COURT REPORTING

Actual court reporting is now no longer a mainstay of local media whether printed or otherwise.  That is more than just regrettable; it is a failure of local democracy insofar as it distances the individual from a major pillar which guarantees our freedom under the law.  When the time comes; and I write "when" not "if",  court proceedings are broadcast live it will be a step in the right direction for anyone anywhere to witness justice in action.  Paradoxically that very initiative will lead to much opposition to Court TV just as happened when the live televising of the House of Commons was first mooted in 1968.  It wasn`t until 21 years later that what is today an accepted adjunct to freedom of information began despite opposition from many of the so called "establishment".  So when a local newspaper publishes a retrospective of judges` sentencing remarks it should be required light reading for anyone interested in legal matters. The Liverpool Echo is to be congratulated for its contribution published 31st December.   

1984 AND THE EQUALITY TREATMENT BENCHBOOK

In the days of empire, and laterally when newspaper editors focusing on the pampered lives of the great and the good who were whiling away their fortunes on sun, sea and sex in the Caribbean, it was known as the silly season and to the rest of us as August.  In the days when the assizes were in session reports from these courts probably reached more of the population in that month than the rest of the year. Some judges became celebrities from their pithy comments; e.g.  ‘In England, justice is open to all, like the Ritz hotel.’ Not so much a joke as a cynical quote from an English judge, Sir James Mathew (1830-1908). Obviously he felt that justice was a luxury for the rich!  Judges being considered out of touch with the common man was a very accurate observation.  Those were the days. When so many receive their information rated as newsworthy by their social media source the silly season is now of twelve months duration. The ever present social pendulum within and without the Ministry of Justice has swung its full arc.  Nowadays it`s impossible to read about a court case without the term victim being bandied about even before a case has been concluded when the correct description of the party supposedly done harm is complainant.  The idea that everyone is equal before the law has become but a historical reference in many matters revolving around women and their perceived harm when the only weapon involved is words that supposedly cause offence. Judges are appointed to function within the laws laid down by parliament. But that is not written on tablets of stone.  Many a durable dictatorship whether of the Left or Right has emerged from legislation which serves only to increase the power of those who enabled its propagation. In such circumstances some judiciary have resigned, some have been "removed" and some have remained to endorse and put into practice such activities that serve their paymasters. They are the most dangerous to any concept of justice. Often such legislative changes are enveloped in the mist of driving a social agenda. We are in such a mist currently that a lack of vision seems a pre requisite for those who are enablers of a process to drive common sense from political thinking as if it were a scourge on the face of society.  For some years all judicial office holders from the humblest magistrate to the most senior Supreme Court Judge have been directed to function within the prescribed direction of the recently revised "equal treatment bench book"; a hefty document currently of  538 pages.  It is impossible to read without thinking even for a moment that some legally minded geek, anorak or nerd (take your choice) has been let loose with a computer and the definition of "woke". Amongst many other instructions to judges is that they must refer to defendants and witnesses by the gender that they (defendants and witnesses) have chosen for themselves. In real world practice that means that  a defendant tried for rape with a penis must be referred to as a woman if that is the self chosen gender of that defendant. Truly we are living in a world devoid of reality. Perhaps the section on so called "Islamophobia" is the most revealing insofar as the history of Islamism is considered pp273. It would seem that the authors of the Revision have little or no knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood.   "Islamophobia” was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to mimic antisemitism. In doing so it is in itself a feature of Jew hate and allows any criticism to be labelled as a social disorder.  It features also with reference to criticism of those Muslims advocating jihad against the State of Israel. 

Shedding daylight on the absorption of the judicial system into the world of woke is not to lambaste the MOJ; no sector of our so called country and its institutions is immune. The government of Wales has outlawed inter alia the use of the word "Brexit" to be substituted by " transition period to refer to the time between February 1st and December 31st 2020".    In accord with the revisions above it has also decreed that "non disabled" be used rather than "able-bodied".  In a short search only a Welsh language version of these new instructions is available although unless the Welsh staff of the Daily Mail and other news media are working over hard an English language source must be out there somewhere. 

The use of language to reflect or instil changes in a society has long been a tool of authoritarian regimes.  Perhaps George Orwell was and is  the most well known observer to warn us of this least noticeable influence in the removal of individual freedoms. 1949 for most of Britain was the year of the benefit of a newly established National Health Service.  It was the year when clothes rationing ended, NATO was established, when the Chinese communists took power in mainland China and the USSR exploded its first atom bomb. For me the novel 1984 has proved the darkest warning of our future. 

