THE ELEPHANT IN THE (COURT)ROOM

There are occasionally court reports which appear to omit the relaying to a reader the story of the elephant in the courtroom. This is one such report. It would seem that police are the most likely villains insofar as there is silence on how this offender has escaped justice. It would have been almost a certainty that the judge would have questioned the CPS on the absence of the accused.  If he had been on bail surely it would have been reported in open court the conditions of such?  If he had been released under investigation that too would have been part of the prosecution`s opening statement. Perhaps the judge made a direction that whoever and/or whatever was responsible should not be made public. 

I am rather disturbed by this case and its possible implications.  Perhaps someone with experience of such matters could enlighten me.

TO REPORT OR NOT TO REPORT

There are occasionally news events, major and minor, that resurrect in me and probably others events long forgotten.  When I read or see on TV that there has been a terrorist explosion in a city whether in this country or not it revives memories of when the first floor of a city multi story car park  in which I had been parked was the scene of an IRA car bomb about twenty minutes after I had left.  Similarly reading this report of a member of the public reporting a possible drink driver to the police I was reminded when I was in a situation regarding a professional colleague.  Another colleague had mentioned that unknown to me at the time that person had a drink problem and had been banned some time previously. A few weeks later when a client/patient/customer was pleased that I was advising her and not "that man who breathed alcohol fumes" I felt on reflection that as he was still driving I should not be merely a bystander to the situation.  After some hesitation and having taken note of his car number from my colleague I called the local police station giving my name and situation as a magistrate to the desk sergeant who assured me that these details would not be entered into any data base.  I reported what I knew. He said that he would alert the appropriate traffic department to be alert near his registered address. In due course he was stopped, breathalysed and sentenced to 28 days custody as it was his third similar offence.  My wife and a couple of close friends to whom I told this story were aghast and were voluble in their disapproval. I had no such doubts then and none now.  

ONLY THE NAME WILL BE THE SAME

There are some who opine that magistrates or retired  magistrates should not take part in activities such as blogging. Unlike the paid judiciary whose livelihoods and pensions depend upon not biting the hand that feeds them magistrates are volunteers.  They offer opinions and knowledge that often is not listened to or does not percolate through the established layers of communication.  Indeed the MOJ was so concerned to keep the so called independent magistracy under its control that last year it advertised for magistrates to be appointed "leadership magistrates". So unlike the previous senior magistrates who were elected by their peers via the Magistrates Association or from the Bench Chairmen`s Forum  and who liaised with the various judicial committees these incomers would be beholden to the Lord Chancellor for their positions and opinions whether or not the latter were truly representative of their 15,000 colleagues. Sad to relate this is just another small step towards the bowing out of the independent magistrate as chairman over the court which bears his/her name. The name will be the same but the game will not. A lone District Judge (MC) will range over our courts and trial by a jury of three will be but a historical footnote for future generations. 

BLOWING MY OWN TRUMPET

Today the government has published "Going to a criminal court - support for defendants". This initiative is long overdue. Without blowing too hard on my own trumpet, in my blog of 28th September 2015 I suggested the very same. To quote, "My personal opinion for what it`s worth is that the provision of literature,  sent with summons and supplied  at remand courts, that explains procedures and consequences of plea and allocation is long overdue.  In the foreseeable future with anticipated increases in litigants in person it would be criminal not to so do".  The complete blog was based on interviews with a number of my former colleagues.  The complete post is available here.

SHOULD SENTENCING LEAD OR BE LED BY PUBLIC OPINION?

The country is divided by Brexit; of that we are all aware. The judiciary is divided on sentencing but we don`t hear about it until judges are retired. In a similar fashion magistrates are similarly divided on those who take a view in line with MOJ Sentencing Guidelines and try to err on the side of leniency and sympathy for the offender. The other faction takes a more traditional view; a view which has more in line with general opinion but still subservient to the Guidelines. I make no apology to anyone that whilst following those Guidelines  and in consultation with my two colleagues my opinion would also take into account public protection such a position sometimes being overlooked by magistrates and their legal advisors. The final decision of magistrates sitting in Wigan and Leigh Magistrates’ Court on this case erred on the side of leniency and sympathy IMHO of course.

