MAGISTRATES & OPERATION BLACK VOTE

 

22. Jan. 2010. – 13:41:24

In our country there are some who say that all appointed officials whether they are school governors, members of the various health service committees or indeed any advisory body or similar should be representative of the society in which they live. For the rabble rouser that is indeed a worthy slogan but it had most significance when it became the rallying cry of the colonials in Boston in 1773..."no taxation without representation". However in a truly free society it would be beyond the ridiculous if representative became the major watchword in such appointments minimising ability. Such reactions are currently fuelling debates on whether or not eg universities should reduce entry standards for pupils from schools with relatively low academic standards or higher than average numbers of children entitled to free school dinners. With a limited number of places available every offer to such a "deprived" pupil reduces the availability of a place to a "non deprived" pupil with higher levels of achievement. Positive discrimination in America has been criticised by many independently high achieving black people but that is a controversial area where I will not go further.

But it is one of those proponents of Afro American advancement, Al Sharpton, who officiated at a recent reception to celebrate the appointment of 50 black magistrates. In this instance the term "black" embraced various shades of brown as many of the new appointees were of Asian origin. This was a final scene from an Operation Black Vote shadowing scheme. A government minister told them they had successfully changed the face of the magistracy. OBV director Simon Woolley said that the unique partnership had radically changed the magistracy. He commented: ‘Martin Luther King had a dream – and you are part of that dream. But he had more than a dream; he had a plan".

It would seem that ideas and actions from America are being imported and accepted into this country which has such a different history with regard to race relations. Contact with foreigners of whatever race has been endemic for a trading nation. Unlike America whose black population was originally imported as slaves for the plantations of the southern states and whose freedom was as a result of a civil war which killed more Americans than WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam combined our citizens of Asian and Afro Caribbean origin were either invited here to work or were welcomed as refugees from the sub continent or East Africa. The truly racial hatred which existed and to a degree still lurks under the surface in the USA existed here only in the hearts of a small percentage of bigots. They are of course unfortunately still around often to be discovered under a stone labelled BNP.

The National Black Police Association states on its website:-

“The NBPA will work in the interests of the UK police services and be an integral partner to ensure equitable service for all and for the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) staff who we represent.

We will also advocate the needs and expectations of BME
communities by delivering and supporting strategies and
initiatives which have a positive impact on all”

How long will it be before what could be described as a divisive action will be undertaken by those at the ceremony and the hundreds if not thousands of current JPs who have performed and are performing their duties as Magistrates, not black magistrates, not Asian magistrates, not Muslim magistrates, not Hindu magistrates but simply magistrates.

It is unknown whether the various Appointments Committees were in any way "directed" however obtusely in this "Operation Black Vote". It is unknown whether any of the successful candidates was appointed purely on merit or would have applied without OBV. In my opinion the doubts raised by this process should be answered.

During the celebrations Justice Minister Bridget Prentice noted that a survey of magistrates found that 97% of JPs would recommend it to a friend. Aside from the fact that the Magistracy cannot be considered as one would consider a brand of margarine I would state that neither I nor my local colleagues nor JP contributors to the Magistrates Association private Forum seems to have heard of such a survey. Perhaps a colleague with knowledge will comment.

Some would say " Appearance is all". To that extent OBV has been a resounding success but at what cost?

PERJURY AND THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE

 

21. Jan. 2010. – 12:01:21

It`s not very often that a charge of Perjury follows from proceedings at a Magistrates` court. But for a Mr Plews of Middlesbrough the game was up yesterday at Teesside Crown Court where he pleaded guilty to having made a false statement trying to avoid a driving ban because of “exceptional hardship” at Teesside Magistrates’ Court last year. He had been charged with using a mobile phone while driving and using a vehicle without insurance. He had originally presented in his evidence a letter supposedly written by Mr Belal Aslam Khan. He told the Judge at Crown Court that he wrote the letter on headed notepaper provided by Mr Khan. He was remanded in custody for reports prior to being sentenced.

It is unfortunately the case that many offenders believe that they can lie at a Magistrates` Court especially in cases concerned with driving whether eg excess alcohol, insurance or identity of driver. There should be no sympathy for Mr Plews who is likely to be imprisoned for his efforts to cheat the law. When the law can be sidestepped by lying or bribery or threats we are but one step from the original legal system; The Law of the Jungle.

TRULY THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE CIVIL SERVICE ASYLUM

 

21. Jan. 2010. – 11:17:54

The security of magistrates across Norfolk has been compromised after their personal contact details were mistakenly sent to a prison. The BBC has learned the magistrates' year book, containing names and phone numbers, was accidentally sent for printing to HMP Standford Hill in Kent.
Her Majesty's Courts Service's area director has written to all magistrates to say he is "desperately sorry". Hard copies of the document at the prison have now been destroyed.
Security procedures have been tightened to ensure the mistake did not happen again, a spokesman for HMCS said.
The above was published earlier today on the BBC website.

It seems that government departments and of course some of their employees are operating in a different universe from the rest of us. After all the high profile cases of missing documents, DVDs with legs, laptops left everywhere but where they should be left one would have thought that right down to the shredding department in a basement in Whitehall the possibly illegal immigrant doing the shredding would have been warned to exercise extra care. Custody is designed partly to attempt the rehabilitation of prisoners. Teaching them to read [one third are illiterate] is surely preferable to having them print any sort of confidential material.

This is a serious disciplinary matter and in in some quarters would justify immediate dismissal of those directly responsible. Will that happen in Norfolk? Bet your very last bottom dollar it will not. Employment legislation makes it difficult enough in the private sector to sack employees without risking a fortune on legal fees but in the Civil Service.....it`s about time that term was changed....any offers???........it`s damn near impossible.

