CCTOs: THEY DON`T EXIST BUT THEY SHOULD

We`ve had ASBOs and CRASBOs; DBOs and CBOs; CPNs, DPPOs and now since 2014 PSPOs.  Apart from the tiny minds with little memory, long on aliteration and low on original thought is there any hope at all that those who advise the new Justice Secretary will find their comeuppance as did many who were faced down by Michael Gove......may his reputation seek resurrection.  Last week I posted on the limitations the justice system is facing with regard to those who are a public nuisance owing to their addiction.   Depending on sources it is estimated that 50% - 70% of all criminal activity is based on the perpetrators` drug and/or alcohol addictions.  Of about 200,000 violent crimes annually in England and Wales it is thought that just under half were committed under the influence of alcohol. 

Boston Magistrates` Court on Monday was a shameful example of how we treat alcoholics whose public behaviour is intolerable. But disposals similar are handed out in their hundreds week in and week out all over the country.  Sooner or later a government must grasp the nettle and find a way of making compulsory confinement and treatment available for those for whom the only future prospect is an early pauper`s death followed by a pauper`s funeral in a borough cemetery funded by perhaps the same council that authorised the use of PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS.   I have it; let`s have CCTOs: COMPULSORY CONFINEMENT AND TREATMENT ORDERS or would it be quicker to wait for Godot?

DO SENIOR POLICE DESERVE OUR TRUST?

Until perhaps about thirty or so years ago tales of police corruption were front page news.  Headlines were made because such stories were relatively rare.  It was even more unusual to find that senior officers were involved.  Rarely did the blame ever fall upon those of superintendent rank or higher.  And it was anathema  to think that chief constables or, for the Metropolitan Police, those of deputy assistant commissioner rank, were in any way less than 100% honest and straightforward in all their dealings whether within the force or without.   In recent years five chief constables have resigned with more than a whiff of corruption or at best incompetence or misconduct surrounding them.  Whilst actual criminality amongst senior police ranks might still be unusual acts of serious or gross misconduct are becoming all too common.  

On June 10th I posted inter alia about the behaviour of Met Deputy Assistant Commissioner Maxine de Brunner.  A fuller report on that incident is available here. It seems that actions whilst perhaps  not actually corrupt but perhaps reprehensible and worthy of being defined as gross misconduct are endemic in this highly placed police officer`s modus operandi. In 2014 she mobilised uniformed police officers to "perform" at her son`s private school: this, at a time when the Met, as with all other police forces was and is facing drastic budget cuts. This person in whom we, the public, expect 100% propriety having got away with  such devious self satisfying actions once attempted in her arrogance to repeat her performance last month for a similar event at the school where she is now chairman of governors.  That deployment of officers has now been cancelled by the Met and she is facing a misconduct investigation.

In another example of highly suspicious police activity the house of a senior police officer in Manchester was bought by his own force in 2014 in order to allow its owner who was involved in the investigation of Dale Cregan who had killed two police officers and a father and son in 2012 to move out fearing retribution from Cregan or his associates.  The property was then sold at a loss to a family who were not informed of its history.  It is beyond belief that Greater Manchester Police put their own situation above that of the new purchasers without consideration of the fact that threats to the house`s occupants would still be likely from anybody approaching the house to do harm to those inside.  Perhaps that threat was indeed weighed in the balance and dismissed. 

These two revelations are public knowledge owing to investigations by a free press.  Leveson would put handcuffs on such events. An article in the Spectator in 2015 is revealing.

This is a sad state of affairs and does great discredit to our new prime minister and her predecessors.  There will be hell to pay if the public`s tolerance of corruption in any form including gross misconduct  of the most senior police officers in this country  is allowed to continue unchecked by new procedures. If there were less emphasis by their highly paid press people on how lucky we are to have them and how good they are at "keeping us safe" and more attention to cleaning out the undesirables of all ranks society, ie you and I,  would be better off. 

ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING FOR ADDICTS

From time to time I have opined that those addicted to drugs and/or alcohol who habitually are the cause of social disharmony or worse have entered that interface where they should be considered as requiring medical treatment and thus avoiding the courts` system. Compulsorily confining such individuals would be politically very difficult to say the least but sooner or later it will be recognised as the lessor of two evils. Almost every other day in every other magistrates` court an example will present itself of an individual where there is simply no sensible solution to this problem of totally unacceptable behaviour where members of the public  are in real or perceived danger. Such a person totally out of control appeared recently before magistrates in Cornwall and was, inter alia, made subject to a criminal behaviour order (CBO) specifying that, "he must not use swear words, make threats, use physical gestures, use visual representation, cause nuisance or obstruction that would cause any person offence, intimidation or distress directly or indirectly within the UK."
 
Is it really possible for a magistrates` bench to make such a crass order where the offender is set up for failure? Obviously the answer is in the affirmative. I can apprerciate that the bench was severely restricted in its options but all it will do is postpone the date of his next sojourn at Her Majesty`s pleasure at the taxpayers` expense. There must come a time, although with current political hurdles it is unlikely before 2020, when some bright new spark at Petty France in consultation with the royal colleges of medicine and senior judiciary explore realistic alternatives to prison for the likes of the offender discussed above whose sorry tale was reported in yesterday`s Metro.

NOTTINGHAM POLICE//FUR COAT AND NAE KNICKERS

One doesn`t need an economics degree to understand that the greater supply or use of an item tends to cause a devaluation when there is no corresponding demand for such use.  Language is no exception.  Basic words with basic or essential meanings are widely used.  For more focussed, nuanced or subtle variations new or imported words are employed to convey the depth of meaning required by the author or talker. 

Take the word "hate".  It is an old English word related to proto Germanic Dutch and Swedish words from the same origin. It can therefore be assumed to have in its use a universal meaning. The word "crime" as used in its ancient form by the Greeks described an offence against the community as opposed to a personal or moral wrong. The term "hate crime" was unknown prior to the mid 1980s when it appeared in the USA.  It is generally now described as a prejudice-motivated crime, often violent, which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group. Examples of such groups can include but are not limited to: sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. Those groups now under the hate crime umbrella did not suddenly appear on the statute book one day as requiring protection or special consideration.  Changes in society`s attitudes have driven the definition.  Some people are beginning to ask what are the limits of the definition of hate crime. Those of a certain generation will recollect when it was not uncommon to use or hear grossly offensive terminology against people from Ireland, against black people, against Jewish people, against Catholics or Protestants in Northern Ireland  Liverpool and the West of Scotland. When such abuse was directed against physical appearance; eg the disabled or transgender people public pressure increased the scope of the definition.  What had previously been offensive had become criminal or criminally offensive.  Nowhere has there been more debate on this definition than when the deemed offensiveness and occasionally violence was of a sexual nature.  It became an aggravating factor in sentencing.  

Nottinghamshire police have announced that they are to actively investigate "misogynistic crime".   What has been taken by many to be friendly banter without a hint of malice implied or received could now be recorded as a hate crime. With regard to an alleged incident a police spokesperson is reported in the Mirror as having said, "If the victim feels that this has happened because they are a woman then we will record it as a hate crime. "This doesn’t necessarily mean that a criminal offence has been committed, but means we will carry out risk assessments and offer support as we would to any victim of a hate crime. " (my highlight).

By extending the words "hate crime" to include certain activities in this way IMHO this constabulary is actually reducing the power of the term.  An admission that they will be in pursuit of alleged offenders of whom they will be aware some or many will be innocent of any alleged wrong doing whilst they are using very scarce resources strikes me as their having lost sight of priorities.  During this current year they are striving to ensure services to their public despite a budget cut of £12 million. 

Surely there has to be a proper trade off in expenditure and result when using tax funded police budgets as in any other scenario.  There is a saying in Scotland which perhaps sums it up: She (i.e. Notts police) is wearing a fur coat and nae knickers.

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.