The philosophical question of course for that sentencing decision as with all others is how much sentencing should lead or be led by public opinion. There is no doubt that in general sentencing has become more severe in the last decade; prisons are bursting so hence the astonishing number of custody suspended orders.  In truth so much of this debate is happening  because those responsible for the rehabilitation of offenders, especially those from youth courts and adults who are addicts have not had the funds to do their job as it should be done. The failings at the MOJ are legion and a disgrace to us all. Unfortunately there does not seem to be any motivation from any political party to enable meaningful change in the future.  Bland socialist wishful thinking on one side and still a rump of hangers and floggers on the other pandering to their core voters are more hindrance than help. 

Brexit or no Brexit, Deal or No Deal will have not the slightest significance for a justice system which seems to have lost all sense of direction obfuscated by a huge PR department which is possibly the most successful section in Petty France.   

JUDGING THE JUDGES

There is no doubt that every government of every hue has to manage secrecy.  That is a simple statement to make but far from simple to practise and manage.  Since the catastrophic decision to hold a referendum in 2016 to this casual onlooker it appears that there have been more leaks from the government than in the water pipes under London` streets. But there is one department where leakage of information seems to be kept under control and that is within the Ministry Of Justice. Despite or perhaps because it has an enormous press and public relations department employing many dozens or perhaps hundreds of workers; even that number is not available, the goings on surrounding those who are the public face of justice ie magistrates and judges are strictly off limits.  Certainly the public face of retribution for those under its auspices erring or deviating from sometimes obscure guidelines; the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office  publishes its somewhat truncated reports monthly or even more frequently. But what is unavailable for inspection, unlike disciplinary hearings at the General Medical Council and similar organisations is a complete report of the circumstances surrounding the alleged guilty party including any defence offered. It is totally valid statistically that magistrates figure in these reports many times more than others also beholden to the same body. What we do not know is how many individual investigations fail.  Not even anonymised statistics are publicly available.  How ironic that it is the Ministry of Justice where open justice is concealed. 

During my active time on the bench I was privileged to have very courteous knowledgeable District Judges working from our courts and who were always available for advice and guidance. Others became known to me by their presence at training events and others still on a social basis. I suppose in total they numbered many dozens if not a hundred or more one of whom was Margot Coleman. It surprised me to read that she retired on October 1st many years before the compulsory retirement age. She had presided over a court last year which  found Boris Johnson had questions to answer over remarks made during the Brexit referendum campaign and which was later overturned on appeal.   Having noted our prime minister`s reaction to the recent judgements of the Supreme Court and his vindictive manner with regard to possible consequences to that court`s constitution I sincerely hope that Ms Coleman`s early departure from the bench is unrelated to her actions last year. 

FREEDOM SWAN`S FRANTIC WEBBED FEET

We all have become accustomed of late to earth shattering  legal decisions which have or will have profound results for our daily lives and/or the way we live both as individuals and as a nation.  However it`s not always the headline making stories of legal jousting which illustrate just how authority or those entrusted with enabling parliamentary direction alter people`s lives. 

The police have been granted since my appointment two decades ago, increasing powers of control over ordinary citizens without recourse to the courts.  Indeed some forms of authority which used to be under the auspices of police at superintendent level are now available to inspectors. Evidence based out of court decisions by police or local authorities are not now necessarily the norm.  An interesting case at  St Albans Magistrates' Court before a professional District Judge (MC) rather than a bench of magistrates which arguably would have been more suitable in the circumstances has been recently reported involving a man`s private hire driver's licence. A fairly comprehensive report is available here. Nowhere is it mentioned that the individual was legally represented.  Thus his livelihood was taken from him on a subjective balance of probabilities.  I find this case very disturbing.  His rights as an individual seem to have been as secure as a dissident`s in Soviet Russia. Of course he has the right of appeal to a higher court but from all accounts he is an ordinary working man without the means to pursue such an action.

There are those who will maintain very loudly that this is a "free" country.  A case like this suggests that the gliding appearance of the freedom swan on the placid surface of the river of state is belied by the increasingly frantic motion of the underlying webbed feet beneath that surface.

SENIOR JUDICIARY MUST REMAIN ABOVE POLITICS

The Supreme Court has had more exposure in the last week than since its establishment ten years ago. For this retired magistrate it was a pleasure to witness the eloquence and purposeful arguments put forward by both sides` lawyers.  The final judgement was a masterpiece in logical structured reasoning which left no room to doubt the diligence in the way that that judgement was reached.  It was regrettable and inevitable that as soon as it had been broadcast some politicians on the Leave side of the Brexit debate accused their lordships and ladyships of bias. The accusation made in 2016 by the Daily Mail will not be forgotten.

