DO WE?????????

Do we have confidence that the quality of appointees will be assured?  Can we be certain that an emphasis on diversity inclusion and equality will not be detrimental to that quality?

THE JCIO UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has been a topic here on more than one occasion.  It oversees all quangos and government bodies authorised and controlled by the Ministry of Justice.  Rarely are the professional judiciary the subject of disclosure within this authority although from time to time District Judges and tribunal members or coroners are called to account. Generally their failings have been on a procedural level rather than on the personal.  More senior judiciary rarely appear on this site.  Perhaps that is because they are so well trained and ensconced in their profession that personal or procedural errors are as rare as hens` teeth.  There is of course a nagging doubt that within the elevated investigative process of possible misdemeanours of senior judiciary  a behind closed doors form of retribution is involved.  Be that as it may for 14,576 Justices of the Peace the buck stops at the JCIO recent decisions of which might lead to some raised eyebrows at its scope and consistency.  

The sanctions available to the JCIO are as follows:-

• Formal advice

• Formal warning

• Reprimand

• Removal

It operates under this guidance. 

Take the case of Nargis Alsadiq.  There seems to be an unexplained delay in her being thrown out of the magistracy.  Such paucity of reporting can lead to wild speculation.  Was she being protected by those around her?  We, the general public, will never know.  How long had she been sitting in judgement on her fellow citizens? We are not privy to such knowledge. Was her earlier judicial performance trustworthy? We will never know. 

Mr Joseph Lindo ex JP had also failed to meet the minimum number of sittings required. From my own and colleagues` experiences the onerous [to some] time commitments necessary to meet a minimum level of the hurdles placed before aspiring JPs can hope for selection should have been at the forefront of the appointment committee.  He too has been dismissed.  

I find it difficult not to have some sympathy for Daniel Barker JP.  Having been in a similar situation myself with a colleague assigned [headmistress by profession] to appraise me as a winger and whose manner was overbearing and condescending I cannot but be mindful that the report is but a summary.  Were his colleagues approached by him or the investigator?  We`ll never know. 

The report on Valerie Humphrey tells us nothing of her history.  Once again the most common cause for removal is non fulfilment of minimum sittings.  

A formal warning of misconduct was the sanction employed against Jonathan Dannatt JP.  Some might consider he got off lightly. 

Formal advice for misconduct  was then result of multiple occasions of social media activity by Kirk Master JP. According to the report he "confirmed that he did not refer to his judicial status in any of the posts".  Some might query the less severe outcome for him cf MMr Dannatt above.  

Ms Justine Dyson JP lives to sit again another day.  Does her receiving a light tap on her knuckles square with others?  There are many investigators and decisions on different cases are not comparable or sometimes compatible. 

Finally today  Mr Edwin Hastings-Smith JP is able to continue offering suitable announcements and/or pronouncements from the middle chair.  It seems inconceivable but obviously wasn`t for a presiding magistrate to allow his tongue to run wild as his did.  

Generally 15-20 magistrates are removed annually from the bench.  The above is just a recent sample.  But some decisions leave this observer just a little bewildered.  Inconsistency seems inevitable.  Anonymity is the order of the day for those sitting in judgement.  Are thresholds varied according to the rank of those under investigation? For presiding magistrates it seems obvious to me at least that a missing sanction could be demotion to status as winger for a fixed period.  Similar results for misdeeds are common in other professions.  But then the Ministry of Justice thrives on the virus of secrecy which is transmitted to so many supervisory bodies in this country as we are well aware.  Secret processes, secret processors, secret decision making in so many aspects of our society are gradually being exposed to a public previously kept in the dark until an awful calamity is revealed having happened as a direct result of that secrecy. Certainly innocent people won`t be murdered, die unnecessarily, be unjustly imprisoned or be aggrieved by magistrates failing to live up to the rules they have accepted on appointment. Sometimes the greater the emphasis or wordiness on or within a judicial or quasi judicial process is inversely proportional to the common sense required for that process to be based on simple logic and/or fairness. The arguably arbitrary judgements of the JCIO are symbolic of much that could be improved in many aspects of the decisions made by those who rule over our daily lives as citizens.  

There was a popular TV programme some years ago about looking through the keyhole.  Perhaps the JCIO needs examination under a legal microscope. 

JUST ANOTHER TYPICAL DAY FOR COURTS

 

DO WE NEED LAY MAGISTRATES?

Failings of many public bodies have been filling air waves of broadcasting, pages of print and gigabytes of digital media for years. I would surmise that these failings have increased greatly this millenium although that opinion is possibly to have originated from whistleblowers and investigative journalists less likely to have been intimated by the authorities than in previous years.  Indeed just last week Sir Julian Hartley the newly appointed  chief executive of the Care Quality Commission  admitted that the public could no longer trust safety ratings when choosing a care home for elderly relatives. The point I have posited previously is whether the failure of such bodies should be blamed upon the ineptitude of those who appoint the overseers.




When it comes to the constitution of magistrates courts about 10% of criminal cases are presided over by a professional District Judge the remainder by a bench of three Justices of the Peace. At the turn of the millenium there were about 300 courts, 30,000 magistrates and about 100 District Judges [MC]. Currently there are 150 magistrates courts and 14,576 magistrates an increase of 2,907 since the start of the Magistrate Attraction and Recruitment Campaign in January 2022 which is thought to have cost up to £2 million. Of the increase in numbers, 786 were re-appointments following changes to the Mandatory Retirement Age. There are around 300 District Judges a limited number of whom can earn up to £180,00 p/a although an average is £143,000. In 2023 District Judges and their deputies sat on 17.56% of cases at magistrates courts.