NO TICK BOX JUSTICE HERE

Exceptional hardship applications  always initiated a lively discussion especially when all bench participants were experienced in such matters.  New colleagues generally found  such discussions a very good learning experience.  As the case of Cornwall v Coke 1976 Crim L.R 519 makes clear the Courts have a duty to assess the implications of a disqualification upon persons other than the defendant, bearing in mind that such persons are effectively innocent and will be punished irrespective of this. Financial implications were often put forward to substantiate many applications.  Other common arguments on an offender`s behalf were the effect of a driving ban on the health of close relatives who relied upon him/her for eg transportation for medical reasons or the  disruption to the routine of a child.  One argument I never heard was that an ability to undertake voluntary work would be curtailed. The very term itself seems to preclude such work being a just reason for allowing the argument.  Magistrates in Wiltshire thought otherwise.  IMHO considering the offender`s history I think they were generous. Their decision, however, is a reminder that there are still areas within the capacity of the magistrates` courts` system that cannot be prescribed by the Sentencing Council and its tick box approach to justice.

TRIUMPH FOR ENGLISH PRAGMATISM

HUBRIS!    The statements from David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove were worthy of their positions and deserve respect from all of us.  But the second tier politicians, bankers, business people and various observers whose opinions have been rejected serve as a lesson for all time.  By the UK allowing the steam cooker of right wing nationalism to escape in an orderly fashion,  notwithstanding short term fluctuations financial and political, we have avoided what is emerging in Germany, France, Spain and Italy; namely xenophobic nationalists and left wing trade unionists facing off against each other on the streets. EU leaders were offered the opportunity by David Cameron to show how much they could assist him in his negotiation; they offered him crumbs from the European table  and thought that he could make enough bread with the addition  of  fear and bluster. Now Merkel and Hollande are expressing their dismay at British voters` decision.  They have only themselves to blame.

British or perhaps English pragmatism is a triumph for common sense.

PARTING WOULD BE SUCH SWEET SORROW

On Referendum Day it would be churlish to overlook its significance even on this site.  Referendums are a bit like London buses; until recently there hadn`t been one for close on forty years and then two arrive in quick succession.  

One major area where the two sides have been throwing slings and arrows is that of the proportion of the legislation under which we live that is due to its being imposed upon us by the E.U.  Remain say around 10% and Brexit estimate anything between 50% and 70%.  The difference as I understand it is that there is direct legislation but much more in the form of directives imposed upon us.  On the bench this was brought home to me during an afternoon dealing with transgressions concerning lorries and their drivers and/or owners.  The prosecutor`s opinion was that at the very minimum 50% of the regulations were down to EU directives over which our government had no power to refuse implementation.  My immediate thoughts at the time were that we don`t need an outside body for such matters when our own parliament can introduce the necessary legislation in that area in the normal way. 

I have voted LEAVE.  It will be black coffee for me this evening and a whisky and cigar if we obtain the magical n+1.  

THE JUDGE WHO PRAISED A CHILD KILLER

Another father has been jailed for killing his own young daughter.  Nobody can feel anything but profound sorrow.  Apparently there has been an inquiry into how this evil man was granted custody.  This time it seems that the usual suspects were blameless.  The agencies involved did all they legally could to protect this unfortunate child. It would appear from reports that the judge involved in awarding this future child killer custody had been advised of his violent history and in her judgement went further than the law required in ensuring that all agencies and personnel involved with the child be informed of his absolute innocence of a charge of violence against his daughter for which he had been previously jailed.  The judge retired very recently; so recently that it was just three weeks before the killer went on trial.  Perhaps that was a coincidence; perhaps not.  Investigation by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office cannot now take place.  Earlier this year it became policy that police officers could not escape investigation for misconduct because new regulations prevent their retiring or resigning to avoid dismissal. In the very sad case of Ellie Butler with the words of her grandfather who cared for her for several years and who predicted her coming to harm  surely it behoves those with the authority to enquire into the perverse decision of Mrs Justice Hogg to return Ellie to the care of the man who killed her.

