EXTINCTION REBELLION: ANARCHY FOR THE 21st CENTURY

 

ANARCHY:- 

a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems

absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal

a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy. The word Anarchy was first used in English in 1539, meaning "an absence of government".

There is no doubt that the above concept is widely known to most in theory if not in practice.  Where its ideals have been translated into action the results have gone from causing inconvenience to revolution with the murderous results that those activities inevitably cause. 

Extinction Rebellion is just the latest form of direct action by those who believe that they have a god given right to disrupt society in which way they think better furthers their cause. It could be termed in general anarchy 21st century style.  Perhaps older readers will remember the words Greenham Common and what took place there as an example. The case of Imogen May is an example of what in practice is truly anarchy for the 21st century.  Another example which many magistrates have probably experienced is the prosecution of the same offence, non payment of Council Tax, of those who call themselves Freemen on the land.  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The freeman-on-the-land (FOTL[2]) movement, also known as the freemen-of-the-land, the freemen movement, or simply freemen, is a loose group of individuals who believe that they are bound by statute laws only if they consent to those laws. They believe that they can therefore declare themselves independent of the government and the rule of law, holding that the only "true" law is their own interpretation of "common law".[3] 

These deluded defendants I suppose compare themselves to historical figures  like Joan of Arc or Wat Tyler a leader of the Peasants` Revolt of 1381 who was killed before the uprising was crushed. They do not have an occupying army to oppose or a sovereign who sanctioned virtually  a slave`s existence for the population under his feudal system.  They see themselves as martyrs to the cause.

Anarchy has always posed a problem for a benign legal system in a democratic society. It is a binary choice between a carrot or a stick; adopting the former to reduce tensions or wielding the power of the state to punish. But we have a government that doesn`t know what its policies are between Monday and Tuesday and whose ministers and spokespersons try to be all things to all people. And so the courts must do their best under the law sometimes risking opprobrium from those who ought to know better.   Perhaps it`s all summed up by the old adage attributed to Abraham Lincoln; "You can fool some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time but you can`t fool all of the people all of the time."  For Boris Johnson et al it`s just a matter of time. 

SCANDAL OF SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE IS A BLOT ON THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE

There are few if any independent observers who would not agree that the once highly valued English justice system has been brought into disrepute; in my humble opinion of course. The financial crash of 2008/9 not only brought down institutions it systematically led to a situation where the very consideration that justice was a service to the community in its widest sense was abandoned.  In its place the costs of providing that service became the criteria by which the quality and quantity of that service were evaluated.  The rule of law and principles such as equality, accountability and non-arbitrariness were no longer to stand alone as enabling justice to be upheld as a pillar of a just and democratic society. The old adage that justice should be seen to be done seems but a historical footnote. 

While Civil Rights has been a catch all phrase from all parties to debates on justice, it remains the practical experience of a right that defines its existence and conformity with the ideals of a just society but Rights must be effective, not illusory.  Just this week we have a government which is progressing through Parliament   The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Of particular concern to many are the increased powers for police to respond to non-violent protests which would expand the circumstances in which police can impose conditions on protests, remove the need to knowingly breach conditions in order to commit an offence and introduce a broad statutory offence of public nuisance with a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Against a background of this government`s tendency to take an authoritarian point of view in situations others would have temporised is another change in legal process which has been imposed upon the justice system by diktat; the single justice procedure. 

It is no secret that there two widely held held opinions on the function of the long held positions of lay magistrates` participation in the justice system; many practising lawyers would like that system abolished and for District Judges alone to be in practice judge, jury and sentencer. On costs alone that has been rejected but in principle the second supposedly widely held opinion of governments per se  is that the lay magistracy is the backbone of our courts system  and will continue. Five years ago a major change took place in the manner in which minor non custodial cases were to be handled.  No longer would offences such as non payment of TV licenses or council tax be heard before a bench of three magistrates in open court: instead they would be heard in private by a single JP assisted by a legal advisor. The government public information  publication for the single justice procedure is available here. The historical footnote to which I referred above certainly does not apply with this form of so called justice yet opposition has been muted although the Magistrates Association unusually has in this event offered some criticism.  The number of cases progressed through this procedure is shown below.  It is apparent that the pandemic has reduced the rising trend in those numbers.

Latest statistics are that there are currently 12,333 magistrates serving c150 courts. They must have been successful in their threshold appraisal taken about a year after they have begun sitting.  I am unaware whether undertaking the SJP is a compulsory or voluntary requirement of a magistrate. I retired immediately prior to its introduction and certainly have been opposed to it from the beginning. A major criticism in addition to its being conducted behind closed doors is the behaviour of those presented with a summons to appear in such a "court".  A cause for concern is the numbers of defendants who do not enter a plea by post.  All not guilty pleas are regarded as going to trial. No figures are available for the results of such trials or whether or not the defendants appear.  It should be noted that interrogating Covid-19 offences in 2020 88.52% failed to enter a plea.  As with other "no plea entered" they would have been found guilty. A complete record is below.

To put the above in arithmetical perspective:-

2015    2.38% guilty plea    74.52% no plea entered

2016    3.1%                        71.61%

2017    3.46%                      72.21%

2018    3.45%                      72.26%

2019    2.95%                      71.64%

2020    2.17%                      70.65%

2020

Covid-19 offences    0.57% guilty plea    88.52% no plea entered

The figures for those choosing to put their summons behind the clock on the mantelpiece or with the unpaid bills in a drawer are alarming.  The chances of their appealing the decision or subsequent fine are unlikely owing to a variety of circumstances. Indeed the first time such a matter will have been brought home to them  is liable to be a debt collectors` claim or a foot in the door.  It is inconceivable that those who pushed through this so called procedure did not have advice that the tables above have shown; namely secret justice on the nod will not just garner little respect it will be ignored by those it was designed to ensnare. 