ARNDALE CENTRE CRIME; ARNDALE CENTRE COURT

 20. Jan. 2010. – 14:35:42 

At various times in the 650 year old history of the institution of local Magistrates the post itself has been brought nearer to "the people". A century ago especially outside London the local "bigwig"...an interesting term in itself meaning important person.....was the Magistrate. It was only after the Great War of 1914-18 that women were able to acquire the initials J.P. Since the 1960s great efforts have been made to open up the magistracy to ordinary folk doing ordinary jobs but who have the extraordinary skills required to sit in judgement over their fellow citizens. The underlying ethos is that justice should be brought right into the community so that it is carried out simply and speedily to punish wrong doers and satisfy those who have suffered from the wrong doing. 

Currently the Ministry of Justice is experimenting with "virtual" courts; effectively mini courts within police stations linked to "proper" courts by CCTV. This is highly controversial and has been criticised by many lawyers and magistrates although generally welcomed by police.
Now the chief constable of Greater Manchester Police has suggested that shopping centres – and he wants Manchester's Arndale to be the first – should contain mini magistrates courts which would try shoplifters on the spot and maybe even a mini-police station with holding cells. We are told this instant "try and fine" regime would be preferable to taking suspects to a police station to be charged and then waiting a week for them to appear at court, plead guilty and be fined according to national sentencing guidelines. John Thornhill, chairman of the Magistrates Association, was quoted as saying: "We need to be taking justice to communities and it seems to me having a court in the Arndale Centre would be one way of doing it. In principle, if we can deal with things speedily and pragmatically we are happy to do that." Not all agree. This observer is of the opinion that at a time when the Ministry of Justice is considering closing one third of existing courts to save money it makes no sense whatsoever to attempt to establish what could only become an ineffectual minimum apology for a court with or without a Costa Coffee and a Subway nearby for lunch. 

Also sceptical was Mike Mackey, ex president of the Manchester Law Society who was quoted as saying, "Are the magistrates going to have a shop window in Boots? This is the chief constable shooting from the hip. It all sounds very wonderful but there are a couple of problems with it. First, if police arrest someone it doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty. Before they get to charging anyone they have to be interviewed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and require access to a lawyer. Are they going to be in the Arndale Centre too? My worry is these will be kangaroo courts."
So with apologies to the kangaroos I would opine that this is another attempt by a government trying to pull back from properly funding our Criminal Justice System because our current Prime Minister wilfully and arrogantly enjoyed ten years spending our taxes in a manner which was not just imprudent but almost criminally deceitful, a government trying to obtain short term headlines that "it is acting on crime and the causes of crime" in conjunction with a police service which with some honourable exceptions does not understand the term "police state" and thinks it begins with jackboots and dungeons when in reality it begins when the rights of ordinary innocent law abiding citizens are made subservient to the "efficiency" of an all mighty state and ends with jackboots and dungeons. 

BLOWING A TRUMPET FOR MAGISTRATES

 

19. Jan. 2010. – 12:42:26

The higher the public profile and the greater the responsibility the more an individual has to jump the hurdles of appropriate and honest behaviour. Indeed in an open society under the rule of law many if not most people can reach those standards whatever their level of wealth or education. When the scandal of M.P.`s allowances became public last May most of us were more than just angry; we were dismayed that those in whom we put our trust had betrayed us and that trust. That is why the penalties in many professions eg teaching, law, medicine...up to and including prohibitions on ever working in one`s profession ever again are in place.

In 2008 1,899 new magistrates were appointed after a ruthless investigation into each applicant`s abilities and background. In the last twelve months 17 magistrates were relieved of their positions for behaviour including theft, misrepresentation, perjury, use of racist language amongst other reasons. These raw figures seem to indicate that considering the total number of JPs is around 30,000 the public can have reasonable confidence that the people on the bench are an honest respectable lot doing their best for society and taking no salary only real valid audited expenses for their efforts

TO CAUTION OR NOT TO CAUTION? THAT IS THE CHOICE

 

17. Jan. 2010. – 17:05:37

Much has been made of the supposed caution given to "TV personality" Myleene Klass. Whether or not this was a great big bit of tabloid journalism combined with Ms Klass`s PR company is another matter. However in the case of police cautions it is not obligatory for an individual to accept being cautioned. Having a caution against one`s name is still a matter of public record and will be recorded on the Police National Computer. For those in occupations where declaration of convictions is required, and with the current increase in the numbers being vetted, such an entry is almost equal to a lost job opportunity or worse still; a sacking.

My advice to those who consider a caution is unjust is that it should be refused. Then it is up to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether or not to prosecute. If that is decided the individual will be required to attend court, plead not guilty and take his/her chances at trial before a bench of three magistrates. You pays your money and takes your choice!

A STRANGE APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT

 17. Jan. 2010. – 17:05:37

Quoted below is a report published today in the Huddersfield Examiner
Cans of beer seized from a Huddersfield shop are set be donated to charity. The landmark decision by Huddersfield magistrates yesterday came after licensing officers and police discovered Gohar Superstores in Paddock was selling alcohol without the necessary licenses.Now magistrates have ordered that the £300 worth of booze seized from the Church Street shop goes to Kirkwood Hospice.
It is thought to be the first time Huddersfield magistrates have written the name of a charity into a judgement for seized goods.Shop owner Allah Ditta Gohar was fined £605 for the offence at Huddersfield Magistrates Court yesterday.
Mr Gohar claimed he thought a former business partner had obtained the licences but council officers said no applications had ever been made.
Kirklees Council’s prosecutor Carol English said it was the first time she had used seizure powers to benefit a particular charity and said it was the idea of licensing manager Cath Walter.

This is a very strange application of Section 58 Power to sell seized personal property {obtained by criminality} my parenthesis: England and Wales. As far as I can see there is no authority in the Act for donations to charity of seized goods. On the contrary the powers are to sell the goods so that the proceeds go into the big tin box under his bed where the Chancellor or the Exchequer keeps all the nation`s loose change. Who knows where this could end? I`ll say it again....a very strange disposal of assets.