Lord Justice Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts {2001} indicated that that there could be a marginal reduction in costs if magistrates were superseded by DJs such margins increasing if legal advisors were also dismissed. Similar soundings are currently being undertaken at Petty France. But for the present, in 2023 there were 1.37 million cases undertaken at magistrates courts and at 30/9/2024 there were 327,228 cases outstanding. Since 18th November last year magistrates have had the power to sentence up to 12 months custody for a single offence. With such an onerous responsibility how can we be certain that those on the bench are competent for the task? During my 17 years on that bench, the majority as a presiding magistrate, I was appraised twice; once as a winger during a sitting by a presiding magistrate colleague of my own bench and once from the well of the court by a presiding magistrate from another bench as I was active in the middle chair for a full sitting. There was another occasion when three well dressed middle aged men sitting at the back of the court over which I was presiding spent a whole sitting taking copious notes the whole time. Who they were or for what purpose I knew not then and am non the wiser now.




For the Judicial College Activities Report Summary of expenditure 2022-2023 £19 million was the total allocated for judicial training. There is not a single sentence on what was allocated to the continuous training of magistrates. Current figures are unavailable but ten years ago a Freedom of Information request provided the following:-

I would like to know: 

1) how much was spent on the training of lay magistrates by a) the Judicial College and b) HMCTS (nationally or locally) in 2014/15

2) and the annual cost of training for District Judges and Deputy District Judges (both magistrates' courts) for the same year.

 Answers

Question 1(a)

I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for and this is provided as follows:

Training Development Committee £22,700

Bench Chairmanship Course £37,540

Family Panel Chairmanship   £4,500

Magistrates Association Grant (for joint training projects) £10,000

TOTAL £74,740

Question 1(b)

The Judicial College does not hold information that you have asked for as it belongs to HMCTS. Each Magistrates’ Area Training Committee (MATC) is asked to produce an annual training plan and agree funding with its local HMCTS delivery director. 

Each MATC is required to provide a range of information on an annual basis to show what training it delivered during the year, and how much money was spent. So, I can advise you on a discretionary basis and outside the scope of the FOIA that from the reports that each MATC is required to provide, there is a collated figure of £632,201 for the period 2014/15. Unfortunately, one MATC did not advise the actual figure spent on training but has since confirmed it was within its budget of £43,921. This figure was included in the collated figure instead which means the total is not exact but very close.  

Question 2

I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for. It is not possible to fully separate the budget figures between the DJ(MC)s and their deputies as some continuation training events are attended jointly. Where it is possible to show separation it has been done. 

Deputy District Judges £28,000

District Judges & Deputies (joint) £122,000

Total £150,000

A 2019 parliamentary report of the House of Commons Justice Committee highlighted the fact that there was inadequate funding of continuing training for magistrates.  It is highly unlikely that that situation has improved.  

The question now is for how much longer can this country continue to appoint lay magistrates whose competence cannot be assured when financially professional judges sitting without the need for legal advisors are possibly cheaper.  The idea often heralded by senior judiciary and their masters in government is that local justice for local people is a time honoured tradition which works well, so why change it.  It might have worked well when towns and villages were often isolated owing to the insularity of 19th century England, the limitations of local assizes and the limited jurisdiction of itinerant judges.  Entering the second quarter of the 21st century with pounds and pence being counted even more assiduously by the necessarily most  parsimonious government since 2010 it would not take much financial persuasion if the government were to effect yet another U turn on magistrates by restricting their court powers and relegating them to back up District Judges as JP wingers do for Crown Court Judges at appeals against the lowers courts` verdicts or sentences.  

Do we need lay magistrates?

Do we want lay magistrates?

Can we afford their demise? 

FROM THE STABLES AT PETTY FRANCE

 

From the mouth of the horse at Petty France today

Sarah Sackman The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

Recruitment rates for the magistracy are published in the annual Judicial Diversity Statistics, found here. As of 01 April 2024, there were 14,576 active magistrates in England and Wales, an increase of 2,907 since the start of the Magistrate Attraction and Recruitment Campaign in January 2022. Of these, 786 were re-appointments following changes to the Mandatory Retirement Age. The next set of statistics for the period April 2024 to March 2025 will be published in July 2025.

BIG WIGS, BIGGER WIGS AND BIGGEST WIGS

Almost two years ago the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police warned all who cared to listen that there would be monthly improvements in the Met`s handling of misconduct cases.  It seems that unsurprisingly there has been kick back an example of which is the case of  Sergeant Lino Di Maria. It seems there is hardly a supervisory body in this country which has not been shown to be unable or unwilling to fulfil its prime function in ensuring that those where there is a responsibility to expose for misconduct or failure are actually punished. The media generally are interested in the mackerels and not the spratts. However it is within the "spratt" communities from architects to zoologists that the noses of misconduct sniff the possibilities of evading professional restrictions for devious purposes.



