KNOWN UNKNOWNS

I think it can still be statistically accurate to comment that a majority of citizens has never appeared at a magistrates` court either as defendant or witness although it is likely that the trend is on the increase.  It is reckoned by some authorities that about one third of all men aged over 30 do have a conviction at the lower court although motoring offences are liable to be responsible for many. The statistics are just not kept officially.  On the other hand it is statistically accurate to note that availability of legal aid for defendants has been reduced drastically in the last decade. Also well known is the sentence reduction available to those appearing both in the lower and crown courts who plead guilty before trial thus ensuring that all things being equal there will be a reduction of one third in level of sentence.  Perhaps the major change in sentencing over the last twenty years has been the use of Sentencing Guidelines; a format imposed on all sentencers in what was seen by some as an overdue attempt to impose some sort of conformity in sentencing and thus avoiding what has been termed in diverse circumstances as a post code lottery.  Anyone taking time to peruse this document might assume that its almost mathematical layout and structure in coming to conclusions on almost every type of case imaginable was based on hard evidence. After all the justice system via the Home Office and Justice Ministry employ thousands of individuals whose main occupation is statistical analysis or job description requires detailed recording of virtually every interaction they undertake. 

In an increasing effort to secure ever more early guilty pleas defendants have been encouraged inter alia to plead guilty to a lower level of offence than would normally have been laid against them.  This is especially true in cases of assault. Magistrates and lawyers are well acquainted with defendants being prosecuted for both s.4 and s.5 public order offences with the more serious being dropped if a guilty plea is made to the lesser charge. The benefit to an offender of a sentence reduction for an "early" guilty plea especially for those matters to be tried at the crown court is not unreasonable insofar as the tax payer and witnesses are saved costs and no little trauma. Generally the offender would have had  the assistance of a lawyer and would have pleaded guilty with knowledge. But at the magistrates` court it is an altogether different scenario.  A great many defendants have no legal representation especially at first hearing.  A duty solicitor should be available at all times but the help given can be of variable quality and therefore a guilty plea in that instance can, for some defendants, be a short cut to ridding themselves of the problem with a sentence discount of a third and an acceptance of what they think are their just deserts especially if they have a record. Without much fanfare the Sentencing Council announced recently that that maximum discount will in future be available in the magistrates` court only for a guilty plea at the first hearing.  One would have thought that behind such a change of direction there would be if not a mass but at least some statistical evidence to indicate the basis of a benefit to society in this effort to persuade defendants not to continue putting the crown to proof in establishing guilt.  One would have been wrong.  There are no statistics on guilty pleas at magistrates` courts. There is of course a wealth of convictions analyses but that`s a different thing. In its consultation document (copied in part below) on this change in discount situation there is an admission of the lack of evidence......my underline.

Is this really the way we go about trying to secure higher conviction rates which the Sentencing Council is apparently embarked upon?  In China the conviction rate for all offences is >99%.  The noisy advocates who scream that convictions for rape are too low; no doubt increasing their decibel levels over recent cases, would argue that 99% conviction is perhaps just a tad too high. For those of us who believe that our once proud to be British justice system is losing its lustre this imminent change does nothing to alter our opinion.  Basing sentencing policy on known unknowns is, quite simply, not justified. 



Statistical research and analysis.

Virtually all criminal cases start in magistrates’ courts. The most recent annual statistics14 show that approximately 1.47 million defendants were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts in 2014. Of those, 1.22 million resulted in convictions in either magistrates’ courts or the Crown Court, which means that the offender either pleaded guilty or was convicted after a trial. Information on the percentage of offenders who plead guilty is only available for the Crown Court. Of the 86,297 offenders sentenced in the Crown Court in 2014, 77,289 (90 per cent) pleaded guilty and 9,008 were found guilty after a trial. Of the 90 per cent who pleaded guilty in the Crown Court, 72 per cent pleaded guilty at what was adjudged to be the ‘first reasonable opportunity.’ It would seem likely that there are many factors which influence the decision whether and when to plead guilty. One suggestion is that offenders are likely to be encouraged to plead guilty at an early stage if they believe that by doing so they will avoid a custodial sentence. The published statistics show some evidence of this in the Crown Court; a lower proportion of offenders that pleaded guilty were sentenced to immediate custody (53 per cent) compared to those that pleaded not guilty (71 per cent). There are also differences across offence types, with the rate of guilty pleas among those convicted of indictable sexual offences at the Crown Court at 61 per cent, which is considerably lower than the overall rate for indictable offences (89 per cent).