UNFORGETTABLE COURT MOMENTS

 14. Jan. 2010. – 12:21:44 
Over the years the utterings of those in court, officers as well as defendants, can stretch one`s tolerance but also the smile muscles. An example of the former was when a defendant appeared for sentencing on two quite separate charges of theft from a shop. The pre sentence report from the Probation Service referred throughout to the offence committed on a particular date. When the probation officer present in court was asked about the omission of any reference to the second offence [committed while on bail for the first] she replied, "We were given only one file on one offence." In response the Crown prosecutor when asked to comment confirmed 100% that two files had been handed over. I am sad to say that inefficiencies by both agencies are on the increase. This could be a combination of reduced funding leading to staff being asked to cope with far too many cases and/or simply ineffective management and too many people still at work who should be sacked were it not for some aspects of employment legislation.

The smile muscles were somewhat strained a couple of months ago when an 82 year old woman of previous good character was before us for breach of a non molestation order against her husband of similar age. She had harassed him by swearing at him with the most abusive language imaginable. Since she had been arrested and been in the cells for a couple of hours no further punishment was considered necessary and after a stern warning and a request that she didn`t repeat the offence the security officer helped her to walk to the exit door where a relative was waiting..............

Most of us know that if you drive into a tunnel under a river whether in Wales or Hull or Liverpool or Glasgow or London or virtually anywhere you are likely to find a single exit at the other end [with perhaps directions to various destinations]. Not so the teenager who appeared last year facing a charge of breaching the terms of his probation by not turning up to do his unpaid work in the community. He told us that he was going through the .....Tunnel from..... to..... and he coudn`t find the exit. Needless to say after the ripple of not so silent mirth had passed through the courtroom he was punished by a hefty increase in his hours to be worked.

I would suppose that long before my time on the Bench when the witness oath and laterally the affirmation was taken even the miscreants of what was then a God fearing population could be reckoned to be generally truthful at least some of the time. Nowadays it is occasionally necessary to remind witnesses of the seriousness of this act. A Muslim student in 2008 appeared to answer enquiries as to why he had not paid outstanding fines of around £300 from the year before. He put his hand on the Koran and read the oath whilst smiling at his friends in the public gallery and with his other hand in his pocket. He was told that if he appeared insincere or was thought to be lying, and that was the impression he was giving, he could be jailed for non payment. Sometimes the donkey needs a carrot in front of him to persuade him to walk on but often he needs a stick to his arse to make him.

Video technology for good or bad is well established within Her Majesty`s Court Service and will become much more common place over the next few years. Bail applications from prison are commonplace. The prisoner in a special area can see the court officials and magistrates depending on which cameras are "live". He cannot see the public gallery but he can be heard there. Last summer during a video link from the local prison the wife of the inmate was in the gallery whilst her husband on remand had made a bail application his face peering out from monitors around the courtroom and his Irish brogue emanating from those same monitors. When his application was refused and his view was of the chairman of the Bench telling him so he shouted out, "Tell my wife I love her, tell her I love her." The chairman replied, "You`ve shouted so loud I`m sure she heard you in Dublin never mind the public gallery where she`s listening". A tearful lady left the gallery and a "thank you sir" sounded from the monitors before the link was cut. 

There is still humanity in the justice system. 

NOT JUDGE & JURY BUT JUDGE OR JURY

 12. Jan. 2010. – 15:04:26 
In 1973 in Northern Ireland at the height of "the troubles" Diplock courts were established. In these court proceedings a trial judge sat alone without a jury. Their establishment was due to the increasing risks of terrorist attacks on jurors. Until their abolition in 2006 about 10,000 passed through the system.

In the last few days a regular feature of the English legal system rarely commented upon commanded headline reporting; the trial of seven Islamists accused of public order offences in Luton and the conviction and sentencing of five of them. What was not unique was that the accused were tried by a single District Judge and sentenced by that same judge.....trials of this nature are common place. Such trials as above could just as easily have been tried by a bench of three magistrates but to this observer it seems that "high profile" cases are invariably brought before a District Judge often on the dubious grounds that only a professional judge can sit for perhaps three or four days in a row. Many cases in the Family Court in front of magistrates can last for a few days. There is no logistical reason for this limitation of magistrates` jurisdiction. It would be interesting to know whether other JPs have a similar experience.

And the trial of the robbers just begun before a single judge a la Diplock raises the question as to whether this is the thin edge of a wedge to reduce the number of jury trials. At appeals at the Crown Court a judge sits with two JPs. It does not seem unreasonable to question why three judges were not engaged to sit as a mini jury as magistrates are when they conduct trials.

With this government`s history of limiting citizens` liberty and knowledge eg the Coroners` Bill one can never accept things at face value.

---

LOCAL COURT REPORTS ARE A THING OF THE PAST

 

11. Jan. 2010. – 13:21:49

"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." This well known comment was made by Lord Chief Justice Hewart in the first half of the last century. And with high profile cases it seems that newspaper headlines, 24 hour TV news channels and of course web sites eg Sky and BBC ensure that we know all about multiple murderers sentenced to a whole life in prison, middle aged rapists incarcerated until their testosterone levels are so low they cannot raise a smile let alone anything else and of course the monsters prowling our streets whose diet consists of children made of sugar and spice and all things nice. But what about common or garden offending where it is estimated eg that one third of men in this country will have appeared on the Police National Computer by the age of thirty?

Fifty years ago crime reports from the local Magistrates` Court accounted for a relatively high percentage of the pages in local papers from Cumberland to Cornwall. Whether it was a five shilling fine for spitting in the street or a bind over for being drunk and disorderly a "minor" offender would know that his name and offence would be known to his local community within a maximum of seven days. In a period long before the prosperity and insularity of today "shame" in the eyes of one`s friends and neighbours was a punishment in itself unlike 2010 when, especially amongst the young, offending is sometimes considered a "badge of honour". Older folk, perhaps those over thirty with clean records, are not so sanguine about their misdemeanours being made public. Would that it were so.

