LAWYERS DO NOT BITE THE HANDS OF THOSE THEY HOPE WILL FEED THEM

Type Single Justice Procedure into the search box and there will appear several posts of varying vintage of my thoughts on this topic. Last week the procedure was extended to companies.  In addition some wording accompanying this press release reveals, albeit subtly and unintended I`m certain, that the facade of this secret justice procedure is revealed as not being a court in the accepted sense of the word.  But more of that later. 

The traditional bench of three, but all too often two, lay magistrates has developed from being selected by and comprising  the supposed "great and the good" of a borough or county into a supposedly diverse and representative slice of a local society although for almost a decade the terms of service of JPs have been changed to allow them, in theory at least, to sit anywhere in England or Wales.  They have been constituted as finders of fact and sentencers with a legal advisor to ensure that their words and actions are lawful or perhaps not unlawful.  Such a composition continuously variable (consider how many combinations of three per a bench of eg  200) allowed a wide expertise to be exercised.  That has been the rallying call for at least twenty + years by the supporters of the process when attacked by the many legal proponents of employing only legally qualified District Judges for the lower courts.

The non imprisonable offences charged against companies can be a good deal more complex than similar against named individuals.  In addition some offences can be those in which company law is involved. * Annex A: Companies Act 2006, Schedule of Company Offences (SEE  FULL DOCUMENT BELOW)  shows the dozens of offences which the CPS could decide are suitable for presenting through the SJP.  Having sat and presided over a number of these during my tenure I am more than convinced that having another or two colleagues to discuss the details was essential to have complete confidence in a final decision.  The MOJ has until now presented the SJP as just an alternative form of court when in reality in most cases the magistrate and legal advisor are not even sitting in the same room within the court building. Either or possibly both would be working from home.  

This facade is now blown out of the water in the document referred to above.   Under the heading "SJP for companies"  is written; "As with all SJP cases, defendants can still choose to have their case heard in a court."  If ever there was an admission that even the MOJ itself does not consider the SJP a court in the accepted sense this is it.  A court can be defined as follows; take your choice...........

A place where trials and legal cases are decided, or the group of people who deal with legal cases there

A place where trials and other legal cases happen, or the people present in such a place, especially the officials and those deciding if someone is guilty

A place where legal matters are decided by a judge and jury or by a magistrate.

An official group of people (such as a judge and jury) who listen to evidence and make decisions about legal cases.

So there we have it. The SJP cannot be considered a court by the actual words of the MOJ.  So what is it?  It is a device to save money initiated in 2015 but conceived years earlier  by a branch of Tory government that was all too eager to demonstrate that its Secretary of State  Kenneth Clarke was up front in demonstrating his support for austerity by cutting 23.8% from his budget weeks ahead of his fellow cabinet members` declarations. It is difficult not to believe that the secret so called justice of the SJP is but a forerunner of what the Tories have in mind if they are still governing us in 2025.  However there are and will be no comments from His Majesty`s Loyal Opposition.  They too will be amassing their own stealth plans for 2025 when Justice as a pillar of a democratic society can be further whittled away.  As a nation we are not exempt for an authoritarian regime being installed at Westminster by a combination of public lethargy and corporate greed.  It is to the legal professions at all levels that in decades past I would have looked for reasoned argument to ensure our courts remain free and open.  I fear that along with their concerns over personal emoluments they will not wish to bite the hands they are hoping will feed them.  

*Annex A: Companies Act 2006, Schedule of Company

Offences

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

Part 3 A company’s

constitution

26(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to send

registrar copy of

amended articles

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s183

30(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to forward

resolutions or

agreements affecting

company’s

constitution to

registrar

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s380(5)

34(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give

registrar notice of

changes made to

company constitution

by court order

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s18(3)

45(3) Company with a

common seal, and

every officer in

default, failing to

have company name

engraved on seal

Summary/Level 3 fine CA 1985 s350(1)

63(2) Company and every

officer in default,

amending its articles

so that it ceases to

be exempt from

requirement to have

‘limited’ in its title.

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s31(5)

64(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to change

name on Secretary of

State’s direction so

that it has ‘limited’ at

the end

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s 31(6)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

68(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to change

name on Secretary of

State’s direction in

case of similarity to

existing name

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1984, s28(2),

(5)

75(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to change

name on Secretary of

State’s direction

following provision of

misleading

information etc

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985, s28(3),

(5)

76(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to change

name on Secretary of

State’s direction on

grounds that is

misleading as to its

activities.

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985 s32(4)

99(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give

registrar notice of

application to court to

cancel resolution to

re-list public

company as private

company, or failing to

give notice court’s

order on such

application

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985 s54(10)

108(4) Company, and every

officer in default reregistered

as limited

company and failing

to deliver statement

of capital to registrar

of companies

Summary only/Level 3

fine

New Offence

113(7) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to keep

registrar of members

and their particulars

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985 s352(5)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

114(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of place

where register of

members is kept

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA s353(4)

115(5) Company having

more than 50

members and every

officer in default,

failing to keep index

of members and

have it available for

inspection

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA s354

118(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

refusing to allow

person to inspect its

register or index of

members’ names or

making default in

providing copy of

register

Summary only/Level 3

fine

New Offence

120(3) Company failing to

provide person

inspecting register or

index of members’

names with details of

amendments

Summary only/Level 3

fine

New Offence

123(4) Single member

company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirement as to

register of members

containing a

statement that

company has only

one member

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985 s352A(3)

130(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of

location of overseas

branch register, etc

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985, s365 and

Sche.14, Pt II,

para. 1(3)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

132(3) Company, every

officer in default,

failing to keep

overseas branch

register, or a copy,

available for

inspection at place in

United Kingdom

where main register

kept

Summary only/Level 3

fine

CA 1985, s362 and

Sched. 14, Pt UU,

para.4(2)