Enemies of the people: Fury over 'out of touch' judges who have 'declared war on democracy' by defying 17.4m Brexit voters and who could trigger constitutional crisis 

• Judges ruled Brexit could not be triggered without a Westminster vote
• The Lord Chief Justice and two colleagues were branded 'out of touch'
• They were accused of putting Britain on course for a 'constitutional crisis' 

By James Slack, Political Editor For The Daily Mail

Published: 23:38, 3 November 2016 | Updated: 15:26, 4 November 2016

Yesterday the Attorney General putting forward his best booming bombastic response suggested that it was not unlikely that in future aspiring appointees to the Supreme Court  would require some sort of vetting.  When I applied to the magistracy on the application form  there was a box to be filled in naming the political party to which I had given my vote in the previous general election.  I left it blank only for the form to be returned some time later with an accompanying letter which told me that my application would be rejected unless I filled in the appropriate information. I complied. It is some years since that iniquitous demand has been rescinded. When we are witness to the interrogation that takes place in the USA for Supreme Court appointments we should be very thankful that our current system is as it is.  It is the very distance from political interference which gives strength to our senior judiciary.  It would be a very thin edge to a very thick wedge were we to allow even a hint of political interference in the process.    

THE LEGAL PYRAMID

Currently the nation has the opportunity to see and hear the finest legal brains exercising their minds on the prime minister`s recent proroguing of parliament.  We all should be proud that the pinnacle at the very top of the judicial pyramid can produce such exquisite minds on and before the bench. However the very careful considerations and histories which have brought us this bounty are the antithesis of the situation at the base of said structure. Availability of even the most limited legally qualified mind is now rarely available for the millions who appear annually before the bench in magistrates courts.  The provisions for any form of rehabilitation  for the 70% of offenders who are addicts involved in violent and/or acquisitive offending are in practice few and far between.  Consideration of a non court pathway if it has been considered at all by MOJ has been given short shrift.  By the actions of Chris Grayling the probation service is struggling to cope with demands upon it with consequent reactions from a staff whose morale is as low as it ever has been. Latest figures show that £653 million pounds is owed for unpaid fines; a figure which has remained roughly unchanged for a decade. Bob Dylan made his reputation by simple poetic lines such as "When you have nothing you have nothing to lose". The bench recently at Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court might have had that couplet in mind. 

Regular readers might be bored by my repeating that out of the box thinking must now be taken by those who govern us for the hundreds of thousands of cases similar to this.  My hobby horse is that a modern form of the Victorian concept of the workhouse must be considered. Put that "W" word into the search box for previous posts and consider what changes would be developed if you were in control. 

MOJ CONTROL BY MANAGED DECAY

In some respects the criminal justice system doesn`t know whether it`s coming or going.  That directionless state can, I suppose, be placed at the feet of the four prime ministers of the last  decade who have saddled arguably the most important pillar of our democratic society with no less than eight Justice Secretaries each of whom had his/her "vision".  An obvious example of this antithesis to joined up thinking is the confused attitude to sentencing.  Ever since it was decided that judges and magistrates could not be trusted to sentence according to the structured sentencing system which had been inculcated into them all, Sentencing Guidelines have become the bible for all sentencing decisions from the very simplest to the most serious. The original Guidelines of 2010 have been modified as almost an annual undertaking.  The custodial powers of magistrates courts have been mooted to be increased to twelve months from the current six to being abolished altogether.  The newly appointed current incumbent of Petty France has stirred the sentencing plot yet again by her recent announcements to increase the severity of sentencing for the very most serious offences.  My own view expressed many times here is that institutions must be established to offer a non court pathway for offenders whose substance addictions are driving their offending, such offending estimated to be responsible for 70% of  violent and/or acquisitive crime.  

Notwithstanding the above I was pleased to read of common situations where, in contrast to government direction to avoid immediate custodial sentences at magistrates courts, two offenders were sent to immediate jail for offences and histories which I believe all but fanatic believers in non custody outcomes would applaud. Fortunately most of us will not be involved directly as victims of crime on the streets, in the pub or in our homes but on the roads as drivers or passengers in cars and other vehicles the situation is quite different. My wife`s best friend`s daughter was killed driving her car on the M6 by a repeat disqualified drunk driver who was disqualified, using her mobile phone and drunk at the time. These two examples of society`s retribution for such offending are, I fear, not dispensed perhaps as often as perhaps some would wish. Instead the MOJ recently issued a press release to ban all mobile phone use in a vehicle including those that in most new cars are hands free.  This legislation will never happen.  It is a frightener from the weasels at Petty France in conjunction with "look at me attention seeking MPs" to divert attention from matters which do require our attention; namely returning legal aid provision and CPS numbers to 2009 levels notwithstanding proposals to reduce even further the numbers of magistrates courts.    