OFFENDERS` MENTAL HEALTH?:LORD KNOWS

The House of Lords has again been in the news.  Indeed its very existence in its current form is no longer off the wall thinking.  It has been variously represented as being able to offer unbiased by party political protocols opinions reflecting those of the "people".  Its members have also been accused of belonging to a £300 per attendance sinecure where there is no conception of the forces operating within the common people. Yesterday was so called International Women`s Day and there was a corresponding debate in the upper house on that topical subject where "The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, recommended that, “Sentencers must be able to access timely psychiatric reports and fail to remand in custody/sentence if not available”. However, there is an issue in getting these reports as well as a lack of mental health referral places available, so judges or magistrates are likely to remand someone who is in the community and at risk of further offending due to their mental health issues rather than refer them for more appropriate treatment. It is therefore vital that community mental health and other such services are sufficiently secure, in terms of commissioning and funding, to ensure they remain a real sentencing alternative."

Those who actual work within the justice system from judiciary to prison officers via probation service know that there is no adequately financed and operative path to mental health services that is fit for purpose. The noble lords and ladies may sound their trumpets but nobody is listening. Pass GO and collect £300.

DECRIMINALISE DRUGS:DON`T BET ON IT

This retired magistrate  has argued for years with former colleagues and others in addition to posts on this site that there should be decriminalisation of personal drug use. I do not intend to repeat those arguments now. You, the reader, will probably have your own fixed opinion.  A basic truth is that it is difficult to predict how and when a government of whatever complexion would have the majority and the cajones to tackle such a situation.  It has been left, as in so many other examples, to individual constabularies as to how they face the problem of personal drug use within budgetary requirements that force sometimes unpalatable choices to be made.  A start has been made in Glasgow although unsurprisingly there has been much controversy. This week Durham Police have announced their own plans to curb the ravages in society that drug addiction fuels.  Piecemeal attempts such as those will not effect a cure in their own areas of jurisdiction. But they should provide a base for the argument to be carried successfully into the public arena. Personal use of hard drugs must no longer be a criminal offence. Such substances must be made available on prescription from a limited number of pharmaceutical outlets. Addicts will know they are paying for a limited supply of officially graded cannabis, heroin or cocaine and of course supplies would be taxed. I wonder what odds BET365 or William Hill would give on such legislation within the next decade?

A RECORDER IN NEED OF ADVICE?

At the risk of correction by those who might claim to know better or indeed do know better than I an unusual court hearing caught my eye this morning.  Although the case took place in the crown court at its core there is a consideration for all sentencers.

“Flying a plane is not easy. I know because I have taken flying lessons myself. Flying an aeroplane is not an easy thing to do.”These were some of a recorder`s words in sentencing Wesley Tierney at Cambridge Crown Court last week after flying aeroplanes without holding a licence or having the correct training. I can identify with those few words of the sentencer having had a similar experience.  However later in the report he is quoted as remarking, "you have pleaded guilty means I am going to give you a suspended sentence.” 

An early plea of guilty indicates a sentence reduction of one third; at least that was a basic part of my training. It does not in my experience allow an immediate custodial sentence to be altered to a suspended sentence order. Perhaps the recorder had other unreported reasons.  It is almost certain that this offence is one where the sentencer must use his discretion and is not trapped within Sentencing Guidelines. Is this yet another case of a Recorder not being sufficiently aware of the processes available under the law and advice from senior judiciary?