135(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of

discontinuance

notice of overseas

branch register

Summary only/Level 3

fine

New Offence

156(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

Secretary of State’s

direction to comply

with requirements as

to appointment of

directors

Summary/Level 5 fine New Offence

162(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to properly

keep register of

directors containing

requisite information,

failing to keep it

available and open

for inspection, or

failing to give notice

to registrar of place

where kept

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)

165(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to keep

separate register of

directors’ residential

addresses

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

167(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

of change of

directors or change

of registered

particulars

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)

246(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirements to

putting director’s

residential address

on its register

Summary/Level 5 fine New Offence

272(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

Secretary of State’s

direction to appoint

company secretary

Summary/Level 5 fine New Offence

275(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to keep

register of

secretaries and make

it available for

inspection

Summary/Level 5 fine CA 1985 s288(4)

410(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to annex

information about

related undertakings

to annual return

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s231(6)

425(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to send out

copies of reports to

those entitled to

receive them

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s238(5)

429(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirements as to

summary financial

statements

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s251(6)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

431(3) Unquoted company,

and every officer in

default, failing to

make copies of

accounts and reports

available to members

or debenture holders

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s239(3)

432(3) Quoted company,

and every officer in

default, failing to

make copies of

accounts and reports

available to members

or debenture holders

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 ss239(3)

433(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to state name

of signatory in

published copies of

reports or accounts

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s 233(6)

and 234A(4)s

434(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirements as to

publication of nonstatutory

accounts

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s240(6)

435(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply

requirements as to

publication of nonstatutory

accounts

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s240(6)

486(3) Private company,

and every officer in

default, failing to give

Secretary of State

notice of notice of

non-appointment of

auditors

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s387(2)

490(3) Public company, and

every officer in

default, failing to give

Secretary of State

notice of nonappointment

of

auditors

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s387(2)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

501(4) Parent company, and

every officer in

default, failing to

obtain from overseas

subsidiary

undertaking

information for the

purposes of audit

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s389B(4)

505(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

laying circulating or

delivering auditor’s

report without stating

name of auditor

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s236(4)

512(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of

resolution removing

auditor from office

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s391(2)

517(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to send

auditor’s notice of

resignation to

registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s392(3)

523(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to notify and

give reasons to audit

authority of auditor

ceasing to hold office

Either Way/Fine New Offence

554(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to register

allotment of shares

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

590(1) Company, an every

officer in default,

contravening

prohibitions (in Pt 17,

Chap. 5) as to

payment of shares

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s114

602(2) Company, and every

officer in default

failing to deliver copy

of resolution under

s601 and valuer

report to registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s111(4)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

607(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

contravening s593

(public allotting

shares for non-cash

consideration) or

s598 (public

company entering

into agreement for

transfer of non-cash

asset)

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s114

619(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

exercising power

under s618 (subdivision

or

consolidation of

shares) but failing

properly or all to give

notice to registrar of

shares affected

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s122(2)

621(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

exercising s620

(reconversion of

stock into shares) but

failing properly or at

all to give notice to

registrar of stock

affected

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s122(2)

625(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to give notice to

registrar specifying

redenominated share

capital

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s122(2)

627(7) Company, and every

officer in default,

passing resolution

under s626

(reduction of capital

in connection with

redomination) but

failing properly or at

all to give notice

registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s122(2)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

635(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to forward to

registrar copy of

court order upon an

application under

s633 or 634

(objection to variation

of class rights)

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s127(5)

636(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

assigning name or

other designation (or

new name or

designation) of class

of shares and failing

to give notice to

registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s128(5)

637(2) Company and every

officer in default,

varying rights

attached to shares

and failing to give

notice to registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s128(5)

638(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

creating new class of

members and failing

to give notice to

registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 129(4)

639(2) Company, and every

officer in default ,

assigning name or

other designation(or

new name or

designation) to class

of members and

failing to give notice

to registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 129(4)

640(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

varying rights

attached to class of

members of

company not having

a share capital and

failing to give notice

to registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s129(4)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

644(8) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to deliver to

registrar solvency

statement and

statement of capital

and directors’

statement as to the

timing of the

solvency statement

and its provision to

members

Either Way/Fine New Offence

658(2) Company and every

officer in default,

contravening general

rule against

acquisition of its own

shares

Either Way: Indictment:

2 years’ imprisonment,

fine or both; Summary

(12 months’

imprisonment, or a fine

or both)

CA 1985 s143(2)

663(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to give notice (and

accompanying

statement of capital)

when cancelling

shares in order to

comply with s622

(duty to cancel

shares in public

company held by or

for the company)

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

667(2) Public company, and

every officer in

default, failing to

comply with duty

under s662 to cancel

shares in company

held by or for the

company, or to apply

for re-registration as

a private company

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s149(2)

680(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

contravening

prohibitions in s678

or s679 as to

financial assistance

Either Way: Indictment:

2 years’ imprisonment,

fine or both; Summary:

12 months’

imprisonment, fine or

both

CA 1985 s151(3)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

689(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to give notice to

registrar of redeemed

shares

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

708(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of

cancellation of

purchase of its own

shares in accordance

with s724 or s 729

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 169A

720(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar as to

place where

directors’ statement

and auditors’ report

kept, or failing to

allow inspection by

member of company

or creditor

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s175(7)

722(4) Company and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of making

of application under

s721 (application to

court to cancel

resolution), or failing

to forward copy of

order of court to the

registrar

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s176(4)

732(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

general requirements

under Pt 18, Chap.6

as to treasury shares

Either Way/Fine

741(2) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to register

allotment of

debentures

Summary/Fine Level 3 CA 1985 s399(3)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

743(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of place

where register of

debenture holders

kept

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

746(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

refusing to allow

inspection of register

of debentures or

failing to provide a

copy

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s191(4)

761(1) Company doing

business or

exercising borrowing

power in

contravention of s761

(public company:

requirement as to

minimum share

capital)

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s117(7)

771(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to register

transfer of shares or

debentures or give

transferee notice of

refusal to do s and

reasons why

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s183(5)