It is nothing short of scandalous that magistrates, the Magistrates Association, notwithstanding belated reservations, and the so called unelected  toads known as leadership magistrates ( use search box for details) have acquiesced in this process.   What we today consider fundamental pillars of justice cannot be taken for granted and must instead be subjected to a continuous process of revitalisation, dialogue, and improvement. Only when this apology for justice is removed from our courts will be re-assured that this government is at least attempting to row back from its apparent proto authoritarian behaviour. 

ADDENDUM 13th July 2021

Further statistics on SJP are available in table below

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2021-07-06.28183.h&s=%22magistrates%22#g28183.r0

A NIGHT WATCHMAN?

For those who enjoy the statistics that emanate from the Ministry of Justice I have accessed here current information of the numbers of people employed by HM Courts and Tribunal Service. There are a few closed locations still employing a single individual; perhaps a night watchman if such still exist.   

FOR EVERY PLAN THERE`S SOMETHING TO GO WRONG

This post is short and as sweet as your taste buds allow. Please click here for government`s plan for magistrates courts. 

THE COVID EFFECT ON JURIES, DISTRICT JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES COURTS

I suppose it could be said that a jury system of sorts in England began during the final year of the reign of Henry II in 1189.  A very interesting history of the jury as a legal instrument in England can be accessed here. In Scotland a jury consists of 15 members, believed to be the largest in the world. The system there of three available verdicts is also unique. Apart from the period of World War 2, an English jury of 12 is the norm and until 1967 a unanimous verdict was required.  That was changed when majority verdicts were first introduced by Section 13 Criminal Justice Act of that year. Covid-19 has changed government thinking on the jury per se as it has changed thinking on many aspects of our lives and customs. The pandemic descended upon us when half the country`s Magistrates Courts have been closed since 2010 as part of a 23% cut in funding.  

In the Crown Court there is a backlog of 40,000  trials owing, in addition to restrictions around Covid,  to the government`s refusal to pay for judges to work what can be described as a normal working week. In other words the current scandal of those awaiting trial notwithstanding a backlog of 400,000 cases in the lower court is partly self inflicted. As a result various "temporary" changes to the jury system have been mooted.  In recent days the Lord Chief Justice no less has suggested that juries could be reduced to speed up the trial process.  Whether he meant that smaller juries would require smaller Covid secure rooms in which to deliberate or smaller juries would deliberate more speedily is unknown.  Perhaps he had both outcomes in mind. What is not in doubt is that 1,600 defendants have been remanded in custody for over a year well in excess of the legal custody time limit of six months. However not only are defendants not facing due process within a reasonable time; witnesses and complainants who might be traumatised by their involvement in the alleged events will have to relive their experiences perhaps two years subsequently when their memories are less than clear and their mental health still less than perfect.

Other suggestions to ease the backlog have been suggested. Currently appeals against verdict or sentence at magistrates courts are resolved at the crown court with a judge presiding and two magistrates assisting. That bench construct could be applied at crown court for defendants who have chosen crown court jury trial for an either way offence instead of a summary trial at the magistrates court. The numbers of those electing crown court trial on an either way offence do not appear to be listed on any government statistics.  In addition it is an anomaly in England unlike the rules in Scotland that a defendant on an either way charge can actually choose where to be tried. It is an anomaly that should be abolished even although there would be an anguished outcry from the legal profession perhaps more concerned with reduced fees than lack of choice for their clients.  However many lawyers would be pleased if the numbers of District Judges (MC) were increased from the current 124 and they were to preside over all trials with or without assisting magistrates. 

Notwithstanding all the above there is no doubt that flaws in the justice system overlooked for a decade are coming to the fore. Ancillary services especially policing and immigration control are also being questioned. There are no easy answers to difficult questions but my personal fear is that populism of either or both Left and Right will make increasing inroads into our less than perfect democratic system of governance suggesting that there are indeed simple answers just awaiting application. With our current prime minister and his team of toadies perhaps we are closer to that situation than we would like to believe.  

THE PRICE OF JUSTICE

There cannot be many people with even the slightest interest in our justice system who are unaware that since 2010 the Conservative governments have closed  half the country`s magistrates courts leaving around 150 to serve the needs of about 60 million people. Despite guarantees to anyone interested that the travelling time for many who must attend these courts either as workers or witnesses by public transport would not exceed one hour  the result is that often up to double that time is required.  All this happened because successive governments have lost sight of what courts are for. For centuries they had been a public service whether for medieval land owners and nobles or for the king`s law to be available for all citizens. An interesting brief history is available here.   However subsequent to the financial crisis of 2008 it was decided by the high and mighty who rule over us that such a concept was no longer tenable and courts had to demonstrate their "worth" in £ to the communities they served.  And so the great sell off began. 

There is little doubt that some of the properties many of which occupied prime town centre sites were sold at below market value.  The whole system has been shrouded in a limited availability of facts apart from courts` dates of closure and final selling prices.  Much of the transfer of these courts has been done with a newly formed government agency known as Homes England.  An inquisitive individual associated with the business of property development has sourced an interesting account of how to some extent this agency operates. The document (5 pages) at the end of my post details the acquisition of Stafford Magistrates Court which closed 28/4/2017 and was sold for £435K  7/9/2017.  It is currently being developed as a car park.  

Worksop Magistrates Court was closed 31/3/2016 and sold for £115K 31/10/2016.  That site is currently being redeveloped into 13 flats in an area where the average price for such properties is £103K. It is unlikely that these two developments as well as the hundred plus others similar will have made anything but tidy profits for the professionals involved.  In both  these examples about six months transpired from closure to sale.  Knowing what  problems and unexpected issues arise with any property sales especially commercial property sales involving change of use and planning permission some might posit that discussions with interested parties had been taking place prior to closure of these courts. 

It is beyond any shadow of doubt (to coin a phrase) that this government has put a price on justice. Whilst the NHS is treated totem like as a national treasure justice is becoming a rich person`s vehicle whether in the civil or criminal court. This is shameful. With mounting public borrowing it is unlikely that this or any future chancellor of the exchequer will sanction the real required financial funding for the justice system as a whole or the courts in particular. In practical terms there are and will be more innocent people being found guilty and to a lesser degree more guilty miscreants walking the streets as usual. 