NON POSSESSION OF A TV LICENSE SHOULD NOT BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

Some recent undercover reporting from the Daily Mail is interesting on how Capita plc, everyone`s favourite outsourcing company,...not....instructs would be employees in its devious ways. Just how devious Capita can be can be seen here;  one of many such videos. This is a topic of some interest to magistrates most of whom by my reckoning would gladly see this offence  removed from the criminal courts system and be subjected to civil law. Parliament too it seems is not unhappy for the change.  The problem is the BBC and its status and funding.

THEFT BY FINDING//VAGARIES OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM

Theft by finding occurs when someone who chances upon an object which seems abandoned takes possession of the object but fails to take steps to establish whether the object is abandoned and not merely lost or unattended. During my active days the number of such cases that came my way could be counted on the fingers of one hand.   For the magistrates at North Stafford Justice Centre earlier this week their experience of such a matter made the news in many outlets.  The woman in the dock who might have been advised to plead not guilty but didn`t, told the court she had found the £20 note on the floor whilst shopping in a store in Blurton.  She was convicted of theft, a notifiable offence, given a conditional discharge of six months and ordered to pay £175 in court costs and other charges. According to a report, " Ch Insp Karen Stevenson, from Staffordshire Police, urged anyone who finds lost money to "do the right thing". "Morally, the right thing to do is hand in any found property so that the person who has lost out has every opportunity to be reunited with it." "This was someone's hard-earned money and we are committed to supporting all victims in our community." What crass supercilious nonsense is that!  To widespread disbelief senior police officers across the country have told the public not to waste their time handing in found money at police stations but to use social media to contact owner: more rubbish to excuse their "allocation of scarce resources". 

For the store to call in police was as dismal display of bad management in a simple situation as can be imagined. They identified the woman in question but appear not to have asked her to explain herself or to have requested she hand the money to them for safe keeping and return to the owner if and when ascertained. How much wasted time and expense for police did this cost?  For the CPS to have considered this prosecution to be in the public interest is a fatuous over display of being seen to do something for an easy win. For the bench to impose a six month conditional discharge was being over zealous in my opinion. A token CD of one month would have demonstrated the bench`s thoughts on the circumstances. But then of course the bench might have been pushed along by the legal advisor or its own attitude to impose a punishment of deterrence. If so they exercised their duty but in a situation where another bench might have considered leniency.  Such are the vagaries of our legal system. 

SO YOU WANT TO BE A MAGISTRATE?

Disappointed that your application to be a Justice of the Peace has been rejected?  You might therefore be interested in the following:-


"Unsuccessful applicants to the Magistracy
Rejection letters
It has come to our attention that some Advisory Committee’s rejection letters appear to be worded in such a way as to invite appeals from unsuccessful candidates. Given we have been receiving a lot of appeals (which are time consuming to deal with) and the overwhelming majority of them are not successful, we would prefer not to encourage them. Therefore, I would be grateful if you would consider adding the following paragraph to all future rejection letters:

The Committee appreciate that this decision will be a disappointment to you. You may ask for this decision to be reviewed by the Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales if you believe your interview was not carried out fairly. However, when requesting a review you should state clearly and succinctly on what grounds you believe the Advisory Committee has not properly considered your application. It is not enough to say that you disagree with the Committee’s decision. A request for a review must be made in writing within one month to the Senior Presiding Judge for England Wales, c/o Magistrates’ HR, Judicial Office, 10^th floor, Thomas Moore Building, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL

     Kind regards
     R Gunstone"

PAEDOPHILIA AND BREXIT

The arguments have started.  They were inevitable. When a senior cop gives an opinion to the media to explain why we can`t expect his force and others to enforce the law on paedophilia all manner of abuse comes his way. People in his position and in others, notably the....oops.......sorry......I should have used the now all encompassing term OUR NHS, really mean that they have had their budgets cut so near to the bone that coping with all their legal responsibilities has become nigh on impossible.  

