personnel at the MOJ have taken the lead from their political masters that with Labour in such disarray anything goes.  Such arrogance currently enveloping the government in many departments must be good news to the Marxist plotters surrounding Jeremy Corbyn.  They might not have a Joseph Stalin in embryonic form but arguably they have an Alexander Kerensky.

PUBLIC PROTECTION?//YET ANOTHER SENTENCING ANOMALY

Yesterday I posted of a sentencing decision by an English lay bench which was IMHO beyond comprehension.  It seems that such decisions are not confined to this side of the Irish Sea.  A District Judge in Northern Ireland dealt with a woman with two previous driving whilst disqualified offences by sentencing her to 220 hours community service and a five year ban for her third similar offence.  His remarks in the report seem in contradiction to the sentence.  The question is why she was not sentenced to custody suspended.  In addition why was she not subjected to the maximum of 300 hours payback. 

Is there a trend to minimising such motoring offences?  Is there pressure from higher sources?  Once again a magistrates` court does not seem to have public protection sufficiently high up in its sentencing decisions.