That is the system which is being undermined every day by a government which regards it as a necessary evil to its long term target of control by managed decay. Perhaps there are those who look upon courts of the 19th century as the best application of justice for the common man?

COURTS CAN PROTECT SCHIZOPHRENICS BUT CANNOT REHABILITATE ALCOHOLICS OR ADDICTS

Every magistrates` court every week has before it a Darren Marples, of no fixed abode. He might have a different name, he might be black or he might occasionally be female but he invariably has a long history of public order offences and is more often than not of no fixed abode. He is always an alcoholic and/or drug addict. It is not unlikely that he has in the past served one or more short custodial sentences. In the past he might have had a court order made to address his alcoholism/addiction. If he were married he is now separated or divorced. If he had children he is no longer in touch with them.


Darren Marples should be confined by a compulsory order to an institution where he could be treated just as those in the appropriate circumstances can be sectioned and treated by mental health workers having if necessary been granted a warrant of entry from a Justice of the Peace. Of course those financially equipped can avail themselves of all the help and assistance available to medical science but for most of the Darren Marples of this world those clinics could be on the planet Mars. The phrase “be cruel to be kind” is applicable in both cases; schizophrenics and alcoholics and/or drug addicts but the former have that protection that the latter are denied

MUSINGS ON THURSDAY 5

During my tenure on the bench I had several cases where a foreign offender appeared to be eligible for deportation; in theory at least. It would seem from my experiences and cases publicly reported that expelling an offender who comes within the guidelines is virtually impossible insofar as the process is Kafkaesque in its complexity. Therefore IMHO for a district judge to cry "wolf" in this case is bluster and bluster is unwise from judicial figures. 

Of all the iniquitous financial reductions imposed upon the justice system perhaps the very worst is the reduction in the availability of legal aid.  At Barkingside and Romford magistrates' courts notice has been given that there will be  further difficulties for defendants as fewer solicitors will be available to assist them.  This is a national disgrace but apart from most professionals will be recognised as such only by those caught up in the court system. 

It`s unusual for a defendant being given the maximum custodial sentence at a magistrates court also having that sentence suspended. All I will say is that if I were involved the sentence would have been shorter and it would have been immediate. 

At Sheffield Crown Court a remanded defendant refused to appear in court by video link for the first hearing yet the judge did not sentence him for contempt.  Am I missing something or was this another example of a judge failing to use the powers at his disposal specifically available to punish those who treat the law with disdain. 

DEATH OF COURT REPORTING

From time to time I have commented on court reporting or the lack thereof in recent times.  What was once a sure way of a local newspaper filling some column inches and fulfilling its publishing objectives was to have young would be journalists attend the local magistrates court when these courts were truly "local" and return to their editor with a thousand words for publication in the next edition.  Of course that was in pre Facebook, Twitter and Instagram days when using a phone away from home or office usually meant looking for a red box with a glass door near to or on a high street. Those were also the days when shame and shaming went some way in curbing unseemly or unlawful public behaviour. And lo! let there be the internet and mass communication was created and local print media entered the darkness.  I have considered for many years that televising of magistrates courts is a matter of "when" and not "if" and that that this innovation will become reality in the face of opposition from government which indicates increasingly that a more restrictive and opaque justice system would not be unwelcome. Meanwhile there has been an interesting academic study of this reduced public reporting.  A few minutes looking here might be of interest. 

ISLAMOPHOBIA BY CIVITAS

For the first time since this blog began in 2009 I have no hesitation in using my whisper of a voice in copying in full the just published article from CIVITAS on the topic of a proposed definition of that contrived word "Islamophobia".  With magistrates being crucified metaphorically of course if their language deviates from what the MOJ language police deem appropriate this should not be without interest to many whose words are scrutinised as if there were a mistake in the number of angels on the proverbial pinhead. 

 What next for attempts to define 'Islamophobia'?

One of the outstanding issues that Theresa May left for Boris Johnson’s government to pick up this summer concerned demands for there to be an officially-sanctioned definition of 'Islamophobia'. Campaigners have long been calling for one, and the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims increased the pressure late last year by producing its own definition, describing Islamophobia as a ‘type of racism’. Given that Muslims are of a religious faith rather than a race, this is nonsensical.