A colleague who sits in an outer London borough commented recently that in over ten years on the bench she had seen reporters taking notes in her courtroom once only and that was a high profile first appearance of a man facing a murder charge. It is still possible to find local papers outside London reporting the every day goings on at the local Magistrates` Court with names, addresses, conviction details etc published in full in print and on line. This failure in general for offenders to be named and shamed in their own communities devalues the ideals expressed so succinctly by the late Lord Chief Justice and diminishes one of the three purposes of a criminal justice system ie deterrence because if the conviction is known only to the CJS and the offender there is nobody else in particular who will be deterred in a similar way to that of the effects of cigarette smoking.......all the advertisements and government and medical advice pales into insignificance if somebody close to you, a smoker, dies from the disease.

Perhaps young unemployed aspiring journalists might find it worthwhile to send in court reports "on spec" to the editor of their local newspaper if this local news source is currently being ignored.

ENGLISH LEGAL PRACTICE OR THE TALIBAN`S VERSION OF LAW?

 09. Jan. 2010. – 12:12:24

There is a simple question to be answered which is the basis of today`s observations. And that question is whether or not English Law and its peripheral requirements are supreme when in direct opposition to supposed religious practice. My comments are based not on my expert knowledge of law....magistrates are not legally qualified.......but more from a philosophical and logical understanding of the consequences of a District Judge`s decision recently at Luton Magistrates` Court where she accommodated the requirements of Islamic fundamentalists who have no respect for English jurisprudence and its traditions. In my opinion Islamists are as much to be compared to Muslims as are the Ku Klux Klan to Christians.

In the matter in question seven Islamic defendants when brought into court to face charges of using threatening, abusive, insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others refused to stand when the Judge entered the courtroom stating that it was a grave sin in their religion to stand to show respect for anybody except Allah. Reports do not make it clear but apparently although they were warned of the legal consequences of contempt of court they were removed from court, the Judge remained and they were then returned to court where they entered the dock and sat immediately. The case continued. That the defendants were following accepted Islamic practice has been rejected by many scholars including Mohammed Ali Musawa of the anti-terrorist think tank the Quilliam Foundation who stated that to stand to show respect for the institution of law in the person of a judge or magistrate is perfectly compatible with Muslim practice. I myself have used similar words to a defendant who refused to stand when requested.

Is this elevation of so called religious practice to supersede non denominational English legal practice? If Jedi Knights recorded in the last census as being the religion of thousands appeared wearing full face helmets are those to be tolerated? Would pagans waving various tree branches as part of their "religion" be tolerated doing so in defiance of a court`s request. There are many absurdities which could be quoted but the principle is clear. Luton is where there was a case in 2004 of a child insisting on wearing a headscarf to school against the wishes of her head teacher. A High Court judge said the school's uniform policy was aimed at the proper running of a multi-cultural, multi-faith secular school and headscarves were forbidden. The legal system is not an archaic form of control; it evolves over the years to accommodate requirements of a changing society but a fundamental basis of our system is equality before the law. Thus eg there is affirmation for those who do not want to swear on a holy book be it Bible,Koran or Ghita; religious Jews and Rastafarians can keep their heads covered in court but above all this is a democracy not a theocracy. Religious practice must be subservient to the law where the two coincide. A couple of weeks ago The Jewish Free School`s appeal against its entry requirements based on the "who is a Jew" religious concept failed. They were found to be illegal in English law.

Generally the happenings at the level of Magistrates` Courts do not set precedents. I do not have to be a betting man to say that it won`t be long before similar actions are attempted before a judge at a Crown Court. I would hope that when that happens the good judge will have more consideration for the underlying nature of our open and secular society than those in our midst who mouth equal/human rights and/or support for the Taliban and wish to import to this country the intolerance they espouse in Afghanistan.

ONE FINE FOR HARIET HARMAN {THEM} AND ONE FOR US

 

08. Jan. 2010. – 14:30:02

It is perhaps unwise to comment on particular cases in the public eye particularly when full knowledge is unavailable but then some would say it is unwise for a magistrate to comment.

When deciding sentence magistrates and judges have strict guidelines to ensure that "post code" justice does not exist now as it might have done thirty years ago. So it was interesting to read that earlier today Labour Party deputy leader Harriet Harman has been fined £350 after pleading guilty to driving without due care and attention. This was not her first motoring offence. On 7 April 2007, Harman was issued with a £60 Fixed Penalty Notice for speeding. On this recent matter apparently the lady pleaded guilty at the "earliest opportunity" thus earning a reduction of one third in the proposed fine. If it is assumed the offence itself was at the lowest level with no aggravating circumstances and perhaps some mitigating factors the level of fine is Band A. This is equal to half a week`s wages. So if the £350 is grossed up it was £525 before the reduction. So that`s wages of about £1000/week or £50,000 per annum. In 2007 she was earning £125,000 and there is no reason to think she is earning much less now. It does not seem unreasonable to conclude that the lady`s fine is very lenient.

When public figures appear to be treated outwith the recognised legal parameters it brings the whole process into disrepute and that is adding the drip upon drip of cynical acid to the body politic.

REDUCE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR OFFENDERS

 

06. Jan. 2010. – 14:49:22

Some years ago sitting in a court room of a small town in America`s Deep South I witnessed two chained up miscreants wearing County Jail overalls each making what appeared to be a desperate phone call. With a look of disbelief on their faces after a few words from the judge which didn`t reach the back of the courtroom where I was seated they were led away by a Sheriff`s Deputy complete with Stetson and six gun. Dressed as I was in a Brit`s uniform for a hot climate, tee shirt and shorts and carrying a bag of recently purchased goodies, the judge beckoned me to approach the bench and identify myself. His manner did not allow for any delay in responding to his command. After explaining who and what I was we had an interesting discussion on the similarities and differences between a state county court and an English magistrates` court. When I enquired about the two jailbirds and their phone calls he explained that for the past year the court had been trying to get them to pay fines for minor traffic offences but without success. Since even their final phone calls were of no avail he had sentenced them to serve a day for every dollar unpaid in the county jail.

What a breath of fresh air when compared to this country where even for the index crime defendants serve half only of the custodial term given by the courts. And when it comes to unpaid fines it is very very rarely that custody is the outcome.