798(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

issuing shares in

contravention of

restrictions imposed

under s794

Either Way/Fine

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

806(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

s805(5) (notice to

registrar of place at

which report to

members on

outcome of

investigation into

interests in shares

under s803 available

for inspection)

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

807(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

refusing to allow

inspection of report

prepared under

section 805

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 219(3)

808(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to keep register of

information received

in pursuance of

requirement under

s793

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)

809(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to keep

register of interests

disclosed available

for inspection

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)

810(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to keep

associated index of

names entered in

register of interests

disclosed

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)

813(1) Company, and every

officer in default,

refusing to allow

inspection of register

of interests disclosed

and associated index

or making default in

providing a copy

Summary/Level 3 Fine New offence

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

815(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

improperly removing

entry in register of

interests disclosed or

failing to restore

improperly removed

entry

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s218(3)

819(2) Company ceasing to

be public company

but failing to keep

register of interests

disclosed and

associated index for

six further years

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s211(10)

858(1) Company, its

directors and

secretaries, any

other officer in

default, failing to

deliver annual return

within 28 days of

return date

Summary/Level 5 Fine CA 1985 s363(3)

860(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

creating charge but

failing properly or at

all to deliver

particulars and

instrument to

registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s399(3)

862(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

acquiring property

subject to registrable

charge and failing to

deliver particulars

and certified copy of

instrument to

registrar

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s400(4)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

877(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to give notice

to registrar of place

at which documents

creating charges and

register of charges

are kept available for

inspection or refusing

to allow inspection

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s408(3)

897(5) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to make

explanatory

statement to

creditors when giving

notice summoning

meeting of creditors

for proposed

compromise or

arrangement

Either Way/Fine CA 1985 s426(6)

900(7) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing properly or at

all to deliver copy of

order under s899

(court sanction for

compromise or

agreement to

registrar)

Summary/Fine Level 3 CA 1985 s247(5)

901(5) Where a court order

under s899 (order

sanctioning

compromise or

arrangement) or 900

(order facilitating

reconstruction or

amalgamation) alters

company’s

constitution,

company, and every

copy of articles

accompanied by

court order

Summary/Fine Level 3 CA 1985 s425(4)

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

970(3) Company passing

opting-in or an

opting-out resolution

and failing to notify

Takeovers Panel of

that fact

Summary/Fine Level 3 SI 2006 No 1183

(CLW061818),

Sched. 2

993(1) Fraudulent trading Either Way:

Indictment: 10 years’

imprisonment, fine or

both;

Summary: 12 months’

imprisonment, fine or

both

CA 1985: s458

998(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to deliver copy

of amended articles

to registrar following

order of court on

complaint by member

that affairs of

company being

conducted in unfairly

prejudicial manner

Summary/ Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s461(5)

999(4) Company, and every

office in default,

failing to annex to

articles order of court

on complaint by

member that affairs

of company being

conducted in unfairly

prejudicial manner

Summary/Fine Level 3 New Offence

1033(6) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirements as to its

name upon

restoration to the

register

Summary/ Level 5 Fine New Offence

Section Offence Mode of Trial/

Penalties

Derivation

1093(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to deliver

documents to

registrar in

connection with

request for

replacement

document where

information

inconsistent with

register

Summary/ Level 5 Fine New Offence

1135(3) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to comply with

requirements as to

form in which

company records

must be kept

Summary/Level 3 Fine CA 1985 s722(3)

1145(4) Company, and every

officer in default,

failing to send

document or

information in hard

copy form to member

or debenture holder

on request

Summary/Level 3 Fine New Offence

1248(5) Company failing to

retain person to carry

out second audit or

review accounts

when directed to do

so by Secretary of

State

Summary/Level 5 Fine CA 1989 s29

1248(7) Company failing to

send report prepared

by appropriate

person as to whether

second audit

required to registrar,

or failing

to take steps referred

to in report as to

carrying out of

second audit.

Summary/Level 5 Fine CA 1989 s29

AND NOT ENOUGH SERGEANTS

 "Lions led by donkeys" is a phrase popularly used to describe the British infantry of the First World War and to blame the generals who led them.  That short description  by Alan Clark in his 1961 book The Donkeys served to elevate the common soldier while denigrating the officer class.  Of course a century ago there was no department of human resources in the British army of 1914-1918.  Now people are paid enormous salaries to determine inter alia the "who, why and what"  a company or organisation demands of its workforce.  In many ways the ranked order of a workforce is no longer achieved by the rule of thumb instinct of an entrepreneur but by supposedly expert functionaries themselves subsumed into grades. It was perhaps in the Roman army where defined units were perfected.  Indeed modern military formations are largely based on the efficiency of such units.  These were refined as:-

    Contubernium. A squad of eight men, led by a decanus.
    Centuria. A group of 10 contubernium, led by a centurion.
    Cohorts. A group of six centuria, totalling out to 480 men.
    Legio. A legion of 10 cohorts, roughly 5,000 men.
    Eques Legionis. The cavalry unit of a legio consisting of 120     men.

It is common knowledge that since 2010 20,000 police officers have been made redundant or retired and it is also common knowledge that notwithstanding Boris Johnson`s pledge to recruit 20,00 replacements all has not gone well with many of these new recruits resigning before becoming truly effective. 

On 2nd June 2010 I blogged some statistics on police numbers and ranks.  This is copied below. 

There is 1 sergeant for every 4.8 constables
There is 1 inspector for every 3.04 sergeants
There is 1 chief inspector for every 3.85 inspectors
There is 1 superintendent for every 1.89 chief inspectors
There is 1 chief superintendent for every 2.1 superintendents

Latest figures available today are as follows:-

There is 1 sergeant for every 5.41 constables
There is 1 inspector for every 3.26 sergeants
There is 1 chief inspector for every 3.11 inspectors
There is one chief or superintendent for every 1.49 chief inspectors
There is 1 chief officer* for every 5.56 chief or superintendents

*Includes Assistant Chief Constables, Deputy Chief Constables and Chief Constables, and their equivalents in the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police. These police officers were previously referred to as Association of Chief Police Officer (ACPO) ranks; however, on 1 April 2015 ACPO was replaced by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).