Happy  New Year 2022  

A CHRISTMAS RANT

This time last year I posted inter alia that I was looking forward to the imminent arrival of a vaccine for all which would relieve most of us of the worry, torment and financial insecurity caused by Covid 19.  I commented also on the divisions in our society exacerbated by Black Lives Matter and the speed at which even the most outlandish theories can circle the world via social media and this was before most in this country had ever heard of QAnon and the invasion and deaths at the Capitol in Washington DC  were still two weeks distant. Since then we have had a new Lord Chancellor installed who seems to be more loyal to his political master  than to the concept of justice.  That should be of little surprise considering that that master so obviously puts his own position personally and politically ahead of that of the nation he is supposed to lead. Currently we face a further lockdown caused for the most part by a government that refuses to take strong measures against the so called antivaxers; fanatics who against all reason are blackmailing the rest of us into further restrictions.  By the simple expedient of imposing restrictions on those not double vaccinated hotels, restaurants, hairdressers, gyms and similar venues could serve customers in an atmosphere where they could reasonably be assured they were unlikely to be in contact with a Covid 19 infected person at the next table or chair or treadmill. 

On the plus side at least with the lifting on fine levels Premier League footballers, when their driving habits are illegal, are being hit in their pockets  at a level which reflects their financial status.  However notwithstanding that example it seems endemic that the MOJ in concert with the Home Office considers that the road to reducing crime is to increase sentences.  Criminologists and others know full well that that approach is a little bit like closing the stable door etc.  Prevention, detection and rehabilitation pursued expertly are the best way to  be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime  as espoused in 1993 by Britain`s answer to Ronald Reagan. 

Whether or not this time next year we will all still be bedevilled by this virus is beyond an individual`s control but collectively we can help by calling out dishonesty in those and others on our behalf who make those decisions.  Whoever you are and wherever you live I thank you for using some few minutes of your precious time in reading this and perhaps previous outpourings.  

Be healthy and wise and wealth in some form will be yours.  

PROPOSED NEW BILL OF RIGHTS

It behoves politicians especially those in government to be precise in the words they use to explain previous or future actions or events. Failure to do so in an age where these words can live longer in the webosphere than the biblical three scores years and ten of humankind can be disastrous. On the day when the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor is less than three months in post he has opened the debate on the can of worms that is the European Convention on Human Rights.  This organisation created in 1950, became operational in 1953 as a Court. It resulted from the inhumanity of the Nazis and the refugee crisis that followed World War 2 and was passed into UK law by the Labour government in 1998 as the Human Rights Act. It is not a court in the traditional sense and its members are not necessarily judges in the manner recognised in the UK. 

My comment on the composition in general is that a senior judge in addition to having the requisite knowledge of the law is also an expert on human psychology insofar as s/he is presiding over human fallibility and making his/her own subjective decisions on the actions of all those in court. The absence of that facility in many members of the ECHR in my humble opinion is akin to those various eminent specialists in their own fields commenting on the current epidemic but not having the experience of the practising doctors actually treating patients in hospital. But to return to my opening remarks on words: Dominic Raab is quoted today in having said that a British bill of rights will " deliver a healthy dose of common sense" to enable the deportation of more foreign criminals and illegal migrants. As far as "common sense" is considered; it was a required attribute for magistrates when I applied for appointment to the bench in 1997. A year or two later it was withdrawn on the basis that the word "common" might not be well understood by some sections of the population. In other words some early so called "progressive" advisors considered that what was common knowledge for 90% of people might not be "common" for some. Yet now that term is being used by the self same department as a justification for the proposed changes. Notwithstanding that illegal migration has been a bellwether of the Tory right for many years. Huguenots, Irish, Jews and "blacks" have each over the centuries been (and in some cases still are) subjected to the most blatant discrimination. However beneath the hidden racism of some government supporters there is no doubt that the fundamentals of the ECHR (and consequently the Human Rights Act)  have been manipulated in areas unforeseen in 1998. The desire for change to control a situation where billions of the world`s population immersed in wars and poverty see their future in the prosperous west is a matter of urgency.  Those who are screaming loudest in opposition have no answer to the problem;  The simple truth is that so called progressive thinking has allowed about one million undocumented "immigrants" to be living a life in this country beyond the reach of the law encouraging criminal activity and a black market for employment. This cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely if we are not to become a nation where "show me your papers" are the opening words when in conversation with police.  Unfortunately some foolish Tory MPs are making their last stand on compulsory vaccination "passports" with that same phrase.  It is intended that the Supreme Court will be the final arbiter on legal matters and parliament will be responsible for creating law.  Considering that Boris Johnson was infuriated during Brexit debate when the Supreme Court threw out his intention to prorogue parliament it will be amusing if not downright worrying about its continued efficacy if prime ministerial push comes to prime ministerial shove but then the initials BJ are not indelibly engraved forever on the door of number 10. 