Fines are levied according to means within the limits laid down by parliament. Before a fine is imposed in any English court the defendant must declare honestly his income and outgoings on Form MC100. Virtually never is any proof required of what are generally IMHO inaccurate figures. Now when it comes to statistics and conclusions there are as many answers as questions but two figures will suffice for now. At the end of March 2007 there were outstanding fines of £486,597,240 and a year later the figure was £500,630,569. It would be churlish to suggest that everyone fined can afford to pay the full amount on the spot as the law states but half a billion £ owed......!

Many criminologists agree that high level offenders don`t appear from nowhere. They usually begin their careers with low level offending which results in fines. If they play with the system at that stage their respect for law and order is diminished by "getting away with it". By its very nature minor criminality is associated with people on benefits. And of course I am not suggesting that those on benefits are likely to commit crime. But for those that do I believe that it is iniquitous that they continue to receive their benefits in full. There is provision in law for fines to be deducted from earnings or benefits but that is a different issue. I would suggest that after due calculation of seriousness there should be reduction in benefit per se after eg three categorised offences. Those on benefits should not bite the hand that feeds them.

VICTIM SURCHARGE

 03. Jan. 2010. – 15:53:15

It seems to this observer that the government with grand owl Gordon on the top branch has made himself more of a twit than a toowitt tawooooo. He has decided to raise a few million measly quid by increasing the numbers of non criminals who will now be subject to the Victim Surcharge of £15 previously applied only to those fined after conviction at court. These "criminals" will be eg those given Fixed Penalty Notices for parking violations, speeding, having a tyre in poor condition etc. Certainly these offences are against the law and sometimes cause danger to other road users but in general terms the offenders cannot be labelled "criminals". The name Victim Surcharge itself is a deceit. Money raised does not go directly to "victims" as some would have us believe. It funds "services for victims". The money raised £3.8 million in 2007-08, the year of introduction, and £8 million in 2008-09 was much less than 50% of expected receipts. In EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 (SURCHARGE) ORDER 2007 No. 707 it is written,

"7.13 Once fully operational, it is estimated that levying the surcharge on fines or a combination of a fine and compensation order (in either case with or without costs) in this way will generate some £16m a year (net of the costs of collection). If the number of fines increases or decreases, the surcharge raised will be correspondingly more or less. Similarly, if the success of enforcement increases or decreases, the surcharge raised will be more or less. The surcharge income will be allocated to the Home Office, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General to fund more and better services for victims of crime and witnesses.

So this government once again couldn't`t get its sums right for the simple reason that the great civil service brains who did the arithmetic did not realise that more than half of all fines imposed do not get paid and many others are remitted ie written off. But that`s just a sideshow when considering the principle. Motorists are being taxed on their mistake; pure and simple.

This is not something hastily brought in to add to depleted Treasury funds. It was clearly set out in the original discussion papers. Only then G.Brown and Co did not think they would be fighting for their ministerial lives. What chance of their re-election when this totally outrageous tax is sneaked in disguised as help for victims.?

To answer the question posed in my previous post the lowest age to be a magistrate is 18.

LONDON BUSES AND FARE DODGERS

 24. Dec. 2009. – 12:48:23

When a convicted murderer is released early from his/her sentence owing to doubts about his/her guilt we all read about the sorry story in the papers or see the newly freed haggard individual at a hastily assembled press conference making the first statements of what freedom is all about.
But wrongful convictions are happening all the time albeit at a lower level of criminality or supposed criminality. Thousands are walking about London unaware that by having been fined at a Magistrates` Court for non payment of their fare on a London bus they have acquired a criminal record; not necessarily one that appears on the Police National Computer but one that in some circumstances should be declared eg for application to the higher professions. Sometimes this can be the result of a fares Inspector not offering the suspected "fare dodger" the opportunity of paying a penalty fare or following up a perfectly genuine reason for not having a valid oyster card when boarding a bus. A perfect example of the latter is when a passenger with no previous history of fare dodging has boarded a bus, for some reason has not "pinged" his/her oyster card and when asked to produce it by an inspector discovers that it has been forgotten. By offering the explanation that a valid oyster card has been mistakenly eg left at home, in another jacket or one of many reasons we forget things etc an inspector should note the explanation and after taking a name and address offer 21 days for the valid card to be sent to Transport for London as proof of legal right to have travelled that day. That offer should be followed up by a letter from TFL again offering the non payer the opportunity to explain the reasons and provide proof of a genuine error. Often that procedure is not properly followed.
So if you are an honest person never having been involved in fare dodging on London buses and you are threatened with court action despite offering your explanation that you were at the time of ticket inspection under the impression that your valid card was on your person stand your ground and request that you be given the opportunity to produce said card and/or be offered a penalty notice. Make your voice heard within the time limits or you might be sorry later.

DECRIMINALISATION OF HARD DRUGS

 

21. Dec. 2009. – 10:12:02

Today`s observations are not meant as a root and branch investigation into a statistical analysis of all the arguments that are available for both sides of this topic. This subject affects us all. Parents in all income brackets have an underlying fear for the ability of their teenage children to resist the perceived attractions of what many of their peers are doing. At the very least they hope that if tempted to partake of some weed they will do so where they won`t come into contact with authority. Whilst alcohol kills many more than illegal drug taking the mere public imbibing of liquor is illegal only for those who are less than eighteen years old. With alcohol the problem arises from its excessive use. One spliff however can lead to a criminal record. Many experts agree on one thing; illegal drugs, their importation, manufacture and use are responsible for more than half the criminality in this country; some say as much as 90%. Recent disclosures of containing drug use in prison by methadone dependency prescribing has in my opinion pushed us further along the slope of deferred decision making to a position where a stand must be made. Do we wish to enforce abstinence among prisoners who wish to end their dependence on narcotics? It is also accepted that in those with a genetic pre-disposition skunk can induce schizophrenia. It  wasn`t always like this.

The numbers using narcotics 100 years ago were necessarily limited owing to cost and the morality of the period. In no way do those social conditions equate with the situation today. I am perfectly confident that specialist counsellors in tandem with licensed premises and suitable conditions placed upon supply could be utilised for long term reduction in use and users.