Those who are much more knowledgeable than I  know that the backbone of an efficient fighting force is determined by the quality and number of its non commissioned officers.  This opinion has been reinforced by the war in Ukraine where the Russians have been found deficient in that very area cf the highly trained Ukrainians.  The ratios of constables/sergeants and sergeants/inspectors have significantly changed since 2010.  Sergeants are perhaps the most important  cohort within the police service.  No amount of fast entry university graduates can be a substitute for training on the job: a form of education which after two generations of being excluded from so many routes to professional qualifications is just beginning to be recognised as the educational baby which was thrown out with the supposedly academic bathwater.  

This post began with an adage and I think an even older one best sums up the situation as above...........too many chiefs and not enough indians.   

SERMON ON THE BENCH

A common theme, some might say obsession,  of many of my posts over 13+ years on this site  is secrecy: whether in the police, judiciary, other legal associated professions  or in the judicial supervisory process.  The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office is the organisation tasked with doing what it is says on its lid. However in many aspects it doesn`t perform according to its website where its raison d`etre for its existence is as, " an independent statutory body which supports the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice in their joint responsibility for judicial discipline. Our statutory remit is to deal with complaints of misconduct . This means how a judge has behaved personally, e.g. making a racist remark, inappropriate use of social media, or falling asleep in court."  The definition of "misconduct", the be all and end all of its function as defined above, in itself seems narrowly drawn. Considering that investigation into magistrates is the largest group by far into which the JCIO involves itself this omission is telling.  In addition there is a caveat insofar as the limits of its authority.  "We cannot accept complaints about a judge’s decision or the way a judge has managed a case". And that is exactly where the secrecy begins.  Compare that with "how a judge has behaved personally, e.g. making a racist remark".  

On 29th September last year  calling themselves environmental protesters a rag band of people blocked Britain`s busiest motorway M25 causing misery and delays for thousands of drivers going about their lawful activities whether of business, pleasure or public duty.  Owing to delays in the court process those arrested for their actions that day only came to court on 12th April this year.  Some of the demonstrators appeared at Crawley Magistrates' Court while others pleaded guilty by post. They appeared before District Judge  Stephen Leake who had been appointed just six months earlier. And during that legal process he made remarks which if they had been made by any presiding magistrate would almost certainly have led to an investigation by that august body to which I have referred above. But my point is that despite widespread media coverage it seems that this arrogant, foolish, irresponsible judge having made possibly the most injudicious judicial remarks of the year will continue to preside over his court with nary a word of official criticism.  Once again I publish below the judicial oath; an oath which must be obvious to the most legalistic mind, has not just been broken but has been torn to shreds by the ego, smugness, imperiousness and haughtiness of this highly paid civil servant in whom the general public must place its trust and in those who appointed him and deemed his actions acceptable. 
“I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of ________ , and 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.”  Perhaps he considered that by finding the offenders guilty his remarks were justifiable.  His comment:- "I have heard your voices. They have inspired me and personally I intend to do what I can to reduce my own impact on the planet"  gives me the impression he regards himself as a preacher to those of us who consider these law breakers as embryonic fascists seeking to impose their opinions on the rest of us by any means they consider necessary. 

He is not only a district judge.  Stephen Leake was appointed to the Sentencing Council on 2nd May 2022. This sermon on the bench was a disgrace to his office.  It is an affront to those whose lives and livings were considered so called collateral damage to the offenders` extremist views but it is also a warning that there have been, will be and currently are judges who will use their positions either for their own aggrandisement or to further the will of the state.  A supervisory office whose activities are shrouded in secrecy  seems to be a compliant accompaniment in all this. 

Of course those remarks by Leake have precipitated glorifying comments of their comrades by self styled anarchists  calling themselves Insulate Britain:those who would align themselves with true heroes of the past who made this nation truly a better more civilised society. This is the country suffering from the effects of a savage war in Ukraine and the results of a political system falling apart.  Others might view the situation as the perfect time for a cultural revolution  British style.  

A CHRISTMAS BENCH

It`s that time of the year when the watchwords of "Peace on earth and goodwill toward men!” will be dismissed by some as sexist, misogynist and an archaic use of language unfit for current usage. Whilst not everyone is duty bound to be a Christian in one form or another the sentiments in that phrase are universal.  It is just like a sailor many days at sea  looking at the horizon; it seems to be never ending until land is sighted.  There are occasions when war and hate also seem never ending. History unfortunately is often on the side of the pessimists.  However for all readers of any denomination or none I wish you that traditional English "merry" Christmas and a happy new year.   

MAGISTRATES AND GETTYSBURG

Very few people, I`m sure, of those interested in the application of law to our society will have been unaware that the MOJ has been using widespread advertising in order to appoint in the near future 4,000 new magistrates.  This requirement is similar in some aspects to the widely propagated view of highly placed Conservative ministers and MPs that 20,000 new police constables are being recruited or 40 new hospitals are being built. That since 2010 20,000 police officers have retired from the force, been made redundant or not been replaced by various Conservative governments is now as well known as the chimera of the current recruitment drive. Similar argument can now be seen as applicable to the nonsensical claim of 40 new hospitals. When urgent numbers of new personnel are needed for any profession there is clear risk that standards will be lowered, stretched or in other ways made as flexible as possible to fill the quota required especially when a government is ultimate employer and seeks to maximise the hoped for beneficial optics. 

And so to those eager, aspiring new magistrates required now in bulk owing to the MOJ refusing to recruit over the last decade when retirements were predicted as easily as future Christmas days were diarised.   It is unlikely that any information, gossip or assistance they receive either prior to or subsequent to a successful application will adequately prepare them for what they are about to receive. The intangibles of entering a hybrid state of being volunteers but also considered  unpaid employees of a government quango; the most junior members of the judiciary, so called representatives of their local communities, examples of "diversity" in action and yet having the power to sit in judgement upon their fellow citizens who are at risk of 12 months jail time.  In addition they will be entering an environment where the term woke in word and deed is considered as normal.  Perhaps if they were instructed to read the statements published with unfailing regularity on the website of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office they would be warned of what is expected of them. Indeed the initial training might be considered in commercial and/or website small print as terms and conditions.  