DOCUMENTS

DANCE TO THE TUNE OF EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP

It is the British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli who is famously credited with the phrase: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics" but the expression has been around almost as long as the word statistics (first coined in 1749 for those wondering). I stumbled recently upon statistics I had never previously considered; the numbers of drivers who escaped disqualification with the totting procedure, having successfully argued "exceptional hardship".  At this point I must make my own position clear when I chaired such a hearing; I was considered "hard" by some of my colleagues but fair by most. I can even recollect a case where the legal advisor who approached us as we were about to return to court with our decision to reject the argument (against her unasked for advisory opinion) making a final effort to allow the argument. Such cases are rare insofar as the bench must argue from its own principles, experience and common sense unfettered by pages of sentencing guidelines. However there is pressure to remove this remaining discretion and substitute the tick box sentencing procedure common to virtually all criminal sentencing. However to return to the statistics; In the decade 1/1/2010 to 31/12/2020 83,581 cases of exceptional hardship were granted to drivers who exceeded their 12 penalty point allowance over three years. In 2010 there were 330 magistrates courts.  There are now about 150.  Assuming a decline over the decade the 8,358 cases annually in those courts equate to 35 per court per year. No wonder magistrates without much time on the bench are taken for suckers by smart talking lawyers. They might sit for years and not hear a single case. But is this then a reason to further reduce what little discretion is left for a bench?  My answer put simply is "no".  Perhaps some training and or distant learning would not go amiss or by entering exceptional hardship in the search box  my own opinions over many years on this site might be of assistance. But to further circumscribe magistrates` options is a further sign if one were needed that for all its verbal support this government like its predecessors over the decade would not be unhappy if District Judges were in total command of the magistrates courts system. After all they, being pension awarded public servants, usually dance to the government tune.  

POLICING AND JUSTICE UK STYLE 2021

Salami slicing is a well trodden phrase used originally to describe the subtle reduction by the very thin slicing  of a piece of  sausage or a large piece of meat.  Of course now that phrase can be applied to many areas of our lives but in the context of government policies it means the subtle reductions in financial support to a public policy.  Nowhere is this more obvious than it  is to our justice system in its widest context. From Kenneth Clarke at the Ministry of Justice in 2010 when he proudly announced that he was the first cabinet minister to announce his department`s budget reduction of 23% until the present time when a compulsive lying prime minister has proudly announced the recruitment of 20,000 police officers which was exactly the number his predecessors over the last decade had sacked, our system of justice has been reduced from a beacon to the wider world to a system not fit for purpose.  Nowhere is this hiring and firing been more apparent than in the policy or non policy of stop and search which has become a totem of those who accuse the Metropolitan Police of racism.  There is no doubt that the Met itself has been under fire for its apparent failure to weed out and actually punish officers for gross misconduct often during stop and search actions. Indeed only six officers have been disciplined since 2014 out of over 5,000 complaints.  But that does nothing to disguise the fact that young black males are the main victims of black perpetrators.  A government with confidence in its own policies would provide not just funds to operate an efficient policing system but would also argue that the facts on knife crime require more than rhetoric which is a recurring feature of every Justice Secretary in living memory. A Freedom of Information answer from Scotland Yard might be of interest. 

There is no doubt that notwithstanding superficial improvements there is systemic failure within the police to investigate and punish their own officers.  That corruption is endemic from top to bottom  has been made front page news today 15th June on the murder of Daniel Morgan.  There is no doubt that the Met needs systemic investigation and also that the Augean Stables of the Home Office including its current boss need a thorough clean out.  Huffing and puffing by the current Home Secretary has to be met by truth, truth more truth and nothing but the truth. At a lower level amongst the hundreds of cases involving serving police officers is that of ex PC Oliver Banfield.  His unlawful actions have been repeated countless times with little punishment for those culpable. 

Sometimes I wonder at the lack of common sense amongst senior police officers.  Such an example is Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox the national leader for fatal collision investigations.  He has equated speeding with knife crime. He has said that reckless middle class motorists should not be treated more leniently than youths with weapons. Notwithstanding the fact that badly or recklessly driven vehicles can kill I doubt many drivers start their cars with that possibility at the back of their minds.  For those whose driving is found to be careless or dangerous and/or compounded by alcohol, sanctions have increased in the last decade to punish those responsible. Knife carrying is a statement of intent.  It is both amazing and depressing that such a senior officer can make such a crass remark but what is of more concern is if he can harbour such a public opinion and influence policy what is going on behind the scenes that we might have imposed upon us at some future date.

It is no surprise to all court workers that there is an enormous backlog of cases in our courts.  Obviously the pandemic has exacerbated what was a disgraceful situation where the acronym CJSSS;    Criminal Justice: Simple, Speedy, Summary was introduced in 2007.  In many ways this so called simplification was just a new way of applying rules that were already in place.  The introduction of the controversial Single Justice Procedure in 2015 was also another way to overcome what were considered obstacles to early guilty pleas. There is no doubt that the closing over the last decade of half the country`s magistrates courts has been a major contribution to the current backlog combined with the failure to improve recruitment of new magistrates resulting in an unprecedented advertising blitz to overcome the deficit the result of which has in all probability reduced the intellectual fitness required for decision making.  Currently there are 56,000 cases outstanding in crown court with some timetabled for 2023. 

Amidst all forms of judicial statistics, thinking and programmes there is a complete absence of joined up thinking. Policy therefore seems to belong to those who shout loudest in the required direction of those with the biggest ears.  That is how justice is administered in 21st century England. There is, however, one ray of hope for this writer who has been advocating for a decade that drug users should be put on a medical pathway and not a criminal pathway to rehabilitation and reform.  MP Dr Dan Poulter has lobbied for change. Perhaps he might be pointed to this blog and write workhouse in the search box for my suggestions. 