There were many arbitrary decisions made by public bodies during the pandemic that passed by most observers but this decision  re  Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council’s refusal to renew the licenses of six taxi drivers during the Covid-19 pandemic does seem to be inconsistent.  It is extremely unlikely that the matter will be taken any further owing to the high costs which would be required.  The eight year old age restriction of taxis does not appear to be founded on inspection.  And to quote the report, "But Mr Justice Linden suggested that the district judge’s ruling could logically mean that “anyone who was able to show that they could not afford a new vehicle could argue for an exception” and warned this could “risk inconsistent decision making and thereby undermine the policy of the council.”  It hardly needs pointing out but who is to say that "the policy of the council" does not need some undermining.  

Yet again a criminal behaviour order [CBO] has been reported  in local press media.  They can be obtained against anyone over the age of 10. For a CBO the threshold is that the person has engaged or is likely to engage in behaviour that is almost certain to cause harassment, alarm or distress and that the CBO will help in preventing it. They are one half of the regime introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to replace the perhaps better-known ASBOs when those orders were abolished in England and Wales. The other half of the regime is the civil injunction.  They are issued on the civil standard of proof: i.e. more likely than not as distinct from the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt or sure.  They are effectively displacement orders about which I have railed for years.  Indeed I sat on the very first case ever brought.  We rejected that application as it had not been presented according to the legal requirements. The MOJ is reticent on numbers requested or applied but figures showed that in 2016 932 CBOs were issued following conviction, an increase of 35% on the previous year.  Subsequent attempts to seek current numbers were refused under Freedom of Information Act cost restrictions. 

In an age when increasingly service of important documents by mail is unavailable and e mail is the single method employed it is refreshing to know that landlords can legally send essential tenancy documents in the post.  Whether this decision at the Appeal Court will be known by many tenants and landlords remains to be seen as will the argument of non receipt, lost in the post be acceptable cause for action or inaction.

And final snippet today is the duly and patiently awaited result of an application that the judges involved in the sad case of Sarah Sharif are to be identified.  The original decision of anonymity has been castigated here and in many places where much higher levels of  legal brain power have been applied.  There are so many aspects of our legal, quasi legal systems and organisations whose workings are held to be not suitable for public knowledge that any dictator would relish as a wonderful base on which to control this country.  With political extremes likely to be every day conversation in 2029 this is a timely reminder as in the Metropolitan Police that when in doubt let secrets out.  

IS REFORM UK A RALLYING CRY OR A WARNING?

I assume by now that my reader has watched or read at least some of the goings on yesterday in Washington DC. Today on the news I watched our prime minister in typical lawyerly tones admit that there was much amiss with the process of investigation and outcomes of the failure to predict the intent of the killer of those three children in Southport and his other crimes on that awful day.  The presentation was flat and very boring in comparison with the re-elected POTUS #47. I asked myself , "does presentation or rhetorical ability matter?" "Does it have any bearing on our voting intentions or implications for our democratic systems?"  In my humble opinion the answer must be in the affirmative.  The follow up therefore could be does such an ability signify competence for the chosen job; namely as a democratically elected person to further his/her political intentions and the answer to that must surely be in the negative. 

There are amongst those who are all too ready to believe what to most are outlandish theories covering many walks of life.  In broad terms their refusal to face fact is based on a lack of transparency from the authorities or personnel associated with the matter in question.  So it could be posited that the flames of conspiracy theories are fanned by the very people who are trying to negate those who in our tech age can spread their rivers of poison to an ocean of those whose political or psychological make up renders them susceptible to all manner of mumbo jumbo.  Nowhere is this more true than in the justice system because when there appears to have been drawn a curtain over some legal or illegal process additional crumbling of that pillar of our democracy takes place whether it is further shunning of local elections and/or political vacuum filling by rabble rousers.   The case of Mr Justice Williams and his banning of the publication of  the identity of a fellow judge and the names of those involved in the aforementioned apparent incompetence pre the Southport murders must be considered to have left a gap in the minds of some who are all too willing to fit their own theories to the known facts. A well reasoned article can be accessed here.  

Perhaps the most ridiculous belief for a diminishing coterie of the unhinged is the "flat earther" There are still those who do really believe the Earth is flat.  The reality of such unscientific nonsense is not confined to our age of instant information true or false; it was demonstrated  in January 1875 at the trial at the Essex Assizes.  A little light hearted relief might be of interest.

Belief in the outlandish is perhaps part of the human condition.  There is no doubt that Aristotle was and is a towering figure amongst the billions who have lived in the last two millennia.  But it took a practical man of science, Leonardo, to lay the foundations of inter alia engineering, anatomy and perspective in art to push aside theory for experiment to form the basis of much of our understanding of the modern world. 

Often it`s been said that what happens in America happens in Britain a short time later.  Are we on a timeline which validates such an observation?  Those who seek unjustifiably to prevent public knowledge of the many drivers and levers, controls and artifices  which determine the structure of our society are themselves the propagandists and initiators of those who would undermine them like the person in his ignorance on a tree branch trying to get down by sawing away the very item which is keeping him alive.  Is the re-election of Donald Trump a rallying cry for reform within our society or a warning of what`s ahead? 

A FLY ON THE WALL @ THE MOJ

Not unexpectedly 2025 has begun with the pillars designed to uphold our justice system being further worn away.  The erosion being enacted before our eyes can I suppose be compared to the situation where an anorexic patient is verging on self destruction despite the restorative and/or palliative measures family and medical staff undertake.  The question arises as to when a point of no return is reached.  Sentencers have officially been told to avoid wherever and whenever possible the imposition of immediate custodial sentences.  They have also been told with ever increasing volume to put victims first.  There is a code of practice to this effect.  Personally I have always thought that justice should be blind but such a position now appears to be obsolescent.  