On the JCIO website today Helen Mackay JP was placed into the last chance saloon.  Also today it was announced that Miss Kaira McCallum JP has been kicked off the bench. Last month  Ms Shirley Young JP was given a formal warning as has  Mr Declan Curran JP.  Mr Mark Philpotts JP  has been handed "formal advice" for his misdemeanour. In September for " a lack of the circumspection and sound judgement expected of a judicial office-holder" Mr Gary Cracknell JP has also been subject to "formal advice".  

To paraphrase one of the wisest orations of all time:- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of justice—and that justice of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.  But only if those sitting in judgement satisfy those in authority of being of the people and by the people and subject to the strictures higher than those applied to those at the top of the judicial tree. 

And finally this year a big thank you to those who I hope take some pleasure from giving me precious minutes of their valuable time.  A healthy and happy Christmas and New Year to you one and all. 

WARRANTS OF DISCONNECTION//A VERY LATE P.S.

Having removed my finger from the magistracy`s pulse seven years ago I am now just an observer sometimes rather late in my observations.  Real time now is but a memory.  However a debate yesterday in the House of Commons on some magistrates` benches approach to dealing with energy companies` warrant applications set my mind back to my blog of 16th August 2013. 

Magistrates have it within their powers and indeed within their souls to investigate each and every application for disconnection.   The delays will infuriate legal advisors as those instigated by my actions certainly did but I persuaded like minded colleagues and eventually a protocol was agreed with the Deputy Justices Clerk.  I even still have the documents on file.  But and it`s a big "but", it is my concern that magistrates are now less willing or even unable to counter "orders from above". Their independence is now but a shadow of what it was when I was appointed.  I might remind JP readers of their oath: “ I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of Justice of the Peace, and 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.” However with many doctors prepared to ignore their Hippocratic Oath or similar undertaking I cannot be sure that magistrates will not free themselves from the words spoken on their appointment. 

OUT OF COURT DISPOSALS// ARE MAGISTRATES` OPINIONS VALIDATED?

The Ministry of Justice worships the god of diversity and the goddess of representation. Underlying the selection of those thought capable of being able to judge their fellow man (in this terminology man embraces woman, transwoman, transman and all varieties in between) is the supposed need that local communities, however they might be defined for a magistracy which is geographically and legally no longer local, need locally based unpaid volunteer lay magistrates. The same MOJ employs full time judges sitting in the supreme court down to district judges sitting full or part time in the magistrates and county courts.  These highly paid civil servants are not considered by any criteria apart from their abilities to do the job in question. There were 13,000 county court trials in January to March 2022.  The complete current analysis of the workload at those courts for those interested is available here. My main point, however, is not the numbers but the people; those who sit alone high on a bench changing the lives of many.  They are not nor need to be "diverse" or representative of the populations within the courts` jurisdiction. Which brings me to the organisation which purports to be the representative of lay magistrates.  Latest head count is that there 12,506 magistrates but the number of those holding membership of the M.A. is secret. I am not an accountant but within the 36 page annual report of  to the Charity Commission are these few details re membership:- "Income for 2021-22 was £589,337  and for 2020 -21  £619,239. "  The individual membership annual charge is £47 so simple arithmetic would appear to tell us that there are 12,539 magistrates but what those figures omit is that that income includes the annual £39.50 paid by retired magistrates who wish to stay involved.  Since it can be estimated that at least 20% of magistrates do not join the M.A. the regular clarion calls from its recently appointed new chief executive about this or that policy being "magistrates  consider etc etc etc" are exaggerated to say the least. 

The latest outburst concerns out of court disposals.  We have been there before.  In 2015 the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee published a paper available here which if one scrolls down indicates that the then chairman of the M.A. was somewhat critical of the situation which of course is now generally speaking supposed to be in operation.   But M.A. criticism in that report is not a one off.  Its underlying motivation is to secure as much work in the magistrates courts as possible. Its long standing ambition for the lower courts` limit on custodial sentencing powers to be doubled to 12 months custody has become reality in the last year with the perfect storm of a Covid pandemic reducing capacity so causing hitherto unheard of delays in all courts combined with this government`s increasing recklessness in reducing budget imbalances.  Crown courts are much more costly to run than magistrates courts thus taking more serious cases from the former to the latter makes financial sense but the debate whether or not justice is being truly served is for another time.  

The immediate question is how the rate of out of court disposals is not to the liking of the M.A.  Out of court disposals are a means by which a law enforcement agency such as the police can swiftly and efficiently deal with less serious offending without commencing a criminal prosecution. In order for an out of court disposal to be valid the offence must be eligible and the offender must accept his/her guilt.There are currently a variety of different out of court disposals of which three are not recorded on the Police National Computer. These are: community resolutions, drugs warnings (for cannabis and khat), and penalty notices for disorder. Under the proposed new Act only community resolutions will remain in place.

Almost every Justice Secretary from the year dot has indicated that knife offenders will face custody.  It`s almost a mantra observed more in the absence than in the reality.  "Out-of-court disposals 'expanding uncontrollably', magistrates warn"  is the headline of an article in today`s Law Society Gazette.  There are indeed valid questions to be asked about knife offender policy today as there have been for over a decade but my raison d`etre today is the lack of true informed opinion of magistrates owing to their having no mouthpiece other than the M.A. an organisation which should be asking itself why for a small tax deductible sum it has not achieved mass membership. Its attempts to keep the actual numbers of active member secret is itself a statement which throws a shadow over all its endeavours.  Government, i.e. the MOJ if it wanted to know what magistrates really think should undertake its own survey.  Perhaps that action has been considered and rejected because the answers from the  devil it knows might be infinitely preferable to those from one that it doesn`t know.  Indeed validation of opinion is not necessarily a priority for this government or any other for that matter. 