As so often is the case those railing against the proposals are at risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  When the proposed bill is published it will be up to parliament to fine detail it.  Errors on the scale of the Windrush scandal must not be tolerated.  Scrutiny must be the watchword; not complacency, not party loyalty.  The so called  progressives must open their eyes to the current realities and offer positive opinions of what should be incorporated in the bill and what would indeed be an affront to justice and humanity. I sincerely hope those in and outside Westminster have the required perspicacity and wisdom.   

Alterations in the legal process have been part and parcel of English law for centuries. In our own time the internet has been responsible for mind boggling changes in our courts unpredictable a generation ago.  The law and the justice system accommodates when and if appropriate.  An extract from Wikipedia on habeas corpus is an example.

"The Act is often wrongly described as the origin of the writ of habeas corpus. But the writ of habeas corpus had existed in various forms in England for at least five centuries before and is thought to have originated in the 12th Century Assize of Clarendon.[4] It was guaranteed, but not created, by Magna Carta in 1215, whose article 39 reads: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him except upon the lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land."[3] The Act of 1679 followed an earlier Habeas Corpus Act of 1640, which established that the command of the King or the Privy Council was no answer to a petition of habeas corpus. Further Habeas Corpus Acts were passed by the British Parliament in 1803, 1804, 1816, and 1862, but it is the Act of 1679 which is remembered as one of the most important statutes in English constitutional history. Though amended, it remains on the statute book to this day.[5]"  

It was followed 10 years later by the Bill of Rights which became the basis for the parliamentary democracy which exists today. 

" the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act 1689, applies in Scotland. The Bill of Rights 1689 was one of the models for the United States Bill of Rights of 1789, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950.[3]

THE JUSTICE GAP FOR THE HAVES BUT NOT THE HAVE NOTS

It seems apparent that there can be few people actively involved in the justice system who are not totally convinced that the parsimony of  Tory governments over the last decade has not led to a permanent decline in the efficiency of and confidence in  that system.  What was often considered a beacon of our society and an example to many other nations is now a mere shadow of that former glowing reputation. For individual low level offenders the chances of receiving a true and just pathway through the jungle that is often "the system" seem to be reducing year on year.  Many millions of defendants have been prosecuted through the Single Justice Procedure since its inception in 2015. Indeed in 2020 alone the number was 535,000.  As far as I am aware there are no verified statistics of the conviction rates through the SJP but it is acknowledged by the Ministry of Justice that over 70% of defendants do not reply when summoned through the system and are automatically convicted. The chances of a defendant being eligible for legal aid when facing trial at a magistrates court have been steadily reduced over this same period owing to the miserly rates of pay offered to solicitors for undertaking this work. And to rub salt into the wounds inflicted on those acquitted in court no costs are reimbursed for any legal fees paid to those legal practitioners who have helped secure that not guilty verdict for their client. So there really is one law for the rich and pot luck for the rest. 

At another level it seems that the legal system is anything but equal for all. There is one law reserved for the prime minister when it suits his purpose.  The then adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Alex Allan, last year found Ms Patel, Home Secretary, had not always treated civil servants with “consideration and respect” and in a report published last November he said  the prime minister himself had breached that self same ministerial code in order to keep Ms Patel in post.  Boris Johnson had ignored the advice that she should be removed and this week the High Court agreed with him contrary to an appeal by the FDA union. Considering that the plaintiff himself was at risk of being accused of the self same charge it is difficult not to consider that perhaps other senior judicial figures might have altered the balance of those angels dancing on a pinhead.  With such success under his hat Johnson has now felt emboldened to let ministers throw out legal rulings. He has castigated judicial review in the past when his wishes were thwarted over Brexit. Like the civil war over parliament and the king`s authority we now have war drums sounding an impending battle between an elected government and an unelected judiciary. This is surely and incontrovertibly a process informed by history when an underlying proto fascist philosophy begins the journey to realise its ambition by morphing from right wing conservatism to right wing authoritarianism.  

With the Meghan Markle aka Duchess of Sussex case settled in her favour for now it is apparent that so called privacy has been given primacy over a public right to know and when that privacy is that which invariably surrounds the high and mighty rich and famous, justice and knowledge for Joe Public is an ever decreasing commodity. 