Decades ago in appropriate circumstances I voiced the opinion that at some future date the poorest populations of the world would want a share of the wealth that we have taken for granted and that since that wealth is not infinite it would require greater input from us to weather the storms to come.  In simple terms if the state cannot increase growth fast enough individuals or state run businesses would become poorer.  That storm enveloped us years ago and we still have not found a way to a safe harbour.  Nit picking about funding the NHS and social care and education  privately by individual contribution  or using the state to collect the required monies and dish it out to those (most) in need is as big a problem as negotiating a suitable Brexit.

CAN BLIND BE JUSTICE?

There is much to be commended in this country where ever fewer positions or occupations are barred to people highly qualilfied but with various disabilities. Indeed such is anti discrimination woven into our employment legislation that sometimes it appears that disability is a pre requisite for a particular job.  Often grants from charitable institutions are enhanced for those who are disabled cf candidates without such impediments. 

Having thankfully no family members or close friends with disabilities, during my time on the bench it was a privilege to sit with colleagues who were physically disabled in some form or another  and who were determined to set aside their discomfort or pain and get on with the job at hand. However there was not one sight impaired member on my bench.  Having a professional background in the care of those visually handicapped I well understood the limits of such impairment for a magistrate. It was therefore with some surprise that I read last week that a barrister, presumably registered blind, had been appointed District Judge [M.C.]

I wonder if this is just a step too far in equal opportunities however capable the individual.  As a D.J. he will not only be presiding over the court which I can concede is likely to be within his undoubted ability but he will be making decisions on defendants` guilt or innocence where an inability to read facial expression or body language is going to be a handicap.   Will blind justice be seen to be done in his court? I suppose only time will tell.

 

LOBBYIST "BRAKE", SINGLE ISSUES & A WOLF

I suppose single issue lobbyists or groups have a purpose like anti noise campaigners or ban the bomb activists. Their use of hyperbole and doom mongering occasionally leads to a modicum of sensible reaction and the dismissal of much of the bloated misleading baggage surrounding the core argument.  "Brake" is such an organisation.  The Portsmouth News report of a local lawyer`s comments on the exceptional circumstances whereby a court can allow a driver who has accumulated 12 penalty points on his/her license within three years can argue that a ban would be inappropriate in the particular personal circumstances has brought forward a comment from the aforesaid Brake that "the news was shocking".  Whilst I am of the opinion that too many of my former colleagues lowered the bar too far too often in allowing the argument of exceptional circumstances to succeed  Brake devalues its protests when eg it argues that inter alia

"Causing death by dangerous driving – the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment (section 1) Vehicular manslaughter in the UK is very rarely the basis of prosecution, yet the impact of death by dangerous driving and vehicular manslaughter is the same for the family or friends of the deceased. Although a life-long driving ban would be welcomed, a more severe custodial sentence would in many cases be more appropriate than 14 years."

Perhaps this lobbyist like others in various sectors is aiming high in order to achieve that modicum of success.  If so that approach  risks the application of the law of diminishing returns. Perhaps  the single issue  boy who cried wolf once too often was also named Brake. Aesop doesn`t tell us.  

Road safety charity Brake said the news was shocking

Read more at: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/drivers-still-on-the-roads-with-12-points-1-7836371

Road safety charity Brake said the news was shocking

Read more at: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/drivers-still-on-the-roads-with-12-points-1-7836371

Road safety charity Brake said the news was shocking

Read more at: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/drivers-still-on-the-roads-with-12-points-1-7836371

BLUE BADGE CRIME

I recollect many years ago on returning to a rural car park and being berated by an elderly couple for parking in a disabled bay; an action that was completely accidental on my part.  I felt humiliated and told myself to be more careful in future.  Using a Blue Badge fraudulently is a different matter.  Whispers say that the price of a stolen badge is well into four figures. In addition they are not all that difficult to counterfeit.  When I was active we did not have many cases of fraudulent use as they usually were settled between the offender and the borough.  On the odd occasion when one came before us we often imposed the maximum fine of £1000 when there was little or no mitigation.  It is therefore somewhat surprising that according to a short report in the Warrington Guardian an offender was out of pocket to a derisory £69 fine for the use of an out of date badge not belonging to himself.  A lay bench is supposed to be more attune to local needs than a District Judge. Obviously this bench needs some re-education.  The item below might be helpful.