QUEUING FOR JUSTICE

"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. This dictum was laid down by Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England in the case of Rex v. Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256.  It is remarkable that this landmark ruling arose out of a minor collision case where the fine was just £10 with costs. Yet the King’s Bench issued a rule nisi and ultimately quashed the conviction merely because the deputy clerk was also present at the deliberations in the chamber of the Sussex justices. A century on from that case can it now be said with any conviction that the above dictum is still applied where justice is dispensed?  I would answer in the negative.  It could be answered that the essence of the word justice in the above context  is applicable only in the courts.  Of course forms of justice and authority are applied in many aspects of society. It is not for nothing that the supervisory body for the control of courts is His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service.  The list of tribunals and therefore the scope of control of HMCTS is so extensive that I challenge any reader to be acquainted with all of them listed here.  Can it be said without fear or favour that all the proceedings in those tribunals which are this country`s form of  the management of conflict and control  in a myriad of situations offer a form of justice which is seen to be done?  The Justice and Security Act (2013)   extended secret procedures into the main civil courts. Closed hearings are not unprecedented. Cases in the family division of the high court relating to child custody and divorce issues are regularly held in camera to protect privacy. However it is in the field of military intelligence that the use of closed court sessions can be most justified.  But secrecy has been endemic in British government thinking for generations; perhaps more than in any other western nation. When the open justice door has been closed once it enables its closing on future occasions when arguably the primary reason has been diluted. Currently it is the Single Justice Procedure introduced in magistrates courts in 2015 which has now reached the eyes and ears of the mass media. 

However secrecy and control have been utilised in another form by HMCTS with regard to the magistracy in particular. In London where I sat, for decades magistrates were involved in the control of their courts through a committee of  magistrates, at least one of whom had to be a district judge and mayoral and other local authority nominees. Not only did it own its courthouses and associated property but it also acted as a paying authority in its own right.  The magisterial member(s) was chosen by the whole bench and was usually the bench chairman him/herself chosen by his/her colleagues. In 2018 that position was reduced almost to an honorary position appealing to those who saw opportunity to advance their goal of  being appointed MBE or OBE at some future time.  They have been supplanted since 2018 by so called leadership magistrates; toadies to surreptitiously spy on their colleagues, leak propaganda to them, nudge them in various HMCTS directions...............?????   We just don`t know because the MOJ refuses to disclose their current identities or the benches on which they sit apart  from Duncan Webster JP,  OBE.   My post of 14/06/2018 was perhaps the first time this topic was aired publicly.  The identities of the original cohort I posted on 17/03/2020.  These names were apparently subsequently removed from publication. This is what Mr Google has to say.  The Parliamentary Justice Committee had its doubts on this innovation. 

There is no doubt that there are occasions when secrecy is paramount for a nation`s security.  Rampant Edward Snowdons are a danger to us all.  But within a civil population the erosion of open justice is a threat which must be taken more seriously by the supposed "great and the good"  although it could be argued that it is they who are driving forward this diminishing of our civil rights.  The most senior judiciary who are more concerned with their pensions perhaps than the finer points of citizens` rights under the law seem to break their silence only when their financial futures are securely within their bank accounts.  The axiom, If knowledge is power  then  secret knowledge is secret power.”  is probably drilled into the head of every Justice Minister and worker in Petty France.  Control! control! control!  A glance at any broadsheet headline or ten minutes on Twitter is an indication of where so many societies are heading.  For once we should be last in that long queue of aspirants. 

SUSPENDING CUSTODY

Health, immigration and crime; these three topics are, according to our political masters, the subjects most raised on the doorstep.  That term "doorstep" is shorthand for what a politician seeking election thinks will carry most meaning as a personal interest for the electors many of whom have never been visited by such an individual for many years.  My own suburban doorstep has been politician frei  for decades.  Nevertheless all three topics are a statistician`s delight.  Every aspect of the inner workings, inputs and outputs and much else of their function is argued over and debated from school children being encouraged to consider how society works to cabinet ministers agreeing to disagree to preserve party unity to improve their prospects of re-election. Crime, unlike the other two topics, for all the hubbub raised in media from time to time, is rarely an issue of personal involvement.  Opinions flare according to headline news.  Indeed that is why since 2010 government has been able to get away with closing half the country`s magistrates courts,  emasculating the legal aid service, imposing a secret courts system (the Single Justice Procedure) and using the recent pandemic as an alibi for trial delays of two years or more. The last decade has also seen that same government attempt to control the numbers of offenders who deserve immediate custody by virtue of government`s own sponsored sentencing guidelines.  There is no altruism involved.  No latent governmental compassion is involved.  Quite simply what was once a reasonably efficient probation service has been systematically ruined by government dictat and prison services allowed to deteriorate both in those still under their control and the remainder outsourced to companies whose shareholders` dividends are their sole reason for their existence.   Those are the reasons why a decade or more ago sentencing discretion in the courts which had followed an informal but well structured approach was abolished in favour of state controlled sentencing guidelines.  Suspended sentences were first introduced in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1967 but their availability to courts was greatly restricted by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which required the court to exercise its power to suspend a sentence only where it could be justified by the 'exceptional circumstances.  However On 4 April 2005 two new sentences for adults aged 18 and above became available to the courts in England and Wales: the Community Order and the Suspended Sentence Order (SSO). Both sentences were intended to narrow the custody/community divide and therefore were important factors for the development of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). Both were also intended to offer more robust, demanding and credible alternatives to short custodial sentences, thereby contributing to reductions in the prison population. Both should be served in the community.  From my own experience the basic judgement that the court had to be absolutely certain that the custodial threshold had been crossed before there could be consideration of its being suspended was often overlooked by fellow magistrates as well as probation officers in their pre sentence reports.  To this day, more than a decade into the current guideline, many media still refer to custody suspended as a get out of jail free card.  The number of persons who received suspended sentences at magistrates courts in 2006 when revised guidelines were introduced  increased more than three-fold over 2005 from 7,100 to 23,300, having been around 1,200 on average in the years from 1996 to 2004. The proportion of persons who were sentenced to suspended sentences at magistrates courts was two per cent in 2006, compared with 0.1 per cent in 2004, the last full year before the changes brought about by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.  In the year ended June 2021 the number of suspended custody orders made at magistrates courts was 8,395 or 1.16% of 722,563 sentenced that year.  The immediate custody rate for the same period was 1.5%. Undoubtedly the pandemic has had a major effect on the numbers during that time and is having a knock on effect with all courts severely backing up hearings.