Most of us will not have any of our decisions taken to judicial review nor be subject to Appeal Court rulings on our right to privacy but we stand a reasonable chance over a lifetime of being summonsed to a magistrates court. And now two simple facts: In the last decade 164 magistrates’ courts closed out of 320 (51%) and that sale of court buildings raised at least £223 million to the public purse.  Was that a worthwhile choice? Half the country`s magistrates courts closed for a measly £223 million. Burton Magistrates Court closed almost four years ago.  It`s sorry financial tale since then can be accessed here. I doubt but there are many similar stories to be told but of no interest to those who have the wherewithal to send  a privately funded lawyer to represent their interests when required.  This is called the justice gap.

PRESS DEPT. COSTS AT MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

It seems almost daily that somebody or some group within the "legal umbrella" ranging from the Lord Chancellor to the retired criminal lawyer or barrister is explaining, discussing, excusing, justifying, castigating someone or some factor within that very same umbrella. The common basis for such verbal opinions is the simply dreadful state of what can be termed our criminal justice system. From prisons to police to probation and all stations en route there are practitioners complaining about the dearth of financial resources to do their job properly and a spokesperson of the Ministry of Justice, even the Lord Chancellor of the day him/herself, extolling the benefits even the beneficence of future policies sometimes in conjunction with the Home Office. Of late it has become almost a mantra that for some crime or other, usually initiated by a highly publicised heinous wrong doing, sentence will be increased.  It is not uncommon for the judiciary to be blamed in the first place as if it were responsible for the law breaking in not applying the appropriate sanctions in court on previous occasions. Lawyers are blamed for exercising current legal rights for illegal immigrants when the government has not placed before parliament bills to re write such legislation. Currently Covid 19 is the excuse of excuses for the delays in crown court trials of over 60,000  an increase of 45% since last year. What is not mentioned has been a policy of enforced reduced sitting days for judges nor the lack of lawyers available to work for the miserly rate at which legal aid is paid for. Indeed the MOJ budget over the last decade is a sorrowful sight.

These raw figures are unadjusted for inflation which over the last decade has been 28%. But according to the press office at Petty France one would never have thought that the system was anything but smelling of roses. From a total current budget of £8.4 billion, an increase of £0.3 billion over last year`s, no less than £2.6 million is spent on its press office, an increase of £100K since the previous year. 27 employees, IT, contracts, travel and training account for this expenditure. I have no idea if this level of largess is compatible with that of industrial firms with equivalent turnover. However as a layman my gut reaction is that at £96,296 per employee the amount spent just to put out the supposed good works emanating from the MOJ is somewhat excessive. Considering the total staff costs at Petty France alone are £24,648,744.38 just over 10% is spent on public relations. Perhaps that percentage of wage costs spent on image projection is not uncommon in industry but promoting a rosy picture of a failing system with that amount of public money seems to me to be a luxury, we the public, cannot afford.  

 

STATISTICS AND A SOCIETY UNDER STRESS

The Ministry of Justice has much for which criticism is appropriate but one area where that criticism is rightly muted is in the collection of statistics. Apart from information on the numbers and outcomes of appeals at crown court against decisions at magistrates courts which have in the past been made available through Freedom of Information, almost everything that results from a court appearance is available by way of charts and numbers to satisfy the most fastidious statistician amateur or professional.  Being neither of those it is still possible as a mere observer  to find some interest. The year ended June 2021 is the latest in such releases. The section chart below is quite interesting.

In my experience many if not most lawyers advise clients facing an either way charge to elect trial at the crown court.  Of course not every defendant can afford the fees involved and many others just want to get the process over and done with as quickly as possible but nevertheless it is instructive to compare the conviction rates in these matters. In magistrates courts that rate was 97.4% in 2011 and remained virtually unchanged at 97.9% in 2021. By contrast the comparable rates at crown court over that period were 81.1% and 84.7%. Even as a non statistician I can note that from the defendants` point of view the motto must be "elect trial by jury". The unasked question of course is why does this discrepancy exist.  Some observers assert that magistrates become case hardened; others that magistrates are more likely to be able to detect liars.  It could be that a bench follows a structured decision making process to come to its conclusion but a jury of peers can involve a whole gamut of human emotions in coming to its decision.  However with around 300 District Judges (MC) and Deputies sitting over an unknown number of such trials the picture becomes somewhat clouded. 

For summary motoring offences the statistics indicate that in all probability and with few exceptions defendants would be advised to plead guilty and make use of the reduced sentencing such early pleas offer.  In 2011 the conviction rate was 98.5% and in the year ended June 2021 98.8%.  In other words whether the CPS evidence is from camera or police officer it`s unlikely to be successfully contested. It would also appear that the Single Justice Procedure introduced in 2015 has not influenced the conviction rate. 

A disturbing fact is that indictable offences of violence against the person proceeded against at magistrates courts have increased from 42,530 to 52,925 (+24.44%)between 2020 and 2021 a period in which there was social lockdown. Perhaps future social historians will have something to say about our society under stress. 