WHAT NO LEGAL AID REALLY MEANS

More than enough has been written about the scandal of the reducing availability of legal aid.  It`s also a scandal that with all the power they have the legal fraternity has watched over this debacle for over a decade effectively washing their hands while offering platitudes in public. Imagine dear reader that you are faced with a trial at a magistrates court and unable to afford legal representation but the state`s rules insist you cannot be offered legal aid.  At a preliminary hearing this form  (click on first link) will be passed to you by the usher for you to complete. No further comment from me is necessary. 

BELOW THE LEGAL SURFACE

When considering the content of any possible post on this site I assume rightly or wrongly that most readers in addition to an interest in the justice system and all which it encompasses will have at least some knowledge of the law and its application.  I assume also that they will have an interest and at least a layman`s knowledge of statistics insofar as they relate to criminality an example of which would be the offences committed by BAME minorities and their proportion in the population.  However with the limited amount of print media actually producing court reports except in high profile cases from the crown or High Court much criminality or legal opinion goes unreported.  Below I post on some examples of cases which below the legal surface arguably say more about the justice system that much of what is reported from the Old Bailey or the Appeal Court. 

It seems that breast feeding mothers called to jury service can have an exemption for a maximum of twelve months only.  This seems to be an arbitrary time frame considering eg the possibility that after that time the woman might be pregnant again or having physical or mental health problems associated with recent motherhood. The oft stated argument that jurors must represent all factions of the population seems to me an outdated concept for this particular class of juror especially as Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service has no idea of exactly how a jury works, outside observers being banned from the jury room.  For example if a jury system were to be established from scratch surely it would make sense for there to be an odd number of jurors, currently 12 except in Scotland where there are 15, thus facilitating a first effort decision. In such a scenario would it not be sensible for lesser offences to be tried by a smaller jury eg 7 retaining 11 or 13 for murder, armed robbery etc. In the light of Brexit why are non British citizens still eligible for jury duty?  There are many more questions and studies awaiting answers but until the feeble minds at the MOJ reflect reality and practicality by allowing the appropriately qualified personnel to study and report on juries in action we will never know. 

Like magistrates police officers must be apolitical in their application of the law and when performing their duties in general.  What they say and/or do in the privacy of their own four walls remains although in Scotland with new legislation that is questionable.  However when it comes to alleged misconduct of police officers it seems logic and uniformity of application is sometimes difficult to comprehend. In an unusual case a police officer was not sacked for gross misconduct and her chief constable appealed the decision of the independent tribunal which made that decision. His appeal was dismissed by a judge.  It will be interesting to find out what happens to the officer at a recent march in support of Palestine who vocalised her support for the marchers and their demands. 

Almost without exception every new Justice Secretary vows to undertake action against those who carry knives or sharpened instruments whether or not they are concealed, brandished or used.  Maximum sentences are increased; public statements are made that judges have these increased powers of custody and the MOJ press office churns out the same propaganda it has done for decades. But then the offender appears for sentencing and judges and magistrates spoil the arrangement e.g. at Nottingham Magistrates Court not only was custody suspended but both sentences for carrying a knife were applied concurrently. Unfortunately as is usually the case the report is so short as to make comment mere speculation.  

I retired from the bench five years ago but long before that time I, along with some colleagues, made representation as to why digital methods not excluding text and e mail, could not be used instead of and/or in addition to regular mail when informing all those who had court appointments whether as defendants or witnesses.  With regard to hearings for driving disqualification it seemed a no brainer. This is but a single example of the problem such a simple innovation would help to avoid.   

Courts have historically been built or been converted in town centres for the obvious reason that in previous times up to perhaps 1939 these areas were readily accessible to the majority of people in the area. Not any more they ain`t according to the Tories.  Having secretly decided in 2010 Tory governments have since closed half the country`s magistrates courts working on the basis of their financial worthiness rather than considering the idea of their being a community service. The former court in Stafford is to be a car park.  

Finally there is the sad and sorry case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  As a parent when my son was a toddler or younger and I needed petrol I would carry him into the station when I went to pay; he was never left alone for a a single minute in such or similar circumstances. Unfortunately the McCanns did not apply the same caution that summer evening when they went for dinner in Portugal.  I can only imagine the torture they endure every single day.  However there must come a time when her death is assumed and that it becomes a cold case murder investigation. However it seems that the Metropolitan Police is continuing to pursue the matter with five full time investigating officers. It has been estimated that £12 million has so far been spent on the investigation.  One wonders whether this has been the most suitable allocation for limited resources.  

It seems that unlike the religious devotion to OUR NHS the justice system in all its tarnished glory is considered to be allocated funding where the losses are minimised. So politicians bask in the reflected glory of often foreign billionaires` legal battles in the civil and matrimonial courts whilst the county and magistrates court systems are left to function in a manner which is detrimental to those ordinary people who rely on public funds for justice. 

Readers spotting a case in their local print media which they consider would be of interest to a wider audience are invited to send the link as a comment. 

ADDICTION REHAB AND A FAILED M.O.T.

Yesterday I took my car for its very first MOT.  Three years on from purchase I expected it to sail through the very exacting standards which now apply.  It did.  And the process reminded me of the second car I ever owned; it was 1966 and I presented a recently purchased  rather tatty grey 1960 Vauxhall Victor RWS 192, exactly like the image, to the MOT garage which was almost as run down as the car. To my surprise after the initial inspection the mechanic told me he could not proceed to jack the car up to check the exhaust for robust structure because if he did so the car which was a total rust bucket would almost certainly split down the middle. As a result I sold it for scrap for the then good price of £13. This simple tale is an example of when to cease applying a process when the result is obviously so unobtainable and further efforts would be a waste of time and a danger to all. And so to our government`s policy on illegal drugs. It is the failure in common sight which is conveniently oblivious to those who determine policy. Since this is a blog and not an introduction for a PhD thesis I intend to be brief but for my reader who objects to my point of view perhaps s/he might have a second thought. The principle objection to the decriminalisation of current scheduled narcotics is that it will increase the numbers experimenting with cannabis who will then try cocaine and/or heroin but studies have shown that the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, "harder" substances.  The other main consideration medically is that although research using longitudinal data from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions examined associations between marijuana use, mood and anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders after adjusting for various confounding factors, no association between marijuana use and mood and anxiety disorders was found.  However recent research has found that  people who use marijuana and carry a specific variant of the AKT1 gene, which codes for an enzyme that affects dopamine signalling in the striatum, are at increased risk of developing psychosis.  Against the few who are adversely affected the vast majority of smokers bear no harmful consequences except the risk of having a criminal record which can affect their lives in a variety of situations. In 2019/20, there were around 175,000 drug offences recorded by the police in England and Wales. This is 13% higher than 2018/19. Latest statistics indicate that 21% of all crimes were committed by addicts. A couple of years ago The Institute for Social and Economic Research conducted a review of drug-related crime in England and Wales. It made the following findings:

There are a significant number of drug-induced acquisitive (property-related) crimes linked to heroin use...... but there is “no evidence of any drug-induced crime committed by people who use cannabis”.Supplying cannabis “(only) leads to a small volume of crime”.

Each year in the UK drugs cost society £10.7 billion in policing, healthcare and crime, with drug-fuelled theft alone costing £6 billion a year. All magistrates and criminal lawyers are familiar with the pattern of prolific shop lifting to sell goods in order to buy drugs at the street corner. Alcohol is commonly associated with such criminality in addition to cocaine or heroin. It is apparent to all but politicians who appear frozen in time in an alternate universe that current policies are ineffective but they refuse to heed the science unlike currently so we`re told with regard to Covid-19.  Until the decriminalisation or the legal availability of drugs  addicts of hard drugs arrested for law breaking must be diverted at least the first time from a court pathway to a health and rehabilitation pathway under secure lock down conditions medically supervised. Such institutions would be run and managed in a manner not too dissimilar to Broadmoor where a combination of doctors and warders keep offenders under control: the only difference is that there would be no court conviction but perhaps a voluntary agreement by the miscreant to surrender his/her liberty.  This is a radical solution but for parliament continuing to apply a head in the sand approach for fear of upsetting a few objectors is worse than that mechanic who realised in advance that following the recognised process would have wrought damage to personnel in addition to having demolished a vehicle in the most unsuitable circumstances.   

SELECTING MET POLICE COMMISSIONERS

The opportunity to express opinions on matters of significance to legally minded readers is a privilege. On reflection these opinions can be divided into two aspects of our system of justice: the general or macro view and the detailed micro viewpoint illustrated by examples which might or might not be statistically significant for the PhD student of criminology but are illustrative of what I could describe as the common person`s opinion. It is in contact with police that most criminal legal matters begin. When faith in the correct operation of police starts to erode, faith in our society`s ability to function as a cohesive unit also begins to deteriorate. And so to today.

A look at the treetops of the Metropolitan Police and one would expect that an example of probity of the highest order would  exist.  After all, the very highest of government powers through the very highest of the government`s   investigatative organs are employed to ensure that the 16 officers appointed at Chief Constable rank which for the Met includes those of Deputy Assistant Commissioner and above are of exemplary character and ability. At the current time it is public knowledge that the most senior officers to have left prior to their contract end date in recent years is as below: 

Met Police Commissioners are normally appointed for five years under contract. It is well known that there has been pressure on the current Commissioner that she be relieved of her post.  This of course has been denied and the likelihood is that she will see out her contract. The day after Paul Stephenson resigned in 2011 his deputy also resigned. In 2017 the then Deputy Commissioner Sir Craig Mackey was allowed to continue in his post until his contracted retirement in December of that year although he behaved in an apparently  cowardly fashion when a terrorist killed a constable guarding the House of Commons. The case of former Assistant Commissioner Maxine de Brunner is another worrying example of what is going wrong at the country`s biggest police force. Accounts of her behaviour which led to her leaving are available from earlier posts with additional reference here.  Sir Ian Blair resigned his post prematurely owing inter alia to his involvement in the shooting of  Jean Charles de Menezes.  The current Commissioner Cressida Dick was the gold commander in that tragedy. 

A similar history of the premature resignations of Chief and Deputy Chief Constables in county forces would expose the various shortcomings of the selection process. That will be a post for another day.  But not to worry; most retiring Met Commissioners are offered at least a knighthood (damehood) if not a seat in the House of Lords where £300/day for their attendance can top up their generous pensions. 

RESEARCHERS MUST BE ALLOWED INTO THE JURY ROOM

A major "problem" with any justice system is that apart from those who are involved with its functioning and therefore derive their ability to put bread on their family`s table from its continuance, is that the majority of the public who are uninvolved in serious law breaking whether as witness or defendant rarely express any interest in the subject.   Their knowledge of the legal system and its many ramifications in a democratic society are derived from the various media available which now means the sometimes rabid utterings in Twitter or Facebook and the like.  Indeed that is one reason why I have written here not a few times bewailing the lack of old fashioned local newspaper court reporting and the corollary of my wish to see local live TV court reporting. However to return to the reality of today; what some would say is the bedrock of our justice system, the jury, is under severe criticism from both ends of the legal spectrum; judges and victims or their families.  On 27th April I referred to the situation in Northern Ireland where the then current practice as in Great Britain "a jury of one`s peers" could not cope with the incendiary civil disturbances of the Troubles. The problems in England and Wales caused by the current pandemic exacerbated by a decade`s under spending imposed on the Ministry of Justice by successive Tory administrations have led some senior judiciary to contemplate the suspension of jury trials.  Not all lawyers are opposed to the idea or at least are open to a detailed investigation into the possibility of changes to the hallowed jury of 12.   Wikipedia offers a fairly comprehensive but not total understanding of the jury system. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 allowed for the acceptance of majority verdicts. I think it is fair to say that investigations and inquiries into the jury system have been more theoretical and statistical than practical.  No outside observers are allowed into the jury room and jurors are not allowed to comment subsequent to their trial involvement. It would seem that the prime requirement for a juror would be an ability to understand the English language and not just every day language but the more defined language of the legal system and its operatives.  A well recognised authority on this topic and its findings is available here with an emphasis on English language proficiency of those who have immigrated here. It would not seem unreasonable that there should be a check on language ability as a requirement for jury service. It would also seem sensible that a person`s ability to be able to reason and differentiate credibility of evidence of witnesses as essential to wade through the statements given in the witness box where there is always the possibility  of deliberate lying or distortion of the truth.  Finally in this very short opinion piece I would opine that it is inappropriate that a person who is not a British citizen can be selected for jury duty. Surely when we talk of a jury of peers a fellow citizen fits that requirement and a non citizen does not. 