Cash or a proportion of such that was previously going to criminals would be channelled into a totally new system. One fact is for sure; the present position cannot be sustained.........either we decriminalise the use and supply or we forcibly put three time losers class A into forced cold turkey for as long as it takes.

THEY ARE STILL THREATENING TO CUT OFF YOUR ELECTRICITY!

 

19. Dec. 2009. – 11:40:29

We hear a lot about "Human Rights" these days. I am not referring to our rights as human beings but to a particular consequence of The Human Rights Act of 1998. Until that became a part of the English legal system utility companies after due process including the obtaining of an entry warrant at a magistrates` court could cut off the supply of electricity at an address where there appeared to be no possibility of obtaining payment of money owed by the consumer of electric power. Depending on the diligence of individual benches the power companies` representatives, occasionally employees with some local knowledge of the situation, but usually bailiffs, could seek a warrant of entry from a bench offering only the scantiest information regarding the individual concerned and forcibly enter the premises and cut off the power supply. Since the above act became law power companies have had to comply with strict guidelines prior to going to court; eg making personal visits and attempting to talk to the account holder, ascertaining whether or not vulnerable people [elderly or young children] live in the property etc and above all sending out letters warning of the intention to seek a warrant and advising the householder of his/her human rights under the legislation. Upon making an application at Magistrates` Court a diligent bench can ask many questions to ensure that entry is warranted.....eg have there been previous attempts to obtain a warrant at the same address, has there been a broken payment agreement, how much is actually owed in unpaid bills, has there been a dispute over the amount claimed, is the person responsible for the debt still in occupation at the address or is somebody new living there, and many other other questions depending on the individual case. Only after a bench being satisfied the request is in order will or should a warrant be granted. And even so rarely in domestic cases will the power be disconnected. A pre-payment meter will be installed.
Seems quite straightforward. The householder can`t or won`t pay the bill and the supply company can`t cut off the supply unless there is a health risk. But you`d be quite wrong. Many organisations rely on their superior knowledge and menace the individual citizen into compliance when these empty threats have no basis in law and are just the tactics of a bully. It happened last week to an acquaintance of mine. He had had his place refurbished before renting it to a friend. After receiving estimated bills for part of the period he informed Southern Electric by phone and letter of the dates for which he was responsible and informed them again when his friend moved in. Meter readings were sent at the changeover date. A couple of days ago he received another bill of the same estimated unit usage and across the bill was written, "NOTICE OF ELECTRICITY DISCONNECTION"...."unless we receive full payment immediately we will have no alternative than to disconnect the supply of electricity to...."
Advised by me my friend knew it was an empty threat. But consider a harassed single mother or father without the ability to ascertain her remedies in such a situation. Stress and worry piled on increasing hardship and other tensions. Or an elderly person on her/his own in poor health and with loneliness an only companion or somebody new both to this country and the terror tactics used by some businesses to intimidate customers. Hang your head in shame SOUTHERN ELECTRIC.

---

VIGILANTE JUSTICE OR FAILURE OF POLICE PRIORITIES? DO WE NEED LOCAL POLICE FORCES TO BE LOCAL?

 

17. Dec. 2009. – 10:50:32

Making headlines a couple of days ago a father and son, law abiding citizens both, received not inconsiderable jail sentences for beating senseless a persistent criminal who had taken part in a vicious premeditated burglary at their home where the family had been threatened with death. They had managed to disrupt the intentions of the evil gang of whom the beaten "victim" was a member and chased him down the street whereupon he was subjected to a sustained assault far in excess of that required to effect an arrest. In effect they took out on him all the terror that he himself had subjected them. In a similar fashion many German SS guards at concentration camps liberated by British and American troops in 1945 were shot out of hand by the liberators when the full scale of their activities was realised. Nobody mourns them and rightly so. But England in 2009 is not Poland or Germany in April 1945. And there was no excuse for the savage beating handed out by the father and son. But there was a reason.
As recently as two days ago Britain`s most senior policeman Sir Paul Stephenson Commissioner of the Met. Police echoed the words of the spokesman of the Association of Chief Police Officers a couple of weeks ago and referred to in a previous entry here that a fundamental re-structuring of police authorities ie a reduction...was needed to combat terrorism and cross border crime. But although the hand of the former is in the background of most drug related crimes the average law abiding citizen is much more concerned with criminal activity which could affect his or his family`s personal safety. Whether or not any particular area of criminality in any part of the country has increased or decreased or is tending to increase or decrease or whether the increasing trend is now decreasing or the decreasing trend is now increasing the perception is that danger lurks out there. This paranoid undercurrent has been encouraged by this government since 9/11 and is evident eg in the establishment of the Independant Safeguarding Authority to eradicate every paedophile lurking under every child`s bed. Until the police establishment is geared to the role the citizen requires them to undertake the shadow of the vigilante will darken our society. If ACPO is so concerned with its priorities and make no mistake international crime and terrorism is a reality, then some form of local policing on the lines of the French, and not PCSOs in a different uniform, must be considered. Even a financially and occasionally intellectually bankrupt country like ours must not allow its population to believe that they must look after themselves on the streets because the state has given up on its prime purpose; to protect its citizens from threats both internal and external.

IS THIS LABOUR`S THIRD WAY? GUILTY,NOT GUILTY OR NOT YET PROVEN

 

14. Dec. 2009. – 14:48:05

Taking a very broad view it could be argued that the Scots have shown an enlightenment legally and otherwise compared to the English as a candle illuminates the shadows. There was a united Scottish kingdom before William the C made England his home. It can be fairly argued that Scottish writers of stature, inventors, philosophers, economists, scientists have been produced in numbers relative to population in excess of any other country. Hanging for what we now describe as minor criminality was virtually abolished in Scotland in the early 1800s decades before such social progress was observed south of the border.