Any such attempt to protect Islam from criticism is also a serious threat to free speech, as a new Civitas publication warned this month. The collection featured authors including Peter Tatchell, Richard Dawkins and a range of different religious and secularist commentators, and was edited by Emma Webb, director of Civitas’s new Forum on Integration, Democracy and Extremism. As Prof Dawkins put it succinctly:

‘Hatred of Muslims is unequivocally reprehensible, as is hatred of any group of people such as gay people or members of a race. Hatred of Islam, on the other hand, is easily justified, as is hatred of any other religion or obnoxious ideology.’

But while Mrs May’s government rejected the definition proposed by the APPG, it did agree that there should be a definition of some kind and set in train a process  to decide a form of words. The appointment of one of two intended advisers was rubber-stamped in haste in her final week in Number 10. 

The new prime minister must decide now where this process goes next. The most prudent course would be to abandon it.

A JP`s WILFUL REFUSAL OR CULPABLE NEGLECT

During training all new magistrates are told that if they or a close relative, or someone known to them has an involvement in a case which comes before them they must declare an interest and usually recuse themselves from any participation. Obviously the general guidance can be only that; general.  Certainly after a year or more on the bench a magistrate will have learned from colleagues when to consider if they are in breach of said guidance and of course the Deputy Justices Clerk is there for advice.  Therefore there appears to be no excuse for this woman although her name has not as yet appeared in cases disciplined by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. This would seem to be wilful refusal to act judicially or culpable neglect on her part.  No doubt the full story will out. 

PHONING AT THE WHEEL NEEDS A RE-THINK

Without exception government departments employ hundreds if not thousands of people to spread the word; the word they want we, the public,  to hear on the basis that all  words of opposing opinion  will, if not drowned out, be lost in the cacophony that results.  Nowhere is this attempt at control more evident than within the Ministry of Justice which day by day is becoming an oxymoron. With all the problems facing the MOJ, last week the House of Commons Transport Committee with or without consultation with its colleagues at Justice or Home Office decided to recommend that all mobile phone use whilst driving be banned.  This announcement, of course, made headlines in all media. But in practical terms there is no way that a measure such as this with dubious supposed statistics at its rear end will make it into law.  There are as far as I know no statistics on driving convictions or penalty points allocated for the use of in car hands free phone use.  The so called eminent MPs might have issued a warning against a driver talking to himself or a passenger whilst driving. In addition, for some years most if not all vehicles have been and are fitted with WIFI enabled cabins so that mobile hands free telephony can be installed within the vehicles` own navigation systems in minutes. If government rightly wishes to eliminate the use of non hands free use which is a laudable aim then the method is simple. They must use the argument that such use is as bad for concentration as driving with low level blood alcohol level where the sanction is immediate disqualification for six months plus of course fine and costs. The fact that mobile police patrols have been drastically reduced in the last decade means that the odds against illegal use being observed have increased considerably.  As with many illegal activities it is the fear of being caught that is the most effective sanction against the would be perpetrators acting in such a fashion. Publicise a first instance ban as with drink driving and mobile phone use whilst driving will be immediately reduced.  

ANOTHER COURT INTERPRETER PROVIDER BITES THE DUST

Since 2012 I have been commenting on the less than satisfactory history  of court interpreting that began with the yet to be investigated scandal of Applied Language Solutions` contract with the Ministry of Justice that year.  The MOJ for its part is regularly issuing notices of how efficient the current service is but apparently old habits die hard when it comes to that organisation`s signing of contracts.  

A sub contractor for these services went out of business last week.  It is now obvious that all government departments are obsessed with outsourcing.  In the oft forgotten days of the Callaghan administration and earlier, government employees used their trade union affiliations to cause havoc to public services.  I remember the three day week of 1972 and eating by candle light.  I remember rats searching in uncollected rubbish in 1979.  There was no doubt that Maggie Thatcher`s reforms to prevent such events was welcome relief but now the pendulum has swung to the maximum of its arc.  The principle of such activities has been taken much too far. There are some services which must now be taken under direct control before their inefficiencies  and siphoning off of capital as dividends lead some naive voters to think that the antisemitic communist Corbyn has the answer to our economic problems.  

However I would be being naive in thinking that that is going to happen.  Our capitalist system which has been allowed by the Conservative Party to be relatively unfettered in its greed is liable to be responsible for its own downfall. It would be poetic were it not so dangerous for the well being of us all. 