All the above is theory, opinion and history.  The nefarious results of some jury trials are essential reading for most criminal lawyers.  Indeed such an event was the subject of my post 27th April referred to above. However an example of the more serious consequences of a possibility of a jury gone wrong was reported in some detail in long reads today. Of course we will never know why the jury acquitted; speculation is all we have.  However there is one speculation that has probably more credibility than any other: if the case had been heard in Scotland there would have been the possibility of the third verdict, unique in the western world, not proven. There are those south of the border who would be aghast at the very thought of such a decision being available to English juries their argument being that the innocent could be tarred with guilt and the guilty would forever be unable to claim their innocence. Given the case aforementioned above it doesn`t seem unreasonable to state that the true verdict was indeed that the level of proof required for a guilty verdict was lacking and that non proven is a more accurate understanding of what happened in the privacy and secrecy of the jury room.  We will never know. And that is the crux.  The conduct of juries being treated as sacrosanct is no longer tenable.  Selected academic studies must be initiated into this so called bastion of English justice if judge only trials in England are to be a non starter until revolution hits the streets of Westminster. 

THE INCREASING UNPREDICTABILITY OF COURTROOM DECISIONS

Although it might be boring for regular readers to read again of my dismay at the lack of or reduced amount of newsprint analogue or digital  devoted to court reports today`s effort is an attempt to showcase however slightly items that might interest those who are themselves interested in what goes on in our courts. 

As training and common sense (the latter a factor which is frowned upon by the Ministry of Justice owing to the possible discriminatory connotation of the word "common" which might be unequal among some sections of the population) dictate it is at the very least unwise and at the worst most injuducial to criticise in public a fellow member of the bench however junior.  Indeed the chairman of a bench or a District Judge [MC] must not in any public remarks allude to a previous or future court`s decision which was or is likely to have been or to be out of his/her control. It would appear that HH Jason Taylor QC at Swindon Crown Court felt that either those unwritten rules did not apply to him or that the situation was so serious that he had no choice not only to criticise but to heap scorn on a magistrates bench which had taken action at a preceding hearing on the defendant in his honour`s current matter before him.   Magistrates are well aware that  allowing bail with or without conditions is probably the most difficult of all the decisions they must make.  With many amendments over the decades by the MOJ the assumption is that a bench must present cogent reasons why bail should not be granted. Personally I remember my own involvement in granting conditional bail to a defendant charged inter alia with manslaughter.  My colleagues and I were relieved to know he had turned up for his next court hearing without any breaches. It is therefore so unfortunate that we, the public, have no information except the crown court report and no knowledge of what actually transpired earlier. Regular local court TV might have  been helpful; another of my moans and groans. 

The legal goings on in Norther Ireland are literally and paradoxically a law unto themselves. From current cases of alleged murder by army troopers over fifty years ago to abortion rights and more, politics seem far more ingrained in the legal process than in England. Member of the Legislative Assembly as a DUP representative Joanne Bunting was charged last year with four offences resulting from a motoring matter.  Now, over a year later all charges have been dropped. More than meets the eye?  We`ll never know more than this single report I could find. 

If you ever wondered how ongoing unpaid fines of varying amounts from £500 million to well over a  billion pounds at any one time are going to be collected forget it. The system just doesn`t work for so many offenders of supposed limited means. This miscreant at Taunton Magistrates Court was, I presume, kept in the court cells until the end of that day`s business around 5.00pm as punishment after his fines were remitted. Short changed just doesn`t do justice to a broken system. 

With a backlog of over 50,000 cases at crown court and around 400,000 at magistrates court there are sure to be many incidents of disappearing or overlooked disclosure, rushed decision making, justified investigation into Single Justice Procedure and equivocal pleading accepted by unthinking or careless magistrates, the next couple of years could prove very interesting for observers.  In simple terms fairy tales might not always be considered incredible.

WHEN JURIES GET IT "WRONG"

The NHS, the monarchy, the Spanish Inquisition and trial by jury without wasting my reader`s time by asking the question, have one thing in common: they are or were in the case of that Iberian organisation held to be sacrosanct for the societies that created them. The collapse of everything supported in those beliefs by those societies was the prediction of all who argued that their removal or modification would lead to a world of chaos or worse.  A cartoonist`s favourite backdrop of a sandwich board.......THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH....... perfectly sums up those believers` attitudes if change were to take place. The NHS is regarded almost in religious terms.  Attempts to improve efficiency without just a shower of money being thrown at it are viewed as contemptible especially by the wokes of the Left and the luvvies on the Right. The Catholic Church seems to have survived and even thrived subsequent to the definitive end of the Spanish Inquisition when the Spanish queen regent María Cristina de Borbón issued a decree abolishing it on July 15th 1834. And with three waiting in line for the succession it would take a brave gambler to bet against the toddler prince taking his place in Buck House towards the latter half of this century.  Standing alone is the current accepted concept of trial by jury which appears to be being questioned as the best form of justice for all those on trial at the crown court.  Northern Ireland has  been subject to judge only trial.  Diplock courts, in which serious criminal cases connected with the Troubles were  tried by a single judge sitting without a jury, were initiated  in 1973. In the ensuing years well over 10,000 defendants passed through the system, the annual average having dropped from about 1,000 at the peak of the Troubles in the Seventies to about 400 in the early Nineties. These figures represented about a third of all serious criminal cases in Northern Ireland, a statistic in itself revealing of the huge impact of the emergency regime on the legal process as a whole.  They were abolished in 2007. To quote Wikipedia: "The Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 abolished the idea of "scheduled offences" automatically tried without a jury. Instead it allows for the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to certify a non-jury trial for any indictable offence provided it was committed either from a motive of "religious or political hostility" or by on behalf of a group which is both proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 and "connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland". The act seeks to address the concerns which led to the establishment of Diplock courts by enhancing jurors' anonymity to prevent intimidation, and increasing randomised juror selection to prevent bias.The Northern Ireland Office's explanatory notes for the 2007 act characterise its changes as "repeal" of "the Diplock system" and its replacement with "a new system of non-jury trial". On the other hand courts in such trials have much the same format as the pre-2007 Diplock courts."  When the issue of amending the rules on jury trials is alluded to the legal profession almost with one voice expresses its horror.  Last year with regard to the backlog of cases owing to the pandemic respected QC Geoffrey Robertson proposed the possibility of non jury trials under certain conditions. Robertson, who was born in Australia is quoted as saying,