JUSTICE EVAPORATES WITH 8 JUSTICE SECRETARIES SINCE 2010

To put it mildly, the justice system is in a mess. As will increasingly become apparent much of this mess as with so many other policies is being put down by government to Covid 19. Perhaps there other reasons one of which is that we are now on Secretary of State/ Lord Chancellor number eight since 2010. With only one of this number still clinging on to the greasy political pole and the current incumbent there as a demotion is it any wonder that justice, a pillar of any successful democracy, is crumbling before our very eyes. 

With Kenneth Clarke on his first appearance before the Justice Select Committee 25/7/2010 we saw what was below that "I`m a fair chap" image; " He was not fussed about competitive tendering (“we have enough lawyers” and there is “no lack of people wanting to come in”). “I haven’t made that many policy decisions yet”, he concluded." Further comment is available here. He was proud to tell the media that in that first austerity budget of the Coalition he had made cuts of 23.8% in the MOJ budget and that he was the first secretary of state to have submitted that intention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His period at Petty France was just the beginning of the cracks which are now threatening to collapse the pillar of justice. 

From the sublime Kenneth Clarke to the ridiculous Chris Grayling who was his anointed successor. It was his bright idea to decide that having courts and personnel to offer a system of justice to all as the right of every citizen as had been the ethos (more or less) for centuries was untenable and wasteful of precious funds. He decided to impose a tax on every offender for the privilege of appearing in a court of law. This tax was to be over and above any fines, compensation or social or custodial sentence imposed. It was not means tested. Perhaps his landmark achievement was to forbid visitors bringing books for prisoners to read in jail; such a stupid decision it was reversed by his successor. However he will forever be  remembered for his actions in his next job as Transport Secretary in signing a shipping contract with a company which had no ships.But no problem; he was a staunch supporter of our prime  minister and a fanatic Brexiteer. 

Next came Michael Gove to who, to many supporters, is the brains of the party. Speaking outside his portfolio before the Referendum he was not immune to endorsing the lies of the Leavers; Just prior on being questioned on Sky it is quoted, " Like Mr Cameron, Mr Gove faced intense scrutiny of his campaign tactics, in particular the claim that the UK sends £350m to the EU every week. Sky’s political editor Faisal Islam said Mr Gove knew that figure was wrong, and accused him of importing the “post-truth” politics of Donald Trump to the UK. The UK Statistics Authority has said the figure “is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics”, because it is a gross sum and does not account for Britain’s rebate and funding received from the EU. In response to Mr Islam, Mr Gove agreed to have the figure independently audited."  The full text is available here. To quote from Politico, "As justice secretary and lord chancellor, Gove got “a lot of the judges and legal Twitter on-side” with warm words on rehabilitation and the justice system, according to one former civil servant who was working in government at the time.But the ex-official believes Gove “did little in the way of actual reform, simply applying his strong rhetorical skills to tell a story about justice.” That was mainly due to his short tenure. He was in post for just over a year before the EU referendum brought the Cameron government to an abrupt halt". It is arguable that had he been in post longer our justice system would have benefited greatly from his intellectual prowess, a facility sadly lacking in some of his contemporaries.  Under his short stewardship at Petty France the MOJ produced its annual report 2016/2017 as bland and meaningless as ever. 

We have four strategic objectives to deliver our vision. 

1. A prison and probation service that reforms offenders. We will:
 Maintain the highest level of public protection;
 Keep prisons safe and secure;
 Reform offenders; and
 Reduce reoffending.
2. A modern courts and justice system. We will:
 Upgrade the best justice system in the world using
technology and modern ways of working;
 Put the citizen at the centre of the justice system;
 Protect vulnerable victims, witnesses and children; and
 Support the independent judiciary and their ability to attract the best and widest range of talent.
3. A Global Britain that promotes the rule of law. We will:
 Make the most of opportunities presented by exiting the
EU to expand the reach of our world leading legal services;
 Promote our world class legal sector and judiciary; and
 Protect our common law traditions and strengthen ourhuman rights framework.
4. A transformed department. We will:
 Deliver excellent services to the public through a diverse,
engaged and capable workforce;
 Be a unified and responsive department, collaborating withpartners across the justice system and government;
 Put data, information, technology and innovation at the
heart of our work to improve our services; and
 Deliver value and drive efficiency in all we do.