THE VERY FIRST CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR ORDER//HEARD BUT NOT MADE

A year or so before the authorities in their infinite wisdom considered that I was too senile to continue serving as a magistrate..........I know.........unless old codgers are ejected where is the room for all those enthusiastic would be J.P.s to do their bit for queen and country........but to continue.........an order for a criminal behaviour order for a just convicted offender was placed before us by the CPS on behalf of the police. A police officer who was called as witness described himself as probably the country`s expert on the application of what was then a brand new disposal.  CPS then told us that it was highly probable that this being new legislation was the first time such an application had been made in any court.  We all listened intently to the witness whilst our legal advisor leafed through the various law books and information sheets on her desk.  After the witness`s testimony we were handed some of the information sheets.  And then we came across the paragraph which said quite unambiguously that, to quote the current  guideline (although the original information might have been worded slightly differently) " the order must specify the individual or organisation that is responsible for supervising compliance with the requirement (ABCPA 2014, s24(1)) and must hear from them about both the suitability and enforceability of a requirement, before including it in the CBO (ABCPA 2014, s24(2))".  We put this to the police officer.  He was stumped for an answer and admitted that he could not supply the information regarding compliance. CPS was unable to assist the court.  Thus although we were the first  bench in England to hear an application for a CBO we were not the first bench to make a criminal behaviour order. 

ABORTION LAW IN NORTHERN IRELAND

In April I posted on the law on abortion as it affects Northern Ireland.  It truly can be said that in many respects Ulster is a law unto itself.  The political and social history of the province in the last hundred years is far removed from any similarity to the rest of the U.K. 

An attempt has begun today in the High Court in Belfast to reverse a ruling that abortion law in Northern Ireland is "incompatible" with human rights law. It seems that there is going to be an almighty clash between die hard reactionaries who would do the late Dr Ian Paisley proud and those who would drag this aspect of Northern Ireland legislation kicking and screaming into the 21st century. 

It is paradoxical that pregnant women with their different heritages seeking abortion from either side of the border   must travel to another country, usually the U.K., for the procedure to be carried out.  

EFFICIENCY IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The public accounts committee of the House of Commons recently published its report "Efficiency in the criminal justice system".  In general terms it exposes the problems which have been on going and predictable since 2010 when Kenneth Clarke in his eagerness to please initiated 23% budget cuts in his domain as Lord Chancellor.  This death by a thousand cuts continued under his unlamented successor C. Grayling.  Michael Gove`s appointment to the position gave hope to those who work in the justice system that he might be able to halt the accelerating slide into a situation where to a certain degree the law of the jungle now operates in couortrooms where often only the strongest (read wealthiest) survive.  He made a promising start by abolishing the Criminal Courts Charge brought into being only eight months previously by Grayling.  His apparent straightforward no nonsense approach to his job has given some comfort to critics that now perhaps the nadir has been reached the only way is a gradual ascent to a justice system which although heavily damaged might just be able to return at least to a shadow of its former being. 

SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE

The Senior Presiding Judge has recently published his update on reform.  His remarks on the future working of J.P.s will be of interest to them and others who consider that a bench of three is a safeguard for justice to be seen to be done.  On the other hand there is no doubt that many very simple uncomplicated offences eg to which the good judge makes reference can be very boring for two wingers who generally nod through their approval. His statement where it matters is copied below. 

"I heard from a JP, who has been involved in the trial of the Single Justice Procedure at Lavender Hill Magistrates’ court. He reported that, during the course of 2 hours, when he sat alone with just a legal advisor to assist him, he was able to “fly through” many different types of traffic cases. He asked whether there are plans to extend the procedure to other types of crime.

The Single Justice Procedure is now in use at 31 locations across England and Wales for cases as diverse as vehicle-related crime (including from the DVLA), TV Licensing and some Transport for London prosecutions. A number of other authorities have expressed a strong interest in using the Single Justice Procedure, and a statutory instrument was laid in Parliament before Easter to enable a range of bodies such as Local Authorities, the Environment Agency and Train Operators to utilise this option. The scheme will be extended in this way over the next few months.