“We believe sentimentally that trial by jury is a defendant’s fundamental right but why not give them the additional right to choose instead a reasoned verdict from a judge as they have, for example, in most Australian states. That would get some courts back and running, even if barristers and judges have to argue through their face masks and it would be a boon to defendants with good cases who do not want justice delayed”.

I am not aware if any scientific authoritative poll has been taken of lawyers on the subject but I would opine the vast majority would not agree with Mr Robertson.

And that brings me to the case of the six Extinction Rebellion protesters who, despite the judge`s advice, warning, information on the law and explicit direction, were acquitted by a jury last week of causing criminal damage by deliberately spraying graffiti or smashing windows at the Shell building in Belvedere Road central London.  This immediately reminded me of the case of Clive Ponting.  To quote Wikipedia once again, "While a senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Ponting sent two documents, subsequently nicknamed "the crown jewels" to Labour MP Tam Dalyell in July 1984 concerning the sinking of the Argentine navy warship General Belgrano, a key incident in the 1982 Falklands War. After Ponting admitted revealing the information, the Ministry of Defence suspended him without pay. On 17 August 1984, he was charged with a criminal offence under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act of 1911.The Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, had his pay reinstated once she had been briefed on what had happened. Ponting's defence at the trial was that the matter and its disclosure to a Member of Parliament were in the public interest. It was the first case under the Official Secrets Act that involved giving information to Parliament. Although Ponting expected to be imprisoned, he was acquitted by the jury. The acquittal came despite the judge's direction to the jury, and hence by definition a "perverse verdict". The judge, Sir Anthony McCowan, "had indicated that the jury should convict him". [my bold].  As a direct result a new Official Secrets Act was passed in 1989 to give government greater control of what was classed as "secret". 

With regard to that recent ER decision it appears that the jury must have followed the line that the end justifies the means; the end being the political end i.e. a natural outcome of radical left wing opinion that the "victim" opposed ER philosophy. None will ever know if the "victim" were a person or persons would the jury have come to a similar decision.  Would offenders of an extreme right wing group or Islamist persuasion committing such an offence or worse be favoured with a defiance of a judge`s direction and/or being lauded by their peers and fellow believers?  This type of decision making  has been the basis of countless atrocities by individuals, groups and nation states. It is nihilistic. It is a perversion of justice and it will surely lead to legal and/or political ramifications. The corollary which has been expressed here more than once is that the composition of juries and the competence of jurors must be examined in detail by a parliamentary or royal commission; whichever the government considers most suitable. The current situation of jury eligibility as laid down by government is available here.  

There is no doubt in my opinion whether or not the entire structure of trial by jury is re-examined that the individual requirements of the individual potential juror must be re-examined.  The most obvious need for a juror whose finding can be life changing for the defendant is a comprehensive understanding of the English language.  Many jurors have English as a second language with varying degrees of fluency.  This should be no surprise to anyone.  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimate that in 2019 nearly 9.5 million people living in the UK were born abroad,  just over 14% of the total population of the UK. Of these, 3.6 million were from countries now in the European Union and 5.9 million were from non-EU countries.  A basic understanding of simple statistics or other simple arithmetical concepts is not a requirement for a juror although many legal cases depend upon such an understanding.  Jurors do not have to be British citizens.  This facet of eligibility is one that I personally find hardest to accept.  

Lawyers are happy to work within a system that allows a single District Judge (MC) to be judge, jury and sentencer within the magistrates court.  Indeed some would hold that that single person bench is preferable for their clients {and themselves?} than a three person bench of Justices of the Peace. It therefore seems illogical for there to be such opposition in the wigged fraternity to at least a re appraisal of the current jury system.  But as I began this blog logic seems to be a facility missing in this matter.   

    

POUNDS HERE THERE AND EVERYWHERE

My musings and thoughts on our courts lie only shallowly beneath my consciousness; hardly surprising since I had retired from my professional life for the last ten years of my magisterial life.  To add to that almost continual subliminal state I have almost been bewitched by the court proceedings in Minneapolis where the accused`s defence counsel has been bravely attempting to offer reasonable doubt by way of generalities opposed to scientific and factual evidence provided by the State of Minnesota. And then the cost in real money of a human life flashed along the billions of  neurons and glial cells supported by connective tissue  and as if by magic I was thinking of the half a billion to a billion pounds unpaid fines apparently a permanent feature  of our courts system.  In 2015, 866,137 people were given fines totalling around £213,611,000, according to the Magistrates' Association analysis of Court Service records. A year later magistrates imposed 902,320 fines adding up to £263,763,000. In 2017, 915,541 fines were issued, totalling £362,490,000. In 2018  893,429 fines were imposed to rake in £355,773,000.  My next thought was ascertaining the number of fine defaulters eligible for imprisonment for non payment by their willful refusal to pay their fine or that they have been careless or thoughtless in not paying (known as ‘culpable neglect’). Nowhere in Mr Google`s box of secrets could I source that number so when I read of a case at Carlisle Magistrates Court I was surprised.  From my own experience I know that it is with much reluctance that magistrates order custody in such cases.  So my question is where are the statistics on such matters or is it a deliberate policy  of concealment?

