SLOGANS OVER SENSE AT WHITEHALL

As recently as last Tuesday July 5th  I pointed out that if a government department does not want to supply statistics or answer any questions on a particular topic it has a very simple get out; it does not collect any statistics on that topic thus allowing the minister or secretary of state to be in a situation of plausible deniability. The same situation happens in the legal sphere where a lawyer will refuse to hear certain utterances from a client.

The issue of custody suspended has been a bone of contention since such powers were expanded dramatically in the magistrates` court.  In 2014 there were over 30,000 disposals of custody suspended; more than ten times the numbers of a decade earlier.  What is not in the public domain is the number of breaches of suspended sentences.  According to the MOJ it indeed holds this information but its retrieval would exceed the financial limits imposed by the Freedom of Information Act.  There is a similar inability to produce the outcomes of these breaches.  Today the Telegraph has published details resulting from a parliamentary question by a member of the Justice Committee.   The public has no access to the Police National Computer. Of course the Telegraph (and others) make play with the numbers which do not truly reflect the Minister`s answer. Personally, as far as I can recall, with few exceptions  I generally sought activation after two breaches although my colleagues did not always concur and sometimes the probation service were also reluctant to argue that position.

It is  headlines which are taken as information by most of the population not  parliamentary answers.  If  the MOJ wished to have the common man (or woman) on its side it would gladly collate the figures refused in an FOI request as above and consider the expense a small price to pay to ensure that the public had faith that the justice system was doing its best to ensure that repeat offending had consequences and that society could be certain that government spokesmen repeating the mantra of public protection were not just paying lip service to a political slogan.  The current policy simply doesn`t seem to make sense. But then "sense" does not seem a priority for many in Whitehall.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATES J.P.s` SENTENCING POWERS

Yesterday the House of Lords debated the question of whether or not magistrates` sentencing powers should be increased to twelve months.  The noble exchanges were a perfect example of a "yes but if perhaps" session.  Or to put it more succinctly, the proxies of the irresistible argumental force of the Magistrates Association met the immovable rock proponents of the Howard League.  The debate concluded surprisingly enough with mild and lordly disparaging comments on the issue of magistrates varying tags imposed on offenders to allow them to take holidays.  Presumably their lord and ladyships were unaware that the significance of tagging was to ensure that the terms of a curfew were met.  Indeed this ignorance was underlined by the comment of Lord Smith of Hindhead, "Can the Minister update the House on recent talks with the Magistrates’ Association to help close this loophole?"  We, of course, know that there is no such loophole and that a bench has the power to vary the terms of a curfew upon application so to do.  Whether any decision of that nature has been ill advised is another matter. In addition the Magistrates Association of course is powerless to change the law. The debate is available here.

CAN £11 MILLION DAMAGES AGAINST NHS EVER BE JUSTIFIED?

Andrea Leadsom in her remarks today promised to curb the ridiculously high salaries and bonuses that senior company executives pay themselves especially with regard to the average wages of a firm`s employees.  Aside from anything else one doesn`t have to be even a middle of the road leftist to realise that unbridled capitalism is as much a curse on a cohesive society as one with central planning. But it seems that in other spheres, namely in our law courts, the issue of damages, alimony and divorce settlements is equally out of hand.

To be injured or have reduced life expectancy or the life of a vegetable owing to others` incompetence or malevelance must be a tragedy of enormous proportions for all the family involved. When a public body and/or its employees supposedly with quango oversight is responsible it is only right that recompense be made for the trauma suffered and its consequences even if that entails lifelong support.  But does that justify a capital sum of £366,666 annually for life in addition to annual income of £110,000 from the original overall capital sum awarded in a damages claim?  This child`s life has been ruined by medical incompetence and now the tax payer is short of £11,000,000.  Try as I might I can only conclude that that figure is not only astonishing but unreasonable. 

3 IGNORANT MONKEYS // POPULARITY, POPULISM, FASCISM

Mizaru, Kikazaru and Iwazaru are not names widely recognised.  However if I continue by writing that the first by covering his eyes  sees no evil; the second by covering his ears hears no evil and  the last by covering his mouth speaks no evil they are now recognised as the three wise monkeys. This very old Japanese or Bhuddist proverb tells the simple truth that people who refuse to acknowledge impropriety, who look the other way or simply as is often the case  feign ignorance  can then plead lack of moral responsibility on their part when faced with difficult questions. Nowhere does this truth appear  more frequently than in government.  And that is how we have no knowledge as to the effect on justice of the difficulties and probable injustices caused by the increasingly severe restictions on legal aid in the magistrates` courts system. Thus saith Shailesh Vara Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice in his answer to a recent parliamentary question. 

"The representation status of defendants in magistrates’ courts is not recorded. Data on whether unrepresented defendants meet legal aid means and merits tests, and whether they chose to defend themselves, is not available."

Since the June 23rd referendum there has been a noticeable number of commentators observing that the result was as much a disconnection of people from their governments as a positive declaration of wishing to leave the E.U. Similar sentiments have been employed in describing the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Saunders from the cloud cuckoo land of American politics or Marine Le Pen`s emergence from the unsavoury shadow of her father`s past and current opinions. It could be argued that Corbyn`s cry for "new politics" is a branch of the same tree. Popularity, populism, fascism...........

 

BELIEVE THE UNBELIEVABLE

It has long been thought that parrots are amongst the most intelligent of birds in addition to their being able to remember and  mimic many varied sounds including the human voice.  However an African Grey in Michigan is posing a problem that would unlikely  be  a consideration in this country: is there justification in its being called as a witness in a murder case?  As they say............only in America.