Until the early 1700s Scottish law considered a felon`s guilt proven or not proven on the facts of the case. But as a result of a case in 1728 a jury was allowed to bring in a verdict of not guilty when the facts in isolation indicated guilt. And so it developed that juries would bring in verdicts of not proven when the jury was unconvinced that the defendant was not guilty. This is the current situation which led in common parlance to the admonishment, "Not proven but don`t do it again". A defendant could be considered fortunate to have "gotten away with it" or an innocent person would have a permanent stain on his character and doubt of innocence would be everlasting.

And so to Labour`s "Third Way". A notion dreamt up by Tony Blair and his acolytes to persuade the British public that socialist Labour of the past was dead and buried. Now in a perverse manner Labour`s idea of not guilty has been split into not guilty but not quite innocent ie not proven. I refer to my previous observations of assault in a "domestic setting" otherwise referred to as Domestic Violence which doesn`t figure on the statute book but as an early symbol of Labour`s unspoken deference to the not proven concept. Prior to sitting on such cases magistrates are required to attend "training" where they are presented with spurious statistics concerning various international analyses of what assaulted women [usually] have undergone from their partner prior to the charge being brought the conclusion being that the Crown Prosecution Service wishes matters other than the evidence presented at trial to be considered. For magistrates with more than about four years experience this is a novel instruction which thankfully is given much less consideration than the powers that be would wish.

Two months ago restraining orders became available for the protection of victims of domestic violence; but not only for those whose partners had pleaded or had been found guilty but also for those aquitted of such charges. This was a matter for the courts` discretion depending on the circumstances. Another example of a not guilty being interpreted as a not proven.

And now we find out that the daddy of all snoopers the newly formed quango The Independant Safeguarding Authority has or will have the power to decide if those seeking registration and with no criminal record nevertheless are a "risk to children". Its 200 workers whose qualifications are to say the least questionable will have the authority to interview all manner of people ranging from those from wherever who choose to comment on the lifestyle of the particular individual to employers, neighbours and literally anybody the caseworkers wish to contact. This scandal is not just an over zealous government seeking to protect children and vulnerable adults but the most authoritarian peace time government in modern times inducing a weary populous into a state of paranoia where an adult is guilty until proved innocent. The German film "Lives of Others" won the Oscar a couple of years ago for "Best Foreign Language" film. It told of the Stasi`s {the former Communist East Germany`s Secret police} intrusion into all aspects of peoples` lives by cajoling, threatening and blackmailing ordinary people to spy on their families, workmates, friends and neighbours and report their activities to the authorities. Sprechen sie Deutch?

SENSE AND SENTENCE ABILITY

11 Dec. 2009. – 15:32:56

Thankfully a majority of the population still hasn`t found itself on the PNC or Police National Computer, one of the earlier attempts at a national database and I would suggest one of the most successful insofar as nobody has yet left any part on an unencrypted DVD on the back seat of a Camden bendybus. The PNC contains the details of offenders, their offences and their sentences. Public criticism of criminals` sentences usually arises in high profile cases widely reported in the national press or TV. However over 90% of cases are dealt with at Magistrates` Courts from first appearance to sentence where six months` imprisonment is usually the maximum available. There are those recently who have suggested that no miscreant should serve sentences shorter than twelve months, [ie shorter sentences should be wholly replaced by community orders,] because within that period there is no scope for any rehabilitation overlooking the fact that prison does not exist solely for social workers to cast their spells upon the inmates but to punish wrong doers and protect the public. Jack Straw considers that magistrates send too many of those convicted to be sentenced at Crown Courts by judges who of course have greater sentencing powers. Both views give the impression that sentencing at Magistrates` Courts is a bit of a hit and miss affair. It might have been so in the 1930s but in the "Naughties" it is a finely honed structural process undertaken by a bench of three highly trained JPs with a full PNC history and report from Probation to consider in addition to official Guidelines and a legal adviser available to ensure all procedures and disposals are lawful. Some criminal lawyers in the past have been said to have referred to a magistrate as "Muppet". Perhaps we are all now Judge Judy.

GET REAL ABOUT CO-HABITATION;IT`S NOT LIKE MARRIAGE

 

10. Dec. 2009. – 16:44:22

Lord Justice Munby, chairman of the Law Commission, was reported in The Times this week [link below] as wishing to have new legislation to protect the rights of co-habiting couples when they separate. He comments on the changing nature of society with regard to the institution of marriage as if this legal union of a man and a woman has somehow metamorphosed like frogspawn to frog by the wonder of nature and the science of natural selection. Changes in marriage statistics ie fewer marriages per 1000 of population than 100 years ago have been brought about by equal educational opportunities for women, the need for increased women in the workforce owing to the Great War and World War 2, efficient contraception and the removal of tax advantages for married couples vis a vis unmarried couples. These changes particularly the government induced changes in taxation have been the major contributors to this seismic social upheaval. Regardless of any moral, religious, financial obligations or reservations every couple has a choice; to marry or not. Strictly speaking marriage is a contractual arrangement. Indeed in Jewish, Hindu and Muslim tradition it still is. To this day Jews marrying in a synagogue sign an actual contract in which the union is spelled out. If a couple makes an informed choice not to marry and therefore forfeits the legal rights contained and guaranteed within that institution that is their business. There has been enough unnecessary legislation in the last twelve years without adding another layer on matrimonial law. If a society can be educated on the dangers of smoking or internet scams it can be educated on legal protections gained by marriage and forfeited by merely co-habiting.

HAVE THE LAST 12 YEARS BEEN BENEFICIAL TO LIBERTY?