Liz Truss, another non lawyer, the next incumbent, lasted less than one year bossing the MOJ.  Her short reign was rather less than successful.  She initially failed to defend the judiciary in November 2016 after they were branded “ Enemies of the people” by the Daily Mail because they ruled parliament had to be given a vote on triggering Brexit. Ms Truss later issued a statement supporting the judges but this was seen as too little, too late. Her actions drew unprecedented criticism from Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, who told a committee of MPs in March that he felt Ms Truss had been “completely and absolutely wrong”. It was the duty of Ms Truss to defend judges, Lord Thomas told the committee, adding he was “very disappointed” that she initially failed to defend them describing it as “constitutionally absolutely wrong”. The Lord Chief Justice also attacked Ms Truss for a “complete misunderstanding” of reforms to cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses in rape trials.

And so we have another Lord Chancellor who is not a lawyer; David Lidington. He had  consistently voted in favour of restricting the scope of legal aid and for allowing national security-sensitive evidence to be put before courts in secret sessions. He had a history of squeezing as much from the parliamentary purse as possible. In May 2009, it was revealed he had claimed £1,300 on expenses for dry cleaning. He also claimed for toothpaste, shower gel, body spray and vitamin supplements on his second home allowance. He repaid the claims for the toiletries, saying: ’I accept that many people would see them as over-generous.’  He could claim the honour of being the shortest in tenure at Petty France having lasted a whole six months. 

In January 2018  David Gauke transferred from Work and Pensions. At least he was a lawyer.  Indeed he was the first solicitor to be appointed Lord Chancellor. A month into his job he outlined his hopes in a speech available here; as bland as ersatz coffee and egg powder available to war time Britons between 1939 and 1945. His leaving office was as notable as his arrival. 

Robert Buckland, a solicitor, was anointed in 2019.  His keynote speech on judicial review is available here. I copy below an extract.  (my black)
The second part of my principles is the Rule of Law. What I mean is that as a society we are governed by clear rules set in advance and not by the arbitrary choices of those in power. That is a fundamental principle of our Constitution and I would not want any reform to endanger it.
The third is the Sovereignty of Parliament. In order for life in common to be possible, the laws that govern us must be orientated towards the common good. But what the common good means is, of course, open to interpretation. As Winston Churchill said, the least bad way of settling those disagreements is through democracy. It is our Constitution that gives the final say to the elected Parliament, not to the unelected branches of the state. I think that is a very sensible settlement which has served us all very well.

It is arguable to say the least that above we have the irresistible force meeting the immovable object and of course as a buddy of Boris Johnson when push came to shove he was a government lackey in the Brexit controversies over parliamentary rights. 

And so we come to Dominic Raab, demoted this year to Petty France but given the office? (title) of Deputy Prime Minister. That alone indicates the status of Justice Secretary in the eyes of this Tory government  where its newest holder needs his ego polished. 

Is it any wonder that Justice in this country is now an accoutrement  to our society`s well being in addition to saving the face of on overblown egotistical political irrelevance. The concept of Justice as a right for all citizens has long gone and with it the basis of our democratic traditions and freedoms because without Justice they evaporate just as surely as the morning mist in autumn.  

STOP AND SEARCH; THE FACTS

"Stop and search" has become a phrase which is familiar to most people over the age of ten.  It is, perhaps, the most divisive of actions which the ordinary cop on the beat can take.  It is subject to very stringent rules about which most people especially those liable to be the object of such action have only partial knowledge.  It is also a topic about which individuals from Opposition shadow ministers to rabble rousing members of ethnic minorities make a great deal of heat but often very little enlightenment.  There can be very few of those who listen to, watch or google the news from any number of sources who are unaware that there seems to be an inordinate number  of young black boys or youths  killed by other young black boys or youths.  Indeed in some parts of London it might not be an exaggeration to call this an epidemic.  

What I have done for this post is to source some irrefutable government statistics on this thorny subject.  For those who have the interest and the time I hope it will be a worthwhile effort.  First of all perhaps the most important fact on stop and search is an awareness of the actual powers the police have to operate it within the law.  The information can be accessed here. When black spokespeople bemoan the indignation and embarrassment of young black men being subjected to stop and search they might be losing sight that it is precisely males of black ethnicity  who are most likely to be victims of violence.  It is often the mothers of young black men killed by their peers who publicly denounce this fact. A much longer more detailed treatise on this was published earlier this year.  If you, dear reader, have read this far, a further ten minutes of learned observation might complete your understanding of this for ever controversial subject.  