When judges follow the first directive mentioned above it would appear extremely unlikely that they are satisfying the second. Every day in every court there are offenders who are benefitting from the overcrowding in our prisons.  Each such judicial decision is an afront to justice and each, like the so called Chinese water torture, reduces resistance to opposing such policy by the drip drip effect of undermining public  confidence that the application of law will apply in all cases.  Public trust is diminished and self reliance becomes the order of the day. Whilst that attitude might be suitable in a country with less strict laws on defending one`s property or person it has been tempered in this country by society`s acceptance that the state will be there to protect the innocent and punish the guilty appropriately. 

In 2002 David Howard, a former teacher, engaged in sexual activity while in a position of trust.  That society might have been better served had he been jailed is a moot point.  What is also questionable is the increasing trend of charges being brought without time limit on their alleged occurrence.  There is more on that at the conclusion to this post. 

A suspended custody order was also placed recently on George Szulhan for a sexual offence against a young girl.  Many observers might conclude that that too was an afront to justice. 

Mold Crown Court was the venue where Brett Wilding was sentenced for one offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one of strangulation against his then partner.  His 20 month custodial sentence was suspended for 18 months.  I remember very clearly the worst case of domestic abuse during my 17 years on the bench. A young man had pulled his heavily pregnant girl friend down a flight of stairs by her hair and was  consequently charged  with "assault by beating". He had caused her severe bruising but thankfully no harm to the unborn child.  We gave him 6 months immediate custody.  But around the turn of the millenium there was still arguably a functioning justice system where offenders generally were sentenced in a manner to which their crimes warranted without fear or favour, Sentencing Guidelines or government directive. 

As alluded to above there is virtually no statute of limitations under the English legal system.  TV programmes of recent years have earned millions of viewers when the topic has been of cold cases: Waking the Dead, New Tricks  The rise of the Me Too movement has prompted many hundreds of alleged victims to come forward with claims of unlawful unwanted sexual activities against them.  There have also been scandals of such cases where the accuser has been shown to be a liar and has been jailed for perverting the course of justice.  Ex MP Harvey Procter has been a long standing example of the harm that can follow such unfounded accusations.   For those interested in the arguments for and against a statute of limitations a good place to begin is here , here and here. 

With no sign of the courts` backlog decreasing any time soon; indeed it will probably increase, it is likely that defendants and their lawyers will offer "memory lapse" as an argument against prosecution witnesses.  With a guilty requirement necessitating a juror to be "sure" of his/her decision this doesn`t bode well for the future.  The current Secretary of State for Justice [how long will she last] has offered all sorts of possible proposals to alleviate this situation. However they are but paper tokens in a hurricane. Ministry of Justice permanent secretary Dame Antonia Romeo has been forced to come clean.  It would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall when she subsequently spoke to the Secretary of State.  

CAN OPTIMISM BE ENOUGH FROM NOW TO 2029?

Traditionally the first entry in a diary or history reflects in the new year on the highs and lows of that previous. Some commenters are telling us that the  peak of "woke" has passed and that the western world has started to recover its senses.  That is certainly a matter of opinion. 

 With the justice system being subjected to yet more conjecture on how the headlong gallop to systemic breakdown might be averted notwithstanding that every day between 20% - 25% of all the crown courts available are not being utilised a brief look at the structure of advisory committees is of some interest.  If courts are the engines of the system the committees are the designers and assemblers of these engines.  Their "rules of engagement" govern a typically British way of doing things.  Unlike eg USA where many posts in the public domain are elective the British way is of appointment.  The Advisory Committee responsible for the appointment  of magistrates, its composition and its rules is available here.  Of particular or peculiar interest is the following on pp13:-

Application procedure for Advisory Committee members

1.66 These principles apply to the handling of all applications:

• applications must be handled fairly, consistently and expeditiously;

• candidates must be assessed on merit – no other factors must be

considered;  [my bold] 

• candidates must be treated with courtesy and respect;

• it is unlawful for candidates to be excluded or disadvantaged based on

any protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 20105; and

• information about an individual gained through the selection process is confidential

All above seems fair and square or does it.  From Official Statistics:- 

User guide to diversity of the judiciary statistics

Updated 17 December 2024 is the following:

2.2 Judicial appointments

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA) enshrined in law the independence of the judiciary and changed the way judges are appointed. As a result of the Act, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) was set up in April 2006 to make the appointments process clearer and more accountable. Under the CRA, the JAC’s statutory duties are to:

select applicants solely on merit [my bold] 

select only those with good character

encourage a diverse range of applicants

As part of its diversity strategy, the JAC publishes the diversity profile of applicants at application, shortlisting and recommendation stages.

Perhaps somebody can argue that the bold requirement can live equally with the last of the three "statuary duties"?

Having selected those suitable for judicial appointment those same committees are responsible for advising the Lord Chancellor on the chastisement of those who break the judicial guidelines.  In the calendar year just ended 15 magistrates were removed from the judiciary and 4 tribunal members were similarly ousted.  Not a single judge from recorder to the highest level was fired although there were other lesser sanctions for transgressors. Even  Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram had his fall from grace cushioned when many thought dismissal appropriate.  But then that would be the big wigs admitting failure and that cannot be allowed; can it?  There have been accusations that the Metropolitan Police are operating two tier policing with regard to the almost rampant unpunished  displays of antisemitism by supporters of Gazans.  Surely such double thinking cannot be happening under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice? 