The JP suggested that some Magistrates would welcome the chance to undertake this work at weekends. HMCTS is considering different sitting patterns, but weekend sittings are not currently envisaged, not least because of the costs."

With  rumours that the government is considering outcomes with the magistracy reduced to 12,000 by 2020 it is more than likely IMHO  that single justice benches will be expanded as will the number of District Judges(MC) whose cost would be covered by the reduction in the payments of magistrates` expenses.  My prediction is that eventually, say by 2025, a J.P`.s role will be limited to cases where custody is not an option.

CURRENT JURY SELECTION PROCESS IS UNFIT FOR 21st CENTURY

There are about 40,000 trials annually in the crown courts of England and Wales of which about half are effective.  As a result about a quarter of a million people over eighteen years old and under seventy five are called to determine whether or not a defendant has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  As an aside, that upper age limit does not fit well with the compulsory removal from the active lay bench of magistrates when they attain three score years and ten.   Be that as it may the restrictions on those selected are rather limited. This is the official information although it has not updated age requirement.  There is no requirement to be a British citizen nor is there any formal test of competence.  

Contempt of court by jurors was a relatively rare situation before the age of the internet and particularly before a smart phone was in most people`s pockets.  There do not appear to be any official figures but I would hazard a guess that if there are fewer than a dozen cases reported annually in the press then the actual number would be perhaps twice that or more.  Last year I posted three times on various aspects of judges, courts and juries.  The numbers of jurors being found in contempt by reason of using the internet seems to be on the rise.  Despite advice some judges do not impose immediate custody for this offence whilst others do. 

An informative paper was published by the Law Commission at the end of 2013. pp77 +  are of particular interest.  IMHO this whole internet thing all leads back to the variations in the understanding of the proceedings  by jurors.  Being drawn as a microcosm of society they have an average IQ of 100.  With there being no requirement for citizenship there is no awareness of any individual`s understanding of the English language. There is no doubt in my mind that the "almost anybody can serve" attitude of those who decide such matters is due for re-consideration. If a  juror with specialist and/or professional knowledge can interpret information given in evidence from his own mental resources is he not only doing his duty in providing that knowledge to his colleagues but putting himself at risk of being charged with contempt? And surely it makes more sense to have an odd number of jurors.  The whole process needs a thorough parliamentary commission to bring it into the 21st century.

McKENZIE FRIENDS AND BREXIT

We are all from time to time guilty of deception.   The phrase mutton dressed as lamb (1811) originally  referred to women trying to pass themselves off as younger than they were in order to deceive men.  A group of so called McKenzie Friends has been trying to convince cash poor defendants that their so called members can substitute for lawyers.  Naturally enough solicitors and barristers have an opinion on this topic and surprise surprise they are not very happy.  I am in total agreement with them.  The substitution of true professional expertise by low grade ancillary workers has been common place in this country since State Registered nurses were taken from wards to classrooms to learn their trade.  They were followed by teaching assistants who now teach, Police Community Support Officers who are pressurising under funded constabularies for increased powers and others following similar pathways the object being to do the job more cheaply with supposedly no reduction in efficiency as perceived by the public.  When government is involved as is usually the situation the civil service press officials spew endless paragraphs of the benefits to accrue to the public purse by the aforementioned radical changes.  Both the Bar Council and Law Society have made clear their opposition to McKenzie Friends being allowed to seek payment for court advocacy.  Of course this opposition has gathered pace with the unavailability of legal aid for the vast majority of lower paid defendants in both criminal and civil matters.  

It is not too much stretching the argument to conclude that the British public`s apparent disdain for all the so called expert opinion on the dire consequences of Brexit is a direct result of government of all shades belittling the position of "expert" in so many spheres of life the previously mentioned just a few.  If expert professional attitudes and opinions are disregarded so frequently why should they be given a hearing just because on this occasion it suits government wishes and policies?

MET POLICE NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE

lack of integrity or honesty; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain

illegal, bad, or dishonest behaviour especially by people in positions of power 

destroying someone's (or some group's) honesty or loyalty; undermining moral integrity

Corruption is an improbity or decay in the decision-making process in which a decision-maker consents to deviate or demands deviation from the criterion which should rule his or her decision-making, in exchange for a reward or for the promise or expectation of a reward, while these motives influencing his or her decision-making cannot be part of the justification of the decision.