Blue Badge (Disabled Parking) Scheme enforcement policy

1.       The Blue Badge (Disabled Parking) Scheme provides a national arrangement of parking concessions for those people who have a permanent or substantial disability. NELC and its partners are responsible for the administration and enforcement of the scheme within the borough on behalf of the Department for Transport.

2.       The misuse of the Blue Badge scheme undermines the benefits of the scheme, impacts upon local traffic management and creates hostility amongst other badge holders and members of the public. It can result in a genuinely disabled person being unable to access designated parking spaces.

Types of misuse

3.       The vast majority of Blue Badge holders use their badges responsibly. However,  there are individuals who misuse the scheme. This misuse can take a number of forms including:

·         False application for a blue badge

·         Use by someone other than the badge holder, either to park in an otherwise restricted area (eg double yellow lines/disabled bays) or to evade parking charges

·         Alteration of a genuine Blue Badge

·         Creation of a Counterfeit Blue Badge

·         Use of expired badges

·         Use of a badge the holder is no longer entitled to use

·         Use of a badge reported as lost or stolen

This list is not exhaustive.

4.       It is a criminal offence to misuse a Blue Badge. In the event of someone being found to be in contravention of the Blue Badge scheme, this policy seeks to ensure that the Council:

·         Message is clear that misuse of the scheme will not be tolerated

·         Provides support to Blue Badge holders to help them to understand their responsibilities as badge holders and reduce misuse

·         Enforces the Blue Badge scheme in a fair and consistent manner

·         Takes appropriate and proportionate action to stop any misuse

·         Undertakes criminal proceedings in line with its Prosecution Policy when necessary

Prevention

5.       The Council operates a robust application process to minimise the number of false applications being successful.

6.       Every successful applicant for a Blue Badge will be issued with the Department for Transport’s  ‘The Blue Badge scheme: rights and responsibilities in England’ leaflet. This will provide the badge holder with the information they need to ensure the badge is used appropriately.

7.       Each successful applicant will also be required to sign a declaration confirming that they will not allow someone else to use a badge that has been issued to them.

Detection

8.       The Council will inspect vehicles parked on the public highway and in Council car parks using a blue badge, as part of the duties of its Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO). Where there is evidence of misuse and the misuse constitutes a contravention of road traffic regulations, the CEO will take the appropriate action as per [need to insert reference to powers/policy]. The CEO may also consider seizing the badge and returning it to the issuing authority if they establish reasonable grounds to do so and is practical.

9.       If the misuse is by someone other than the badge holder, the Council will contact the badge holder to remind them of their responsibility to ensure the badge is not misused and that allowing another person to misuse the badge is a criminal offence. If the misuse continues, the Council will notify the badge holder that further misuse may lead to a refusal to renew the blue badge and that the Council may consider criminal proceedings if the misuse continues.

10.   The Council may receive information on potential blue badge misuse from the public, Council employees and other 3^rd parties. We will consider all allegations made and determine the appropriate action to be taken. Actions may range from reminding the badge holder of their responsibilities to criminal investigation dependant on the individual circumstances of the allegation.

11.   Where intelligence suggests particular areas of Blue badge misuse,  the Council will consider undertaking operations to target these areas.