In a nation where we are all becoming inured to politicians refusing to answer legitimate questions is the judiciary becoming just another tool of government when the political establishment feels threatened; eg the very harsh sentences as a result of the summer riots. Many jurisdictions since 1945 have been in thrall to government diktat.  Who`s to say that in this country that would never happen?

As per my post of last week my glass is still half full but for how long can optimism be enough from now to 2029? 

THAT WAS THE YEAR THAT WAS

Another year is about to end and another to begin.  And so the cycle continues. Magistrates are now but a pawn on this government`s chessboard.  It would appear that the principle of local justice for local people by local people is merely camouflage netting for providing ways and means of processing as many defendants as quickly as possible.  The Single Justice Procedure exposed in all its ignominy a few months ago is now but a forgotten pimple on the face of a rotten and rotting justice system.  

At the other end of the judicial hierarchy judicial incompetence, inefficiency, bias, prejudice or add a suitable noun from many, is kept under wraps as much as possible.  Of course there is the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office available to supposedly expose the misdemeanours of judicial office holders but in reality it`s usually only the erring spratts that are seen in daylight; the bewigged mackerels are spoken to behind closed doors.  Towards this year`s end Mr Justice Williams in the High Court ruled that the judges involved in the family court proceedings concerning murdered child Sara Sharif should remain anonymous as should all those professionally involved in safeguarding the child from her birth when she was assessed even then as being vulnerable.  His argument that public exposure would put the safety of all those involved at risk is moot and is being appealed. The machinations of secret disciplinary processes for senior judges should be of concern to all open minded people who are fearful that our individual freedoms are on the salami slicer. 

When Ireland, its people and its government appear to be in the vanguard of castigating Israel = Zionists = Jews it is not a little disturbing to read allegations that Mr Justice Robert Lowry a former chief justice of Northern Ireland "dislikes Jews as much as he dislikes Catholics". Perhaps now that Catholics and Protestants can live in some semblance of peaceful c0-existance the few Jews remaining in the province can continue to escape the hate against them propagated by so many supposed "progressive" western societies.




Hardly a week goes by without a police officer somewhere in England being given the boot. As far as the Metropolitan Police Commissionaire; he forecast earlier this year that there would not be a week without one of his officers being disciplined. He was optimistic. Latest statistics on disciplinary activity against police can be described as: take your pick of appalling, revealing, understated, expected, disturbing, surprising or add your own. The College of Policing provides an insight into how our supposedly wonderful police service is failed by some of those at the top.

Is the glass bringing in 2025 half empty or half full?

HOPE OVER DESPAIR

Justice to many people is reading or hearing of the apparent ever lengthening sentences handed down to rapists, terrorists and child murderers.  As of 18 January 2021 Kit Malthouse said that there were 13 million person records, 58.5 million driver records and 62.6 million vehicle records stored on the Police National Computer [PNC]. The PNC is currently directly managed by the Home Office.  According to a Ministry of Justice extract of PNC data there were 9.4 million offenders of working age (16-64) with a nominal record as opposed to the population of 42.4m.  I suppose it can be assumed that around 40%- 50% of the adult population can be considered as having at some time been classified within the system as offenders the majority of whom will have been registered as guilty at a magistrates court hearing.  

There are around 14,000 magistrates, 140 District Judges{MC} and a similar number of Deputy District Judges {MC}. With the backlog in summary matters reaching chaotic proportions the MOJ is once more scratching its bewigged head in how to expedite the situation before its total collapse.  Legal eagles of all denominations will be crying "here we go again".  This time Sir Brian Leveson, he the author  of the controversial "Leveson Review" of 2012   has been handed the poisoned chalice.  Disregarding the closure of half the country`s magistrates courts and apart from such minor changes as increasing magistrates courts sentencing powers from 6 to 12 months custody and then reversing that decision a short time later, the integration of  the courts into His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service, the introduction of digital technology has probably been the main updating of the whole system.  

At the turn of the millenium Lord Justice Auld was similarly charged.  At that time there was relatively little pressure on the system as we now understand it.  The review was more an intellectual exercise in improving what we had by examining existing resources.  As far as magistrates were concerned the general political argument by the then respected Magistrates Association was the more power to jail offenders the better.  From Auld`s point of view the structure of the courts, the utilisation of manpower  and the costs were his paramount concerns.  There is speculation that the impending review might recommend an intermediate level of jurisdiction where a District Judge would preside assisted by two magistrate wingers as is the composition  at crown court appeals where the judge is of the crown court or a recorder.  I can confidently predict that the M.A. would resist that and be prepared "to die on that hill."  Indeed Auld himself rejected that innovation. 

"I recommend that in the exercise of their summary

jurisdiction:

• District Judges and magistrates should not routinely

sit as mixed tribunals to deal with the general range or

any particular type of case or form of proceeding,

though there may be training and local ‘cultural’

advantages in their doing so from time to time"

But that was then and this is now.  There is little doubt that district judges sitting alone without the need for a legally qualified clerk would cost not much different from lay magistrates` expenses plus the salaries of legal advisors. They would also get through more work without the need to retire as often or confer. There is also the question of whether the intellectual quality of the magistracy is as it was a generation ago now that there is high pressure for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).  