The above are just a few definitions of the word CORRUPTION.  It is to be noted that powerful people  figure in defining the word and that the acceptance of money is not necessarily part of the definition but changing some something is a factor.  I have posted not infrequently on how in apparently ever increasing numbers senior police officers of various constabularies have been caught out for corrupt practices.  This of course might be because society is more open and investigative journalism is more thorough and conclusive than in past decades.  On the other hand there might indeed, as I believe, be an increasing amount of this infection in the bodies of senior police officers and the institutions they control.  Scotland Yard seems to have more than its fair share of rottenness at its head.  Obfuscation and sheer lies are every bit as corrupting in police as is fabrication of evidence or the taking of bribes. The Birmingham 6, Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence and countless other scandals both investigated, under investigation or to be investigated hit the headlines in a remorseless parade of shame.  Today is no exception. The castigating conclusion of a Met Chief Inspector of unimpeachable reputation`s claim against his employer was that a Metropolitan Assistant Commissioner "sought to disguise her involvement" and gave misleading evidence.  In addition A Deputy Assistant Commissioner was found to have given evidence that was "not credible".  The devastating conclusions by the tribunal continued with stating that another Deputy Assistant Commissioner gave evidence that "was so vague that we were unable to have any confidence as to his actual reason". 

That officers in the Met in such senior positions have had their evidence under oath so thoroughly discredited should lead to questions as to their suitability to remain in post.  Indeed IMHO the Met is now an institution no longer fit for purpose....to use a well known description by a previous Home Secretary.

When the result of the referendum has passed into history there should be action for a thorough investigation into the Met and if necessary the whole senior management structure should be up for reform.  Only when the senior ranks above inspector have been cleansed will the organisation be able to have the confidence of its rank and file and of more importance the public it is supposed to serve.

 

REFERENDUM DEBATE CONTRIBUTION

As an avowed Brexiteer who doesn`t wish to go door to door enthusing his neighbours the piece below from Civitas today might be of interest.

 

 

Press Release
Embargo: Immediate

Tel: 020 7799 6677

www.civitas.org.uk

Predictions that can't be proved correct one way or the other versus demonstrated facts available to all

The Remain camp has succeeded in making economic predictions about the economy the most important 'factual' battleground. This has allowed them to distract attention from the factual record of the Single Market. It also enables them to base their appeal for votes on the authority of the predictors rather than on the demonstrated evidence that is available to every citizen. The last thing they want is voters making up their minds after assessing the objective facts. A new commentary by the analyst Michael Burrage provides the latest objective facts concerning the growth of exports to the EU of 40 economies since the inception of the Single Market in 1993 up until 2015. It is a abundantly clear that the UK's compound annual growth rate of 3.44 per cent over the period is woeful compared with that of a large number of countries who are not even members of the Single Market. Burrage writes: "The economic argument for remaining in the EU pivots on the supposed benefits to members of the Single Market. It is because the UK must keep access to this market that it must put up with all the other costs, obligations and inconveniences of membership. And since non-members only have access to this market, while accepting many of these costs, obligations and inconveniences, non-membership is not thought to be a sensible option. "Curiously, none of those who use this argument, including David Cameron, ever refer to the published and readily accessible record, showing the impact of membership on UK trade or exports. The Prime Minister prefers to cite highly speculative forecasts of what might happen in 10 or 15 years time, as if what has happened over the past 23 years is not important. "Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, might have directed him to the comprehensive database of her organization, but she preferred to tell him, and the British people of her ‘hunch’ that the consequences of Brexit would all be negative. "Shortly before her UK visit, the IMF Direction of Trade Statistics database was updated with the figures from 2015. They are used in the Table (visit the CIvitas website for a larger view of the table) which shows the growth in the value of the exports of goods to the EU since the formal inauguration of the Single Market in 1993 to 2015 of forty countries, all of which have been exporting to the EU under WTO rules, which according to Messrs Cameron and Osborne is ‘the worst possible post-Brexit option’. "They have not played any part in setting EU rules, have not concluded any trade agreements with the EU, and have not paid a penny for access to the Single Market. The UK meanwhile has been enjoying all the benefits of membership." Notes Michael Burrage is the author of Myth and Paradox of the Single Market and The Eurosceptic's Handbook, both published by Civitas in 2016. He is a director of Cimigo, which is based in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and conducts market and corporate strategy research in China, India and 12 countries in the Asia Pacific region. He was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has been a lecturer at the London School of Economics and at the Institute of United States Studies, specialising in the comparative analysis of industrial enterprise and professional institutions. He has been a research fellow at Harvard, at the Swedish Collegium of Advanced Study, Uppsala, at the Free University of Berlin, and at the Center for Higher Education Studies and the Institute of Government of the University of California, Berkeley. He has also been British Council lecturer at the University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, and on several occasions a visiting professor in Japan, at the universities of Kyoto, Hokkaido and Kansai and at Hosei University in Tokyo. For more information, contact Michael Burrage on 020 7101 2011 or Daniel Bentley on 020 7799 6677.