Investigation

12.   If the misuse could also constitute other criminal offences (other than road traffic offences), the Council will take the appropriate action to stop the misuse and investigate the offence. The issue of a Penalty Charge Notice for contraventions of road traffic regulations does not prevent the Council from also pursuing criminal offences. Such investigations are not limited to the badge holder, but also include third parties misusing the badge.

13.   Criminal investigations will be conducted by professionally trained officers from the Counter Fraud Team in accordance with the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and any other legislation that may be appropriate to a particular investigation.

14.   The Council will use the personal data it holds for the prevention and/or detection of crime where it is appropriate and lawful to do so.

Redress

15.   Where evidence of wrongdoing is identified the Council may take one or more of the following courses of action in accordance with the relevant legislation:

·         Remind the badge holder of their responsibilities

·         Inform the person misusing the badge that they are committing offences and may be prosecuted for future offences

·         Retain the badge

·         Refuse to renew a blue badge

·         Cancel a blue badge

·         Refuse an application for a blue badge

·         Offer an individual a formal caution as an alternative to prosecution

·         Prosecution

16.   Where the Council has grounds to believe that the badge holder will permit another person to continue to misuse a badge, the Council will consider refusing to renew the badge once it has expired.

17.   Where a blue badge holder has been convicted of an offence in relation to the misuse of that badge, the Council will consider withdrawing the badge.

Legislation

The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/682);

The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1507);

The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/693);

The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/2531);

The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/2600);

The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/1307).

The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/2675)

The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

The Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges Act 2013

The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

The Fraud Act 2006

Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Criminal Procedures & Investigation Act 1996

HMCTS PUBLISHES ITS OWN COURT REPORTS

It seems that HMCTS is soon going to roll out its own news service re results from magistrates` courts.  West Sussex Magistrates` Court would appear to be the first area in  unannounced pilot scheme. See previous posts. This is an iniquitous step when local media for one reason or another abrogate the task of local reporting.  HMCTS will in theory  be solely responsible for public news. That in theory and practice is bad for democratic freedom of information. 

HOUSE OF LORDS QUESTION:LAY MAGISTRACY

Yesterday`s question in the House of Lords on the subject of the magistracy provided the usual rehash of the noble lords rehearsed opinions. Read for yourself.........it`ll take only three or four minutes at most.

POLICE CONFERRING IN NOTETAKING

As a newly appointed J.P. it took me a while to absorb the fact that not only was police collaboration in writing up their notebooks of an incident normal; it was enshrined in page upon page of regulation. There is a link on this in the last post I made on this topic a year ago.  My initial thoughts were that within such a system were the foundations of corruption.  Phrases such as "rolling gait", "eyes glazed", and others similar were repeated in police officers` evidence read from their notebooks over and over again. One of the first questions of police witnesses when I first took the middle chair was to ask of them after they were sworn in if and with whom they had collaborated in their note taking.  Some colleagues  found this unusual but appreciated the significance.  It seems that now the Independent Police Complaints Commission has given this situation some thought although by its very mandate serious cases only are under consideration.  Its advice is that conferring should be eliminated.  That it has taken this long to initiate such a common sense procedure should not belittle its significance.  Indeed it should be a stepping stone to similar restrictions in everyday matters where more than a single officer or PCSO is involved.  Public trust in policing cannot be said to be encouraging.  Any factor that improves this without being detrimental to performance is to be welcomed.

ADDICTED OFFENDERS

For longer than I care to remember I have been saddened by the cultural failure to divert addicts from courts to a medical pathway.  All the fiddling by successive Justice Secretaries and their minions from Sentencing Council to lies about the numbers of prison officers and all else in between makes me want to throw up. In today`s and this weekend`s  local newspapers  three cases shine the light on why we require custody for some non violent offenders, opposed by Howard League, and also why we should grasp the nettle to divert addicts committing low level crime from courts to a compulsory  medical pathway to eradicate their addiction. 