Lord Justice Auld`s Review was masterful in his analysis of the magistrates courts.  The impending exercise will have a political blueprint as much as an economic or judicial point of view.  It has been ordered from current weaknesses; its predecessor`s was from a neutral position.   My experience tells me that a majority of criminal lawyers would welcome the limiting of the lay magistracy to non custodial matters.  Indeed they would probably welcome the Scottish form of a Justice of the Peace who hears cases limited to theft, minor assault, antisocial behaviour and road traffic offences where their powers are limited to fines of up to £2,500, prison for up to 2 months, disqualifications and unpaid work in the community.

Although at this time of year hope should overcome despair, for most of the public all this will appear to be a new government`s further attempt to move on from the previous ineptitude of the last 13/14  years.  With the history of the failures at Petty France in full view who can say that that opinion has no validity? 

Finally I thank those who give me some of their valuable minutes to read my opinions.  Whatever one`s religious or non religious affiliations please respect and enjoy the peace and goodwill associated with Christmas and New Year.

BREAD AND CIRCUSES FOR MODERN TIMES

One of the simplest analogies used to describe the benefits of our economy is to compare it to a rising tide where all the vessels sitting in the harbour will rise, the larger cruisers rising more than the rowing boats. Enlarge that rising tide ranging from the start of the industrial revolution to the beginning of this millenium and most economists would agree with Harold Macmillan, prime minister from 1957-1963, who was quoted on 20th July 1957 when he made an optimistic speech telling fellow Conservatives that "most of our people have never had it so good". From his patrician point of view it could be said he was speaking down to a majority of this country`s people. But on the other hand the NHS was providing fine healthcare for all but a small minority who chose and could afford private healthcare.




In 1959 there were 71,692 warranted police officers in England and Wales roughly half the current number. As of March 31 2024 the UK had 170,500 police officers which is 244 officers per 100,000 people. In 1961 there were 807 people for every police officer in England and Wales whereas the most recent figures in a House of Commons briefing paper show that there are now 462 people for every officer. It would be a brave statistician who would argue that that the 1960s was a more lawless era than that since 2000.




Despite the reform of the higher courts during the 1870s, the system of local assizes and quarter sessions had remained largely unchanged though it had become prone to excessive delay. This was chiefly because the courts only sat at certain times during the year. There appears to be no published information of trial court delays or backlogs as we now are all too familiar. It could be said that until the 1970s our courts and their processes would have been familiar to legal practitioners of the 19th century.




Legal aid was originally established by the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949. In 2009 legal aid in England and Wales cost the taxpayer £2bn a year – a higher per capita spend than anywhere else in the world – and was available to around 29% of adults. In 2022/23 the criminal legal aid budget in England and Wales was £873 million. All the latest legal aid information is here. What can be said is that it is far more difficult for the defendant on the Clapham omnibus to get legal aid now than it was half a century ago.




In a nation where a two-week holiday for a UK family of four can cost around £4,792 the idea of having charges for some medical treatment is akin to crying "fire" in a crowded theatre. According to ABTA 58% of young families and 57% of older families went on a foreign holiday in the last 12 months. Today on a morning TV show an articulate married woman with two young children and expecting another explained her reliance on food banks. I wonder if the sympathetic interviewer would have lost her job if she had hinted at her position with regard to having another mouth to feed when she couldn`t manage to heat her home and also clothe and feed her current family. She would have lost all chance of ever working again in the TV media.




Margaret Thatcher famously said in 1987, "There is no such thing as society". There are many criticisms to be made of the Iron Lady but also some forgotten truths. This country`s infrastructure is fading fast. Recent motorway trips will reveal mile upon mile of expensive equipment lying unused whilst speed restriction beacons flash for long removed obstructions. NHS delays are literally the cause of tens of thousands of annual deaths. Trial delays make the Indian justice system efficient by comparison. Add to that list armies that have no bullets, aircraft carriers that have no planes and an RAF lacking pilots, aircraft and personnel. But this government like its predecessors continues on its merry way with the sweet political treacle coming from the lips of every minister. Avoidance of panic and head in the clouds, whichever metaphor takes the fancy, is the order of the day. That is why here and in much of western society populist politicians are on the rise. Perhaps it`s in the nature of any society, not just that of ancient Rome, that bread and circuses precede collapse. From Assad to Zimbabwe societal discontent can take many forms. Each collapse is as individual as a fingerprint but like fingerprints they all have a commonality. An existing order must replace the failed regime. How that change in political direction takes place and its effects on a population are unpredictable. All that I would opine is that the course is set.

CRASS COMMENTS AND A FUTURE MAGISTRACY

There can`t be many people who are unaware of the circumstances around the following statement videoed to the great British public a couple of days ago; “middle-class women of a certain age”. That that crass statement by a man who has been made a household name and extremely wealthy by the BBC was offered by him in riposte to allegations of misogyny and worse indicates a certain arrogance or worse. Even at a distance it demonstrates an inability as Robbie Burns observed “o wad some pow'r the giftie gie us to see oursels as ithers see us!”