MAGISTRATES` MAJORITY GUILTY VERDICT

Magistrates courts might arguably claim to be the first courts in England where the common person and the king`s law came into conflict. Depending on the circumstances such courts were sometimes held outside in public where the full power of the king through his judges could be demonstrated as a deterrent to those who would consider breaking his law. Paradoxically today  it could be argued that the magistrates courts system at the base of the courts pyramid far from being public is the most secretive of all.  I have in previous posts offered my opinion on the latest such example of secrecy embodied in the Single Justice Procedure.  There is, however, another facet of the system that has been commonplace for generations; the verdict after trial. Most cases at magistrates courts end in a guilty verdict (84%).  Of course that includes the many who plead guilty.  In 2004 there were approaching 200,000 trials; in 2019 that had reduced to 109,396 and owing to Covid in  2020 there were 57,388. Statisticians, criminologists and lawyers will argue over this apparently perhaps disturbing trend. When a crown court verdict is announced it is publicly known whether or not it is a verdict of all 12 jurors or whether the judge has accepted a majority of 10:2. At the Appeal Court or Supreme Court where there is a dissenting opinion that opinion is placed in the public record. What is certain is that nobody knows whether the trial verdict at the magistrates court is reached by all three magistrates or by a majority of 2:1.  Of course when a single District Judge (MC) is presiding the question is unnecessary. I have long considered this an anomaly in what is supposed to be an open and fair justice system. When the verdict is acquittal the matter ends but when guilt is established why should it not be announced that it is a majority verdict and the appeal process compulsorily made public to the offender and the public?  As far as I know this question has never been asked; never mind being answered. From my own position as a presiding magistrate or "chairman" as we used to describe ourselves before woke thought and action infiltrated every aspect of the justice system as it has so many aspects of society, whenever I had to pronounce a guilty verdict with a retiring room colleague having made a plausible not proven argument I would ensure that the appeal process and particularly the time limit and financial cost of the exercise were explained.  Thankfully such occasions were relatively few in number the exceptions usually involving a relatively inexperienced colleague who had deviated from having a structured approach to his/her conclusion.  Such colleagues usually were open to their being assisted in coming to a logical conclusion based upon the evidence presented.  If they finally came to a contrary conclusion but based upon ascending that structural ladder I would make clear that no criticism whatsoever would be taken by the majority couple. More often or not at our next meeting in the retiring room words to the effect of "I enjoyed sitting with you last time.  Thank you for your support" would be exchanged.  With identity politics even invading the bench and especially the Magistrates Association I doubt I would last a month in a system now becoming even more dominated by HMCTS, an organisation which would throw this post on a bonfire if it could.   

MORE ON SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE

Almost half a million cases at magistrates courts are dealt with in private. It`s called the Single Justice Procedure. At the very least justice is not seen to be done. At worst it forms a basis on which a future government of a more authoritarian bent could extend this process and that is a road where blackness looms.

Below is from Hansard 

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

26 Oct 2021

Dominic Raab: ...introduce measures that use new technology to streamline procedures to strip out unnecessary in-person hearings and create more efficient processes for allocation of cases in the Crown court and the magistrates court. That will enable swifter resolution of low-level offences such as travelling on a train without a ticket or fishing without a licensed rod without the need for the time and...

magistrates : 1 Written Answer

Written Answers - Ministry of Justice: Reoffenders

26 Oct 2021

James Cartlidge: For the year ending March 2021, approximately 670 defendants were dealt with at the magistrates’ courts under SJP where the offence was deemed ‘recordable on the PNC’, which makes up 0.1% of the total defendants dealt with via SJP in that period (489,910). We are unable to say how many of these defendants were convicted of the recordable offence without incurring a disproportionate cost.

MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION REVEALS ITS WOKE APPROACH TO JUSTICE

The Kingdom of England can arguably be stated as having been founded in the last century of the first millennium perhaps a century after the founding of the northern part of the British Isles known as Scotland.  The 13th century saw the incorporation of Wales into the Kingdom of England. The Kingdom of Ireland was brought under English control between 1541 and 1691. A sixteenth century royal marriage led to the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and the Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707 leading to the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.  The establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922 led to the current designation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927.  The underlying political sentiments of those involved particularly for the last 200 years have been that there is much more that unites us than divides us.  That is until the latter part of the last century.  Whether by benign neglect or the emergence of an anti colonialism mind set in Scotland and Ireland separatism as a target began to take hold in some philosophical/historical  minds and actions within both nations.  The modern tragedy of Irish nationalism is still with us and the Scots seem to be plunging deeper and deeper into a death wish of economic turbulence and possible collapse. So what has this to do with a blog written by a retired magistrate with an interest in justice and the law?  In the last few weeks the Magistrates Association has been following a singularly IMHO divisive line of its thinking as indicated by its Tweets. 