In practice it is my opinion that it is difficult not to get an impression that there those deserving of immediate custody who are being given too often the benefit of the doubt insofar as the sentence being delivered is of custody suspended.  Just a few of such recent outcomes are listed below.  Media reports are as usual basic and only those attending these courts will have had  the same information as the bench but nevertheless until local court reporting becomes as regular on our TV screens as "breakfast television" or weather forecasts these reports are the only media on which we can base an opinion on the outcomes so readers` opinions are as valid as any. 

Leeds cleaner

Assault on police

Assault by police

Multiple drug driving

 

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW? I DON`T THINK SO

Controversy exists in all walks of life. It could be argued that it is within the practice of medicine and the interpretation of the law that that condition when it does exist  affects most people most often most seriously.  To some extent the judicial oath should minimise or eliminate much of the controversy in our courts. “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of ________ , and 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.”  Medical practitioners have their own historic words to affirm their intentions in the practice of their profession. Many people think that doctors still swear the Hippocratic Oath. It is not compulsory but in fact many medical schools now hold a ceremony where graduating doctors do swear an updated version. It is often said that the exact phrase "First do no harm" (Latin: Primum non nocere) is a part of the original Hippocratic oath. Although the phrase does not appear in the AD 245 version of the oath similar intentions are vowed by, "I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm".

And so to a situation where these two declarations clashed at City of London Magistrates’ Court.  At this point I must declare an interest.  As I have written previously I have experienced the result of Extinction Rebellion`s determination as an organisation to disrupt the daily lives of ordinary people going about their ordinary or extraordinary but lawful business by blocking the public highway.  Having said that the following comment is based simply on fact.  

Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 grants the police the power to impose conditions upon public assemblies which govern the time, location and circumstances of such assemblies. They are only permitted to do this if a senior police officer reasonably believes that:
 
1. An assembly may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community; or
 2.The purpose of the assembly is to intimidate others into doing or not doing something which they have a legal right to do.

In the case of the Extinction Rebellion protests the Met Police have stated that they believe the protests have caused serious disruption to the community, following what they say have been ongoing breaches of previous section 14 conditions. The courts have said that any conditions imposed under s.14 must not amount to a disproportionate interference with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Earlier this month seven medical professionals were acquitted by a District Judge of a breach of article 14 on the grounds that  he was "not convinced that the necessary steps that are required for the imposition of section 14 had been taken". Of reports that I have checked none has reported if the judge explained that observation. In my humble opinion the court, the CPS and the public are owed an explanation for his action. Certainly from my own experience of the admittedly relatively limited times of presiding over high profile cases the legal advisor would have politely suggested that my pronouncement should include the complete reasoning for the bench`s decision including what said steps deemed to have been omitted.  In addition it appears that the judge was pre disposed to the fact that the defendants were doctors. According to a report "The judge was ‘impressed by the integrity and rationality of their beliefs’ and found doctors’ evidence ‘highly moving’."  Thus by his own comment the judge was emotionally motivated in reaching his decision.  The defendants` occupations had obviously been a major factor in his conclusions.  Consider for one moment what the decision might have been had these defendants been unemployed or poorly educated workers exercising what they had considered to be their "rights".  Indeed in that instance would the police themselves have acted differently.  These questions should not arise from this case.  The law should be equal for all. This hearing shows clearly that that is and has been for decades a misconception. 

SNIPPETS

Sometimes there are snippets of information which in the excess media output showered upon us all in any 24 hour period are often overlooked.  These snippets are today the subject of my post. 

Judges can be bullies.  I doubt that there are many lawyers who disagree with that assessment.  But it is not I offering this opinion it is Lord Burnett the big chief himself. A comprehensive report in the Law Society Gazette can be found here.  However unlike the disciplinary bodies of the vast majority of professions the general public will rarely be aware of these episodes of misconduct and in the current climate the "m" word is certainly appropriate.  There will be discreet "advice" offered for most cases when judges` godlike behaviour or language  exceeds what is termed "tolerable" by those judging the judges.  Only the most serious matters will ever reach the eyes and/or ears of Joe Public.  There are those who view the current way of handling such cases in private as essential for retaining public confidence in the judiciary and hence the law and hence the government which makes such law. Whilst there is a whiff of an argument in that position it is now untenable.  When universal websites and interactive social media conspiracy theorists and rumour mongers benign or benevolent  are just around so many corners it renders that policy time to be overhauled.  Those that do feature in the 1984 version of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office deserve at least for them and for us a full explanation of their situations.  The General Medical Council was for decades also secretive about its actions when its members fell foul of their own ethics or the law of the land. Not before time its disciplinary processes are now open to those interested.  

There is no doubt that magistrates who transgress receive shorter shrift at the hands of the aforesaid JCIO than others who feature in its disciplinary statement. But how do lawyers fare in comparison?  From this example it would appear that the Law Society is much more tolerant of aberrant behaviour than others performing a similar function to protect the population from those who fail to abide by internal rules of behaviour.  Certainly a magistrate would be sacked if s/he were guilty as  Simon Trees a solicitor partner. 