In our woke infected world it is almost beyond belief that there are still those whom one would have imagined to have their woke antennae at the ever ready sensitivity position. Nowhere is that awareness more active than those working for, with or employed by the Ministry of Justice. Magistrates being hybrids in the system but as over regulated as the rest of the judiciary or perhaps more regulated are subject to being overseen as closely as any character from "1984". Considering the extent that supposedly top functioning appointments committees are responsible for the selection of JPs they certainly allow some crass individuals to fall between the cracks in the system when one reads the results of some investigations of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

"The expedited process in the Judicial Conduct Magistrates Rules 2023 enables the JCIO to advise the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice that a magistrate should be issued with formal advice or a formal warning where—

(a) there is no dispute as to the facts set out in the complaint;

(b) the alleged facts relate to conduct which the JCIO considers that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice would be very likely to decide amounted to misconduct; and

(c) the JCIO considers that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice would be very likely to decide that formal advice or a formal warning was the appropriate disciplinary sanction.

The declaration and undertaking signed by all magistrates on their appointment states that they will agree to be circumspect in their conduct and maintain the good reputation of the magistracy at all times, in their private, working, and public lives. They should avoid situations which might reasonably reduce the respect for judicial office or which might cast doubt upon their judicial impartiality. This includes avoiding use of the ‘JP’ status in ways that could be perceived as trying to gain influence."

Take the case of Mr Timothy Nathan JP quoting the report of 1st August this year.

"Following a hearing in March 2024, two magistrates who had sat with Mr Nathan on the bench, complained to the London Conduct Advisory Committee that Mr Nathan had been using his iPhone and iPad during the proceedings to read and respond to personal messages and emails. One of the magistrates reported that they had seen Mr Nathan using his iPad on a separate occasion to send personal messages to his partner, a fellow magistrate, who was sitting at the back of the court, having finished sitting for the day.

Timothy Nathan JP’s representations

Mr Nathan accepted that he had used his personal devices to send and receive messages, in relation to his self-employment as a professional pilot, during the long pauses in the hearing. He denied that there was any effect on his performance at the hearing or on the dignity of the court. The only people affected were the two magistrates who were sitting with him, as no other court users were aware of what he was doing. Whilst he did not recall, the other incident mentioned in the complaint, he confirmed that it was possible that he was having a text conversation on that occasion with his partner regarding travelling home arrangements."

The result for him was being issued with "formal advice".  

On 1st October this year the decision on Mr Michael Woodhouse JP was published.

"A legal adviser complained about the manner in which Mr Woodhouse had spoken to her at the end of a court day. She said that she had informed him that he could not invite a member of the public who was considering applying to the magistracy into the retiring room for a conversation. He asserted that he had invited prospective applicants into the retiring room for years and would not be told what to do in ‘his’ court. He demanded in a raised voice that the complainant call her senior legal manager and line manager to verify the information. He then repeated these sentiments in a conversation with the member of the public, which the complainant heard.


Mr Woodhouse’s representations


Mr Woodhouse accepted the allegations. He agreed that his behaviour was unacceptable and excessive and that the discussion should not have taken place in open court. He offered two further written apologies for his behaviour. He said he had been surprised at what the complainant had told him as it was contrary to advice he had received for several years. His frustration was not aimed at her but at court communications. He had apologised to the complainant and prosecutor on the day. He had also immediately called the senior legal manager and complainant’s line manager to apologise, and promptly reported his behaviour to his bench chair. In mitigation, he detailed several personal difficulties he was experiencing which he believed had affected his behaviour."

His transgression according to the investigating judge amounted to misconduct and resulted in a sanction of formal advice.

On the same day as the above, Mrs Jean Banford JP heard of her fate. 

"A complaint was made to the North West Conduct Advisory Committee that Mrs Banford referred to her status as a magistrate during a heated dispute with a neighbour about the neighbour’s dog. Mrs Banford was said to have repeatedly emphasised her knowledge of the law given her position as a magistrate, when telling the neighbour that their dog could be destroyed.

Mrs Banford’s representations

In her representations, Mrs Banford accepted that in hindsight her comment could be deemed as inappropriate, but explained that the neighbour’s refusal to accept that the dog was putting people in fear and could be destroyed as a result, caused her to emphasise her knowledge of the law."

For her inflated ego she was issued with a formal warning.

On 11th October Ms Lynn Killoran JP was issued with formal advice for misconduct.  Her misfortune was as follows:-

"A fellow magistrate complained that during two conversations with him, Ms Killoran made remarks which displayed an unconscious bias of an antisemitic nature. He alleged that she spoke about her work in the charity sector and a correlation between Jewish charities and fraud.

She stated that Jewish charities are believed to make use of the ‘Jewish Accounting System’, whereby money disappears without a trace and reappears later at a much higher value. The magistrate, himself Jewish, was concerned that Ms Killoran was relaying antisemitic stereotypes.

Ms Killoran’s representations

In detailed representations, Ms Killoran denied making the majority of the comments alleged in the complaint and asserted that what she did say had been taken out of context. She denied that her comments were antisemitic."

The 16th October saw the publication of the misdeeds of Miss Tessa Smith JP;  resulting in her being given "formal advice".

"The North West Conduct Advisory Committee (NWCAC) received a referral about a reference relied on by a defendant in a criminal case, which was given by Miss Tessa Smith JP. In the reference, Miss Smith described her own judicial role and used the JP suffix.

Tessa Smith JP’s representations

Miss Smith took full responsibility of her actions and apologised. Miss Smith explained that she had been a magistrate for less than a year. She accepted that she should not have used the JP suffix and should have given the reference in a personal capacity."