Although optimistic by nature I fear that no government with a democratic mandate to rule will ever have the balls to implement such a change in our attitudes to criminality.  We`ll have the same old cycle of events, claims and counter claims and Justice Secretaries who don`t even attempt to bang their heads against the status quo brick wall.

CUSTODY:THE FINAL SANCTION

With a prison population at almost record levels and no prospect of its being reduced without drastic reform of sentencing guidelines shrill voices are frequently proclaiming that incarceration for non violent offenders must no longer be tolerated. They must be dealt with in the community; whatever that actually means.  This offender sentenced earlier this week for driving whilst disqualified owing to a ban imposed for drink driving a month previously has been jailed for twelve weeks and had in addition a suspended sentence for the drink driving offence  activated.  She was not violent. Without the final sanction of custody just what would happen to such offenders?

COURT ESCAPE; A FACSIMILE FOR REALITY

The Ministry of Justice cannot be faulted for failing to publish statistics from every possible source for which it has responsibility; related to prisons, courts, offenders, convictions etc. etc. etc. For many journalists and lobbyists it makes for an easy life; comment on some aspect of these millions of numbers and use them as a peg for a story, a blog post, a tweet or for further ammunition in some cause or other. But to many people outside the professions involved the numbers behave somewhat like a balancing arm where their preformed opinions can be reinforced.  Take, however, a real live incident and its harmful or harmless significance can become a facsimile  of the reality within.  Such an incident happened earlier this week at Teesside Magistrates` Court where a District Judge was presiding. A known offender with 46 previous simply walked out of the courtroom whilst said DJ was in the middle of his summing up.  The mere fact that this happened does not reflect well on the performance of the DJ  who seems likely to have been looking elsewhere rather than at the offender in front of him. There are those who question the use of a secure dock at magistrates` courts.  It is a fair point on the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. There is therefore a cogent argument but the flip side is the lack of security when an open dock is being used and doubly so when the defendant has a prolific record. In plain English security in these courts is virtually non existent in practice.  Where operatives from one of the outsourcing companies Group4, Serco, Capita or whoever honour the court with their attendance they are just a decoration satisfying the political correctness overwhelming public governance.  Perhaps this social decay has reached its peak in the "safe spaces" and refusal to allow reasoned debate on contentious matters  demanded by many at university.  When I was appointed so long ago there usually would be a police officer floating about somewhere in the building. Latterly even that modicum of security was not guaranteed.  American police cause and receive much criticism but on my few visits to arraignment (remand) American courts there has always been at least one (armed of course) police officer in the courtroom.   

Politicians in this country since 2008 have sacrificed our security and freedoms by emasculating almost everything connected to what is termed law `n order; from policing to deter crime to hounding low income defendants deprived of legal assistance to throwing out of employment thousands of prison officers who were just about keeping a lid on the febrile atmosphere brewing in  prisons.

It is becoming clearer each week that passes that contrary to metropolitan opinion many in this country are looking across the pond with a certain degree of envy.   They see a non politician acting decisively if inexpertly at perceived problems.  If UKIP win either or both of the forthcoming bye elections it will be a warning to any concerned with democratic processes that change is coming. The form of that change will be a challenge to all who purport to be politicians.  

LEGAL DECISIONS FROM ON HIGH

This blog in its seven plus years of existence has attempted to bring to those interested in the goings on in a magistrates` court, matters directly related and sometimes offering a wider viewpoint including political and police involvement.   Since my retirement my comments obviously have relied upon items generally available in the public media with occasional tit bits from former colleagues and my own recollections of interesting cases. Observations on cases from the Appeal or Supreme  Court have generally been of little connection to my original motivation for inclusion here and consequently there have been few such related posts.  Today is an exception.

Many thousands of us, myself included, have appealed against a parking fine of one sort or another.  Fortunately I had the wherewithal and time a couple of years ago to make a successful appeal but the enforced procedures employed by the council might have forced many to abandon the fight.  It was therefore gratifying to read of a motor cyclist whose appeal reached the Court of Appeal and culminated in his winning his case against Camden Council which governs an area with a similar population to Reading.  Whilst this inner London borough with others has a major traffic and parking control responsibility  it does seem that some brake on its typical requirement to obliterate all opposition to its authority.........a feature common to many such organisations not necessarily governmental.........might have saved its tax payers many thousands of pounds in legal costs.  