But for unlikely legal decisions one doesn`t have to travel 4,000 miles.  On June 9th I commented on the latest stage of what can only be described as a situation worthy to sit alongside Catch 22 or Kafka`s "The Trial" except it is reality and not a situation worthy of Monty Python. The unfortunate central character in all this has begun a hunger strike or so we are informed in this report.  

Truly it is hard to believe that such official decisions can be allowed to progress unchecked by higher authority. 

LATEST LEGAL AID STATISTICS MAGISTRATES` COURT

The above table part of a series published today might make interesting reading for those with a vested interest in the changes in the legal aid system. Full information is available here.

LEAVERS AND RACE HATRED

Amidst the bile being spilled by disaffected REMAINERS against those who voted otherwise there is a common theme that community relations have been damaged and race and ethnic hatred has been exacerbated.  Spurious statistics have been produced and roundly demonstrated as being proof of such changes to our previously peaceful multi cultural society.  As representatives of various ethnic minorities and Corbynites for their own end seek to propagate this opinion it is refreshing to read an article in the forever was and forever will be admittedly anti E.U. Daily Express in which the the editor of the Jewish Chronicle Stephen Pollard rebuts such opinion.    

HIGH COURT JUDGE//JOB FOR LIFE

I had always thought that equality before the law was a fundamental part of our judicial system whether in a magistrates` court or at the Supreme Court notwithstanding secondary considerations such as level of advocacy etc.  In practice offenders`  behaviour which perhaps would be considered acceptable in other countries or cultures would not be given any more tolerance or have any mitigating factor assigned to it which would not apply to a British citizen or anybody living in or  visiting this country.  At least that`s what I thought until I read of the recent case before High Court Judge Mr Justice Mostyn.  According to a report he wanted to show tolerance in a matter of multiple child neglect, "to the traditions of different communities".     

HH has a chequered history.  In 2013 it was his comments on EU law which caused raised eyebrows. In 2014 in the matter of  of Rochdale MBC v KW [2014] EWCOP 45  settlement was reached before it went to the Appeal Court.  In January last year he was thrown off a case for showing too much hostility to a gravely ill husband. Not content with that warning as to his conduct later that year he was removed from another case  after the Appeal Court decided his “passionate view” of the law was “distorting” his judgement.

Of course it is not a simple everyday matter to remove a High Court Judge but as with the recent controversy over Mrs Justice Hogg and the child who was sent back to her "absolutely innocent father" only to die at his hands  it does appear that giving somebody however knowledgeable, grand and eloquent a job virtually for life has its own problems where ego, self agrandisement and pride impinge upon the job description.  Any factor real or perceived which brings justice into disrepute is a burden we should not carry. Surely it cannot  be beyond the wit of man or Gove to think outside the box on this issue?

UNDERCOVER POLICING GUIDANCE OR ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF BRITISH PRAGMATISM

Today the College of Policing published its Undercover Policing Guidance.  Criticism of police methods working outside regular parameters has been intense particularly regarding officers who had been revealed as having had sexual liaisons and indeed children with those who were supposedly under surveillance.  The detail in the 80pp document is such that it constitutes a ready made policeipedia of the subject and with so many hurdles to be overcome by all involved it would not be surprising if there is a lack of applicants for all levels of supervision and activity.  One section which should not be overlooked is on pp54 which I copy below:- 

"If a UCO engages in unauthorised sexual activity for whatever reason (for example, they perceive an immediate threat to themselves and/or others if they do not do so) this activity will be restricted to the minimum conduct necessary to mitigate the threat. In such extreme circumstances UCOs must record and report this to the cover officer at the earliest opportunity. The authorising officer will be informed immediately and the circumstances investigated for welfare and training purposes".

There cannot be many such official documents even in draft form where an employee is instructed to have sexual activity when his/her life might be in danger and such sexual activity seems to be the only way to mitigate the threat. 

Before and especially subsequent to the referendum people here and abroad wondered what was so special about the British.  I just cannot imagine such a document being issued to members of the FBI, the Sureté,the FSB or even the Stasi in what was East Germany. Once again this is a classic example of British pragmatism. 

LAY BENCHES FACE MORE CRITICISM

I am not a supporter of Howard League.  That organisation or more exactly a one woman band lobbying machine,   would abolish any custodial sentence of less than twelve months.  In a paradoxical fashion it fits in to some extent with the Magistrates Association desire to increase to that very same number the maximum sentence in the lower court from the current six.  In her latest pitch for parliamentary support Frances Crook cites M.P. David Lammy and his remarks to the Criminal Justice Alliance  itself a lobby group. It is noted that two of its trustees are its chairman and treasurer.  The voice behind another lobbying organisation Transform Justice is also a trustee.  But to return to Mr Lammy and his comments: as an experienced parliamentarian his speech and particularly his observations pp4 make unsupported detail into "facts" worthy of repetition.........exactly what he questioned a few lines previously.  This is the same David Lammy who called for a second referendum within 36 hours  of the LEAVE  vote being officially confirmed.  

As the numbers of District Judges(M.C.), currently 139 and a slightly higher number  of Deputy District Judges preside over an increasing share of the cases before magistrates` courts it follows that any analyses of results of magistrates` courts will have results where either a lay bench or a professional single judge was presiding.  A detailed investigation into all the functions at magistrates` courts  was made in 2011 not without resulting controversy.  As far as I am aware (and would be happy to be informed otherwise) there is no substantive answer to the question of the proportion of prosecutions before a lay or professional bench.  

There has always been comment about justice as dispensed by Justices of the Peace; some worthy of debate but most appearing to be  examples of prejudice.  Until the rump of J.P.s over the next decade is reduced to sitting only on out of court matters there will continue to be lobbyists plying their trade with the cover of the Charities Commission to ease their costs seeking to finally extinguish a centuries old system of summary justice.