At the other end of the scale it was recently that I noted some mind boggling fines issued by those self same magistrates courts.  In my own time I can remember imposing £50K fine for fly tipping and £23K and destruction of a dwelling on a property developer.  Small cheese compared to the decision of a District Judge at Birmingham Magistrates Court to fine Tesco £7.5 million. A Mailonline report is available here. 

A case which was not reserved for a District Judge resulted in the largest fine I have ever heard of imposed by magistrates. It was at Scarborough Magistrates Court.  The owner and master of a scallop vessel will have to pay over £200,000 after pleading guilty to multiple breaches of local scallop dredging regulations and national fisheries legislation.  Full details of that case are available here.  

And finally whilst thinking of large numbers of £50 notes coming and going a long running case reported of the goings on at Thurrock Council resulting in a very wealthy man adding to his piggy bank by actions which were severely criticised in the High Court last week. I conclude with a simple question; is it the case that in order to achieve levels of wealth beyond any definitions of ordinary, average, normal etc. corners have to be cut?   

WOKE IS A PERVERSION OF TRUTH

With almost every passing day there is an incident, comment, statement, rebuttal, accusation, or response to any of the previous that includes the word woke. Being a retired magistrate with opinions of a dinosaur [according to some] it took me a while to really appreciate the implications of such a term.  So that we`re metaphorically on the same page I list below some definitions of that word kindly provided by Messrs Google Inc.

 “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)”, but today we are more likely to see it being used as a stick with which to beat people who aspire to such values"

"a slang term that is easing into the mainstream from some varieties of a dialect called African American Vernacular English (sometimes called AAVE). In AAVE, awake is often rendered as woke, as in, “I was sleeping, but now I'm woke.” 'Woke' is increasingly used as a byword for social awareness."

"a term that refers to awareness of issues that concern social justice and racial justice. It is sometimes used in the African-American Vernacular English expression stay woke."

Dinosaurs are generally not woke. eg to call a spade a spade is a phrase long used without fear or favour.  It has a long history.  It entered the English language when Nicholas Udall translated Erasmus in 1542. Famous authors who have used it in their works include Charles Dickens and W. Somerset Maugham among others.  In the current climate if used in public or especially  on the bench the speaker is liable to be rebuked as racist or at the very least as careless with language that could be interpreted as such. This is a result of woke.  Similar epithets are often thrown at those who in any way offer opposition to the concept of diversity or inclusive . When I suggested some months ago on Twitter that at age 18 an individual is too young to be a magistrate with all the responsibility that position holds I was greeted with a torrent of criticism some polite but most abusive much of it from lawyers. When on another occasion I suggested that restrictions on jury service be tightened to ensure eg that the individual had capable knowledge of English or a basic understanding of arithmetic etc again it was members of the legal profession who tweeted loudest against the idea. I wasn`t too happy when the then Lord Chancellor ruled that blindness should not be a barrier to sitting as a magistrate. The usual comments were made of diversity and representation and aids to be available to overcome the obvious shortcomings. As far as I am aware deaf people cannot be magistrates although I am sure that many are actively trying to change that position.  What is about to change is the exclusion for deaf people from jury duty. On March 9th the Ministry of Justice released the following:- "Deaf people requiring the use of a sign language interpreter will be allowed to take part in jury service for the first time, Ministers announced today (9 March 2021)."  The full statement is available here. 

The basis for this decision is that nobody should be excluded from participation in public life because of disability. It goes back to the woke mantra of equality of outcome by which at the end of the day all are equal. The concept of equal opportunity for all so that each might attain the highest level possible by his or her own abilities is now historical fascism according to a generation led to believe that equality is as near to nirvana that we mere mortals can reach.  These are the same concepts that brought an avowed marxist antisemite close to the door of 10 Downing Street in 2019. Nobody would accept that people of diminished height should be able to work as surgeons or police officers or firefighters although many such handicapped individuals are at the top of their chosen fields where their stature is of no consequence. Similarly profound deafness is no longer a block against such people reaching the top of most professions or activities.  Nobody with any sense would argue otherwise except perhaps at the MOJ the most woke of all government departments. Deaf jurors, even those skilled at lip reading, would be unable to have conveyed by a signing interpreter, the nuances of speech in a courtroom where witnesses are in a foreign and perhaps hostile environment; where some might be attempting to lie or evade; where emotions are subtle and where total reliance is upon the interpreter. The history of court interpretation of spoken language is pitted with queries which astute magistrates and judges can evaluate. Indeed I had many instances in my 17 years to interrupt interpreters  who plainly were not doing their job to the expected standard.  No such long stop will be available for a signing interpreter who is wandering from the accuracy required. And of course in a case where the signer is him/herself translating from a foreign language interpretation problems will multiply and considering the number of interpreting occasions involving non English speaking defendants and witnesses that number will be in the tens of thousands.  

Unfortunately no opposition is likely to be heard from the legal profession.  They are so scared of being accused of being against the whole concept of wokeness that with no logic whatsoever they will push on the one hand for the abolition of the lay magistrates bench of three  in preference for a single District Judge but scream at the very thought that availability for jury service is anything less than a universal human right and its denial a throwback to white supremacy however removed the ties are or were.  

There is a profound difference in requiring buses, trains, taxis, public places, universities, professions etc to be accessible to blind, deaf and physically handicapped individuals where their handicap is not a burden for an equitable society.  However, to sit in judgement making life changing decisions by those deprived of their hearing is a step too far.  But it is in line with a period of perverted thinking through which the troubled Americanisation of our society is passing; their history of revolution and slavery which is filtering so much of what should be a second age of enlightenment.  In essence woke is a perversion of truth.