On 24th October 2024 Mr Jeremy Betts JP found out what his ill considered remarks cost him.

"Mr Betts and his colleagues were sentencing a youth following the recent imposition of a 24-month Detention & Training Order (DTO) at the Crown Court. The defence advocate made representations to the bench regarding the recent sentence and the sentencing remarks of the judge who, in the knowledge of the upcoming case at the Youth Court, said they had sentenced the youth with the intention that no additional sentence would be added.

It was alleged that, following these representations, Mr Betts said, “I’m not having some judge tell me what to do”.

Mr Betts’ representations

In his representations Mr Betts denied that he had made the comment in open court but admitted that he had made the comment, or a variation of it, in the retiring room."

His copybook is now blotted with "formal advice".

The 25th November saw the results published of the indiscreet comments by Mr Thomas Rock JP.

"A complaint was made to the North West Region Advisory Committee about a comment which Mr Rock had made during a panel discussion with fellow magistrates in the retiring room. The panel was due to hear a case of possession of the controlled drug, Khat in the afternoon session. During the discussion, it was mentioned that Khat was commonly used in Pakistan. In response, Mr Rock made the remark that they had to keep people in Pakistan subdued or they’d be off joining the Taliban.

Mr Rock’s representations

Mr Rock expressed his concern that the complaint had been made and explained that he was previously unfamiliar with the term ‘Khat’ and had been trying to enlighten himself by discussing it with a colleague.

He explained his belief that high levels of poverty in Pakistan, where it borders with Afghanistan and where there is a Taliban presence, feeds into the recruitment into rival gangs/factions operating in the use and production of drugs."

His misconduct resulted in a formal warning.  

Elizabeth Slamer JP`s  comeuppance arrived last week on 26th November.  

"A complaint was made to the Midlands Region Conduct Advisory Committee after a letter entitled ‘Single parenthood’ was published in The Times on 26 July 2024. The letter, written by Ms Slamer, included her status as a family court JP. Ms Slamer’s letter, sent in response to a letter from a different author about the failure of the Child Support Agency, remarked on the “relentless rise in the acceptability of” absent fathers than of “single mothers”.

Elizabeth Slamer’s representations

Ms Slamer accepted full responsibility for her actions and admitted that she had included her judicial status in the letter to add weight to her argument and highlight her experience. She stated that she had reacted in the moment to a perceived unfairness in the original author’s comments, who she considered had unfairly identified single mothers as the sole reason for the problem of demands on benefits and housing. Ms Slamer accepted that she had failed to consider the lack of impartiality that this could indicate."

That lack of impartiality resulted in "formal advice" for Ms Slamer. 

For Mr David Payne JP the day of reckoning was 27th November.  

"Mr Payne was referred to the Midlands Conduct Advisory Committee regarding his use of social media.

Mr Payne had identified himself as ‘Presiding Justice’ on his Facebook page and checked in at Wolverhampton Magistrates Court when he was sitting there. He had also shared posts on politically sensitive topics such as refugees and the government’s winter fuel policy.

Mr Payne’s representations

In representations, Mr Payne stated that he had a limited understanding of how Facebook worked and that a family member had set the account up for him and it was they who had identified him as ‘Presiding Justice’. He explained that he had used the check in feature as a means of keeping in touch with relatives that lived abroad and that he had shared the posts because he thought they were humorous.

Mr Payne admitted that he had not made himself aware of the guidance on the use of social media and, having read this and reflecting further, he realised that others may see the posts differently.

He also confirmed that he had deleted his account."

A formal warning was the outcome. 

To sum up:-  Judicial misconduct is categorised as minor, serious, or gross and the sanction for misconduct is determined by the seriousness of the conduct:

Formal advice: A sanction for lower level misconduct

Formal warning: A sanction for more serious misconduct

Reprimand: A sanction for more serious misconduct

Removal from office: A sanction for the most serious misconduct 

The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor jointly agree on the sanction for each case of misconduct. Factors that are considered when deciding the sanction include:

Whether the office-holder accepted responsibility for their actions

Whether the conduct affected others or damaged the reputation of the judiciary

Whether personal issues affected the office-holder's behaviour

Any previous disciplinary findings against the office-holder

Having regard to the selection of the above recent rulings I find it astonishing that those selected for the position of Justice of the Peace with all the responsibilities of that office can allow their tongues to be light years ahead of their brains. Personally when active I reported winger colleagues whose activities included whilst on the bench sleeping, doodling, mind blowing incompetence and agreeing with every argument guilty or not guilty when discussing verdict in the retiring room. But these complaints were put to the Deputy Justices Clerk who had private words with those involved. However when I saw a letter in a newspaper signed by a Mr X J.P. I did report him to the advisory committee. 



I am of the opinion that considering there are 14,576 magistrates in post across England and Wales as at 1 April 2024, up 9% compared to the previous year those reported today are a small minority. But the rate of increase is perhaps outpacing the resources available to ensure adequate training especially with the imminent retirement of experienced presiding justices notwithstanding the ability to sit until aet 75 which some [many?] will not undertake. It`s no secret that many of the judiciary and legal profession would prefer to see the end of or at least a diminished role for magistrates. I do think that on a scale of zero to 100 where 100 represents the end of the magistracy in its current form we are at around 70. Time will tell.