Internal inquiries into police misconduct often find officers guilty of misconduct but not gross misconduct and since it is a finding of the latter which probably justifies dismissal the offender lives to offend another day. The recent "bare breast" case of Greater Manchester Police Assistant Chief Constable  is one to savour on this point. Of course the moot point is when does misconduct become gross. Now to some degree there is an answer from the Court of Appeal. 

And finally............from a Supreme Court judgement of  the need to protect the individual from arbitrary detention.  In 2015 peaceful  demonstrators against the state visit of the Chinese President were arrested for waving flags. Today it has been announced from Downing Street that President Trump will indeed be granted a state visit to this country later this year.  One doesn`t need to be a Nostradamus to predict that there will be widespread demonstrations against him not excluding during his drive down The Mall.  We should all be concerned by the judgement from the Supreme Court published today.

JURY VETTING IS UNFIT FOR PURPOSE

I suppose commenting on the general topic of juries and the internet is the sort of activity that fills lawyers and judges with trepidation. The mere mention of jury competence in some circles invites the arrival of the Spanish Inquisition.  Two of my posts in 2015 more or less sum up the situation. It seems now that the current watchword by virtue of Il Duce Trump is fake news.  HH Judge Graham Robinson at Grimsby Crown Court warned whoever was listening that they must be aware of fake news and to that end avoid using the internet in jury deliberations.  All this leads back to the situation where owing to the outmoded concept of "peers" every person of age  excluding a few who are insane or members of parliament or both, must serve.  Even some of those  who have had a criminal conviction must serve if ordered.  However periods of imprisonment, a suspended sentence of imprisonment or probation can warrant exclusion. I have never been called to jury service under the current regulations and excluded myself when rules were more elastic decades ago. The fact remains that some jurors with specialist knowledge or higher intellect on the one hand and those with extreme prejudices of one sort or another, low intelligence or poor command of English language on the other are sitting in judgement in life changing situations for many defendants. Their contrary abilities do not in the current jargon offer a zero sum of decision making. The time must surely be coming  when the vetting of jurors is brought up to date to cope with the modern day demands of adjudicating at the very least on the most serious indictable offences.  Currently such vetting as it is, is unfit for purpose. What was suitable in the past is no longer acceptable.

HOGAN-HOWE TRUMPS TRUMP FOR INDISCRETION

I doubt there will be many tears at the forthcoming exit from Scotland Yard of its Commissioner Hogan-Howe.  His  revelation accidental or calculated of a proposed date for the visit of  President Trump will have angered both the Prime Minister and her successor at the Home Office no end. His presence will not be missed. There was scandal at the Met before Hogan-Howe, during his tenure and at his leaving. Its whole structure needs investigation.

PUBLIC PROTECTION AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION

During my time on the bench I lost count of the number of occasions on which I had to remind colleagues, especially those recently appointed, that in addition to the tick box sentencing process and listening to mitigation of offenders we also had a duty of public protection.  Many of these newer colleagues expressed surprise as this aspect of sentencing had never been mentioned during their training sessions. Important as it was and is,  it is not to be confused with public perception.  A bench in  Llandudno has been castigated owing to public perception in its failing to consider public protection.  In this case I fear the perception truly illustrates the bench`s misconceived attitude to punishment for punishment is exactly what a curfew is; a deprivation of liberty albeit without being held within the confines of an institution built for that purpose. 

As the clamour increases for rehabilitation to take precedence over punishment for lower level criminality I fear that J.P.s might be enveloped within that  approaching cloud of optimistic benevolent wet eyed mistiness which looks for the good and overlooks the evil.