RISK OF SEXUAL HARM NOTICE//MIRTH IN THE MAKING part 2

On January 25th I commented on a police action that was beyond being sublime and ridiculous.  The case has now progressed to the ranks of Alice in Wonderland although police would say that Alice would be at risk.  Perhaps Kafka would have appreciated the nonsense produced from that super efficient constabulary that protects the worthy citizens of North Yorkshire.  In this case under threat of a long period in custody if he disobeys a man must tell police 24 hours before he has sexual intercourse.  It is a presumption that it is heterosexual intercourse under discussion and that the man might masturbate without notice to anybody if he feels the urge. It is beyond belief but then that is how Kafka gave his name to such idiotic officialdom. 

OFF TOPIC//MICROSOFT, POWER AND E.U.

I`ve been writing this blog for almost seven years and until a couple of weeks ago had never gone "off topic" but my recent experience with Microsoft has so irritated me that the following can be taken as a simple story of personal frustration or an example of how a multi billion pound organisation with reprehensible practices is never  mentioned in the same sentence as alleged international tax evaders eg Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc either because it`s clean and/or its magnanimous founder is the greatest ever charity giver the world has ever known.  

About two years ago my main PC......I have another spare.......running on Windows XP Pro needed replacing.  I bought another  running on newly installed Windows 8.1 from a national supplier.  After about a fortnight the PC developed a manufacturing fault and I opted to return it for a full refund. During that period I realised I much preferred XP to 8.1 but knowing it no longer had support had a local dealer build me a new PC with Windows 7 Pro.  So far so good. Meanwhile I had my spare PC also upgraded to run on Windows7.  Using that machine a few months ago I took a deep breath and allowed Windows 10 to be downloaded to it.  After using it occasionally I decided that for my purposes I preferred Windows 7 and although after the four week simple uninstall process had expired eventually returned that machine to Windows 7.  Meanwhile like all Windows users I was receiving notices to upgrade free to Windows 10  each time closing down the page.  That was until a few days ago when after leaving my office I noticed upon return an hour later that the screen showed a page stating Windows 10 upgrade.  I thought at first that this doesn`t apply to my PC; I have not authorised anything but to be sure and against the usual  do not turn off instruction I pulled the plug because there was no other way to halt the process.  Yesterday I was at the machine when the upgrade instruction came through with no way to halt an upgrade to Windows 10; an upgrade I definitely did not want.  Only by going to Microsoft support was I able to have an operative  remove all data informing an upgrade.

On a personal level this intended imposition of an operating system I did not want was an annoyance but on a grander level it exposed me to the power and control of this financial monster; something I have rarely experienced.  The more I hear D. Cameron making his argument to remain in the E.U. and using the answer of all these organisations agree with me   to make his case whatever the question I wonder just how much control do we as citizens have in this  supposedly democratic country.