I am old enough to remember when from time to time one broadsheet or another would comment on how a defendant in India had been remanded in custody for perhaps 10 years or more before being acquitted at trial.  "How awful" would be the Comment or Opinion column which would then go on to congratulate the British justice system for its professionalism where such outrageous delays could not happen and especially when the result was acquittal.  Such glorious national chest beating by the legal profession and its mouthpieces like homing pigeons has come home to roost. DPP Max Hill has said that 74,587 cases at crown courts were live (between charge and trial) at the end of September. Asked if the government’s target of bringing down the backlog to 53,000 by March 2025 was achievable, he replied: ‘A large number of things would need to align for that to take place. It’s certainly achievable to return to the backlog below 50,000. That’s where the system was, at 43,000, in February 2020. But to achieve that now, at a baseline of almost 75,000, a number of things would have to happen.’  On the current economic climate and impact of potential budget cuts, Hill said: 'If we are not able to maintain the budget that we were given in the spending round of 2021, and we are therefore not able to maintain the expansion in our numbers within that budget envelope, I think it will be catastrophic for our work, it will be catastrophic in terms of the impact on the backlog. In simple terms, I will not be able to say to CPS staff, "just work even harder". I have said that already.'  With the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer due in 48 hours and predictions of budgets being decimated the future of our courts being able to offer simple, speedy justice seems unlikely at best and a descent into Indian standards of tardiness at worst.  

For many years it has been obvious that the government will check out any method that keeps people out of jail provided that it retains the public`s confidence and that statistically it reduces recidivism. Enter remote monitoring. At 30 September 2022, the total number of individuals actively monitored was 14,996 , an increase from 13,371 as at 30 September 2021. The number of individuals actively monitored under a court bail order was 5,979 as at 30 September 2022 or 40% of all individuals actively monitored. This is a 9% increase from 5,471 as at 30 September 2021. Between 30 September 2021 and 30 September 2022 the number of individuals actively monitored with a location monitoring device (GPS) increased by 143% (from 2,161 to 5,243). This increase is the result of the continued roll-out of electronic monitoring to new offender cohorts, particularly immigration bail. As at 30 September 2022, 1,503 individuals were actively monitored with an alcohol monitoring device, a 153% increase from 593 as at 30 September 2021. This reflects both the continued national roll-out of alcohol monitoring from March 2021 and the introduction of alcohol monitoring for prison leavers.  Whatever the cost involved in tagging it is much cheaper than keeping an offender in prison the average cost of which is £926 per week.  What is difficult to calculate is the failure and/or recidivist rate.  Perhaps a criminologist reading this can supply some answers. 

Earlier this year  in 47 Crown Courts in England   pre- recorded cross examination became available to victims and witnesses of crimes such as rape and modern slavery. The video was then able to be played later during trial subject to a successful application to the court.  By the recording taking place as close to the time of the offence as possible memories remain fresh, and helps victims avoid the stress of giving evidence in a live trial which some might find traumatic.  Many statistics on rape and conviction rates are open to speculation and the politics of the observer.  What is obvious and cannot be denied is that an act which for most people is lawful ie sexual intercourse must be separated from a not dissimilar act which is a very serious offence.  Sometimes the proverbial counting of the angels on a pinhead might be considered simpler to codify. 

Finally for those who wish to know the latest criminal statistics here is your opportunity. 

STATISTICS, SPEEDING AND THE FACIAL CARBUNCLE OF THE SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE

Cases at magistrates courts are usually routine insofar as they involve breaches of the law committed by thousands annually. Last year 48% of cars exceeded the limit on motorways; 11% of cars exceeded the limit on national speed limit single carriageways and 51% of cars exceeded the limit on 30mph roads. The proportions of cars complying with the speed limit were 52% on motorways, 89% on national speed limit (NSL) single carriageways and 49% on 30mph roads.On NSL single carriageway roads 11% of cars exceeded the speed limit compared to 51% on 30mph roads and 48% on motorways.The proportion of cars exceeding the speed limit by over 10mph on 30mph roads was 5%, whilst 1% and 10% exceeded the speed limit by more than 10mph on NSL single carriageway roads and motorways respectively. The RAC Report on Motoring 2021 asked users to select up to three reasons why they exceed the speed limit for each road class. The respondents who admitted to exceeding the speed limit on motorways selected a greater number of reasons on average than those who admitted exceeding the speed limit on 20mph roads. Of these five reasons the top reason given was “I drive according to the speed of other road users”, cited by 40% of motorway users and 33% of 30mph road users. On 20mph roads users most often cited the speed limit being inappropriate as the contributor to their exceeding the speed limit (49%). All the above are hard statistics. For those involved there was an 90% conviction ratio for people proceeded against for speed limit offences in England and Wales in 2021 (187,000 were found guilty). In 2021, 33% of motoring convictions were for speed limit offences. It is unlikely that any magistrate on any day is aware of all these numbers and many more concerning the results of these transgressions. As of 2019, the Single Justice Procedure  accounted for 57% of the 1.5 million cases passing through magistrates courts in England and Wales. In 2020-21, 2,426,950 speeding offences were detected in England and Wales. These represented 86% of the total number of all motoring offences for all of England and Wales.  I have so far been unable to discover the number of speeding offences undertaken through the Single Justice Procedure. 

There can be few of us who have not driven past two or more  speed cameras on a motorway whilst exceeding the speed limit on that stretch of tarmac.  The police must send the actual speeding ticket, i.e. the Fixed Penalty Notice, within six months of the date of the offence. They can only send the speeding ticket if they previously sent the Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days. With a six month delay allowed for prosecution those of a nervous disposition are liable to experience a few sleepless nights. A defendant who had the experience of multiple charges for excessive speed on a single journey decided to exercise his right to a court hearing.  Personally not once in my time on the Bench did I sit on any situation remotely similar. I would hazard an opinion that my lack of experience in that regard is common amongst JPs.  My point in all this statistical overload is the likelihood of so many defendants with a clean license in a similar situation, perhaps with two lapses involving 6 penalty points, or three with 9 points at stake being unable or unwilling to take their case to a full hearing at a magistrates court open to the public and to that diminished coterie of court reporters. Increasingly warranted criticism of the SJP is beginning to move some "movers and shakers" in the direction I have advocated since its inception.  It is a carbuncle on the face of British justice and it should be abolished.