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

11 Oct

It’s National Coming Out Day! Our LGBT+ Diversity and Inclusion Network provides a safe space for LGBT+ magistrates to discuss any issues which may affect them in court, as well champion equality and respect within the justice system

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

#BlackHistoryMonth recommended reading: Influential Black Britons illustrated book (published by UK Parliament). This resource lists individuals who have impacted UK laws and equal rights. Olaudah Equiano, Mary Prince, Claudia Jones, Lord Learie Constantine, Bernie Grant… (2/20)

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

11 Oct

It’s National Coming Out Day! Our LGBT+ Diversity and Inclusion Network provides a safe space for LGBT+ magistrates to discuss any issues which may affect them in court, as well champion equality and respect within the justice system. Find out more at - https://magistrates-association.org.uk/What-We-Do/MA-

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

2 Aug

Over on the

@JudiciaryUK

Instagram, Dan, our trustee and deputy chair of our LGBT+ Special Interest Group, talks about the importance of having a diverse magistracy and some of the transferable skills magistrates gain that can be so valuable to employers.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

27 Jul

Knife crime is a serious problem but there is no robust evidence that stop and search is the answer, while it could further damage the trust and confidence that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities have in the justice system.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

16 Jul

The MA’s disproportionality presentation provides information about the disproportionate over-representation of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people in the youth justice system, and what magistrates can do to address this in and out of the courtroom.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

16 Jul

It is encouraging that 18% of new magistrates are under 40, though there is still work to be done to attract more volunteers from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

14 Jul

‘Must-Listen-To’ Claxon: Hear MA board member & chair of our Young Magistrates Group,

@lukerigg

, talk on

@BBCRadio4

#FourThought about what it’s like to be a young magistrate, and why having more will improve justice. Luke you were excellent

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

9 Jul

Modelling for raising the retirement age to 75 projected that there will be 0.8% fewer BAME magistrates in any given year than at present. The MA has called for this impact on diversity to be mitigated by recruitment specifically targeting under-represented groups.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

29 Jun

'There is certainly no such thing as your stereotypical magistrate'.

Some retweets..

Magistrates Association Retweeted

 

Mawia Bin-Sufyan MStJ BCA

@MoawiaBinSufyan

 

·

19 Jun

Joining colleagues from across the UK for the

@MagsAssoc

inaugural meeting of the Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority Special Interest Group. Speakers included the MA Chair

@BevHiggs

and new CEO @TomFranklinUK

Dan, MA trustee and deputy chair of our LGBT+ Special Interest Group, speaks to

@JudiciaryUK

as part of #PrideMonth

 

What those tweets indicate to me is that the Magistrates Association following the many examples of woke inspired separatism is functioning in the mistaken belief that representation of all manor of variations in the make up of society provides a better quality of justice for all those who come to court. In simple terms the so called life truths of a bench are more likely to  provide outcomes which suit the individual`s circumstances than the intellectual challenge of weighing up evidence so that the facts of a case are teased from all that the court must consider in coming to its conclusion. The practices of the M.A. in having sub committees for some of the very varied groupings in our society is inimitable to the cohesion which binds together those very same groupings. Undue emphasis on "diversity" risks a mockery of the judicial oath; “I, ______ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ______ ,
and I will do I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour , affection or ill-will." [my bold]. There will be those who will retort that it takes eg a "life truth" of living as an impoverished or racially abused member of a minority group to understand and appreciate circumstances of any offender`s particular actions but from my experience much thinking along those lines is in direct contradiction of the last eight words of the oath above. The continued emphasis on recruitment to supposedly represent society does no favour for selecting the best people to be sitting in judgement on their fellow citizens. For example in Bradford where the ethnic composition is that the largest religious group  is Christian (45.9% of the population) and nearly one quarter of the population (24.7%) is Muslim is that to be the target by the advisory committee charged with appointment of magistrates? 20.7% of Bradford citizens self declare that they do not follow a religion. Are they too to be represented on the Bench in that proportion?


When I was appointed in 1997 a question on the application form was for the applicant to state which political party benefited from his/her vote at the previous general election. I left it unanswered. In due course I received a letter enclosing my application telling me that unless I resubmitted the form with every question answered my application would not be considered. I duly filled in the name of the political party for which I had voted. That question was omitted from the form a few years later. The powers that be no longer want to know who their applicants vote for but now do want to know so much more about the essence of their very being.


All this might be considered under the term "woke or not woke". When universities and many institutions are afraid to issue firm declarations to students and others who foster hate at those whose opinions they oppose, who ignore antisemitism propagated at all levels of our society in the guise of "anti Zionism" there is a fear pervading many to whom society has bestowed influence that speaking out about any topic which questions current societal  mores is a career and/or reputation breaker. In simple terms it`s called self censorship. When fear is the basis of the way we conduct our daily lives proto fascism is appearing over the political horizon. Unfortunately the Magistrates Association is slowly but surely being dragged into this cultural morass.