CAMERON OR JOHNSON; WHAT`S THE DIFFERENCE?

All those interested will have by now made up their minds whether or not our newly enthroned prime minister was showing “leadership” or being unwise in speaking out in support of “tough” sentencing. My own opinions on his and David Cameron`s similar comments and particularly of the Sentencing Council`s tick box structure have been mentioned here on more than one occasion. Cameron when PM revealed, perhaps without too much forethought, his thinking processes on the Sentencing Council.  He is quoted in The Telegraph at the time  as saying,

“My mum was a magistrate for 30-odd years and you don’t go on being a magistrate just reading the handbook and working out exactly what sentence is handed down. You respond to local circumstances, to the sense of right and wrong in that community.”

And that is precisely where the dispute in current sentencing now lies. For some years we have been told to do exactly that which is on the tin or top cover if preferred; read the handbook [guideline] and work out exactly the sentence. The tick box analogy is perfect. Now Johnson wants us to respond to local circumstances when he is well aware that his government is bent in removing “local” from such services as far as justice is concerned.

Politicians are like ladybirds; they never change their spots, some of them have a nasty bite and they fly off and leave the scene when disturbed.

HOW AWFUL

There is no doubt, unless the opinion is emanating from an MP on the Tory side where it`s waffle from dawn to dusk or from the Opposition where it`s based on, "they`re wrong whatever the topic", that most clear thinking individuals when pressed will admit to apprehensions about our justice system.  For this short post the justice system is a loose term encompassing the process from the law being broken to a defendant being found guilty or acquitted. In order to bring a defendant to court s/he must first be arrested for an alleged offence. However only about 8% of such people are actually charged.  In the last eight years the number of prosecutions has fallen by around 45%. Eight years ago there were just under 900,000 cases at magistrates and crown courts. Latest figures are just under 500,000. Ten years ago there were 20,000 more warranted police officers than there are currently. And nine years ago in Bradford the crown court was being overwhelmed with cases it could not handle with available resources. I posted on this particular city`s problems in this regard on 13th April 2018 with reference to an earlier post almost eight years prior.  

It seems that the situation in Bradford is no better now and arguably worse as the parliamentary answer of last week shows below.  For the complete exchange access is here. 

We used to read of the dreadful delays in places like India where defendants awaited trial for many years and sometimes waited in custody on remand.  "How awful", would be the opinion of most of the legal world.  We used to read of the corruption of police in Pakistan or in some Eastern European countries. "How awful", would be the outcry of British police authorities. We used to read of political double dealing in our near European neighbours and our parliamentary representatives would answer interviewers` questions, "How awful". 

Our justice system as an appendage of our total democratic system can now be summed up by just those two words "How awful".  

MUSINGS ON THURSDAY (2)

Sometimes magistrates courts and information of interest to those who use them are bereft of interesting items and at other times the pieces of news flow like buses after a hold up.

Whilst on the bench the most onerous decision making for me was not about whether to convict or acquit, to jail or not to jail but to decide if it were unsafe to bail an untried defendant especially in cases of alleged domestic violence.  Since then the procedure regarding bail has changed drastically. If I were a cynic I would suggest that these changes were designed to reduce the number of people kept in prison on remand but of course government does not operate like a black market shyster during World War 2.  Being now unable to keep suspects on almost unlimited bail with the associated conditions imposed police must release them without any conditions until they are ready to charge; this is called released under investigation.  This has been the case since April 2017. Since then the Metropolitan Police have released 97 out of 284 murder suspects.  During the same period 807 suspects have been similarly released. Of those suspects no figures are available for what subsequently happened to them.  Once again as has been the MOJ philosophy for at least two decades the tail of the target to reduce the numbers of prisoners has wagged the dog of the duty of a government to keep its citizens safe. 

It is against the law to use a mobile phone whilst driving; the operative word being use. At least that is what I and tens of thousands of judges, JPs and lawyers thought was the law.  But, and it`s a very big but, yesterday at the High Court the pronouncement from the bench was that the legislation does not prevent all use of a mobile phone held while driving. The defendant claimed in his defence that he was shooting a video with the phone`s camera.  This decision opens up a large can of worms. The press report is here although there might be some difficulty tracing it.   

The conviction of the offender who gained notoriety as "Nick" has produced not unexpected ramifications.  The newly installed Justice Secretary has backed a call from Sir Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini to ban the naming of those arrested for rape and other sexual offences. A report can be accessed here for those who wish to note opinion other than from  their usual media.