Since 1997 although many good people disagree we have been subject to a "nanny knows best" basis of much legislation. Several Lord Chancellors and Secretaries of State and three thousand new laws later a supposedly left of centre parliament has allowed the salami approach to reducing freedoms to gather pace. From increased CCTV cameras to restricting the photographing of innocent scenes in central London by amateurs and professionals alike there seems no end to the state`s actions to treat us all as guilty of something until proved otherwise. There is no specific offence of "Domestic Violence"; it is often prosecuted as "Assault by beating" or a more serious charge and the victim`s relationship with the defendant is an aggravating factor. However all magistrates in the last three or four years must have specialist training before sitting on such cases. Training is usually beneficial to the trainee or should be. But much of this training is to acquaint the JP with various statistical analyses that appear to indicate that over thirty assaults would have been likely to have occurred prior to the charge being brought. This, in my opinion, is an attempt to condition the JP to be predisposed to sympathise with the victim and perhaps not to rely purely on the evidence brought to court where of course the standard of proof of guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt". There is no study to my knowledge, although I stand to be corrected, of conviction rates in such cases relative to others of a similar nature previously. Recently made available to the courts to impose are restraining orders even after a " not guilty" outcome in a case of Assault [domestic violence]. It is an abuse of power to keep DNA samples of innocent people. This subject has now reached levels outside the U.K.`s domestic Criminal Justice System. A driver of a four wheeled vehicle in collision with a cyclist riding as though intent on suicide must now prove his innocence. The scandal of "control orders" where the accused is unaware of the charges is still current at the highest levels of the law. There was a recent case of two friends who were police officers in the same force who can`t look after each others children to the mutual advantage of all without breaking recent legislative guidelines. Would it have been conceivable in your wildest dreams twenty years ago that such a descent into authoritarianism would happen here? Anybody who values the liberty of the individual must give thought to whom their vote will go next year. 

DOES DARWINISM APPLY TO A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM?

 28. Nov. 2009. – 12:33:21 

It was Charles Darwin one hundred and fifty years ago who postulated that for living things the world is as it is owing to competition. Karl Marx and Adam Smith each had his own take on competition which can be said to have led to Stalin and George Bush respectively. But one does not expect eg the human arm to be in competition with the human leg because for the organism to function to maximum efficiency both limbs have their particular use. Yet as organisations grow, unlike the human body, constituent parts and their masters or mistresses therein continually seek advantage over their perceived competitors in other departments.

Within the armed forces generals, admirals and air marshalls are ever seeking increased funding for their particular service and within each service such exercises in cake dividing are routine. Whether the result is increased or reduced efficiency I am not qualified to comment. Similarly within the NHS various committees are appointed to decide the worth of a human life; whether £1 spent on improved pre natal care is better value than £1 spent on assisting terminally ill patients dying with minimum distress. The outcome for these examples of competition is generally beneficial for most people most of the time.

A free society can function in extremis without armed forces. The people of Luxembourg or San Marino are not noticeably shaking in their boots and suffering sleepless nights because they don`t have troops in their barracks. Whilst there are many possible arguments for and against a state funded system of healthcare it cannot be said that a free society depends upon one or other argument. Indeed this country was a reasonably "free country" before 1948.

The same, however cannot be said of a state without a comprehensive system of laws guaranteeing ownership of property and protection from harm for its citizens. All parts of the system must function together in harmony. A breakdown in one part of the system results in a breakdown in the whole. Competition has no place in a Criminal Justice System. But it is apparent that different parts of this system are competing for the ear of government and the eye of the public judging by what is appearing in the press over recent months. Judges are being accused of supplanting parliament as law makers. Parliament is making laws for the police to use often against advice from libertarians and then making u-turns when these powers are used in a predictable inappropriate manner. Government against advice does not build enough prisons for an escalating lawless minority. The same government encourages by its legislation judges to impose heavier sentences for violent crime. Prison governors on their own initiative release prisoners well before the completion of their sentences without regard to the sentencers. Probation services campaign for all sentences less than twelve months to be substituted by community orders despite validated evidence that magistrates are cautious in the extreme before ordering custody. Jack Straw castigates magistrates for sending too many defendants to Crown Court whilst organising the closure of perhaps 25% of all Magistrates` Courts because of reduced workload caused by the ever increasing use of Fixed Penalty Notices by police officers who are acting as prosecution, judge and jury. And the self same police, according to a report in The Times Nov 27th this time the Met, are blaming an increasing number of dwelling house burglaries on the unsubstantiated myth that Magistrates` Courts are releasing on bail prior to trial or sentence too many prolific offenders. The Met of course has a highly efficient professional PR department. Meanwhile the Magistrates` Association on a tiny budget fights gamely to protect its corner in the face of these assaults on its members. What price a joined up Criminal Justice System......democratic freedom for the citizen? 

DOES THIS GOVERNMENT REALLY WANT TO RETAIN THE OFFICE OF MAGISTRATE?

27. Nov. 2009. – 13:06:39

Over 90% of criminal cases in this country are undertaken from plea to sentence at the Magistrates` Courts. For over 600 years the title Magistrate has been bestowed on members of a community who have been given the authority to sit in judgement over their fellow citizens. With the acceptance of a constitutional monarchy, the reduced and disappearing privileges of the aristocracy and an ever widening franchise magistrates are now appointed from every level of law abiding society, from every religion, from every creed, from every race. That is as it should be in what is still a free democratic society although that description one could argue is hanging on by its fingernails [to mix metaphors.
However with the creation of a unified courts system; Her Majesty`s Court Service, there is a suspicion that the days of the Justice of the Peace might be numbered. Magistrates` Courts are closing in ever increasing numbers and many more are mooted. A recently published document by career civil servant Kevin Pogson "Planning for the future of the magistrates` courts service in London" in conjunction with similar documents containing spurious statistics, "targets" etc seeks to justify the closure within ten years of perhaps a quarter or more of the current court buildings, "Over the next ten years.......should be reduced to a much smaller core estate." "Re-organisation" in cloud cuckoo civil servant land where the volume of verbiage is inversely proportional to the veracity of thought means that in all probability fewer JPs will be needed. After all fewer defendants are being brought before magistrates and more are appearing at Crown Court. Perhaps the ever increasing activities of Police acting, in addition to their primary role, as judge and jury in the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices have something to do with it? Then we have Jack Straw complaining at the recent AGM of the Magistrates` Association that far too many defendants are being sent to Crown Court for trial..[see previous blog on E/W offences]. Anther anomaly in this Criminal Justice System is the complaint that since the introduction of suspended sentences became available to Magistrates` Courts too many miscreants are being sent to prison. Forget that they end up behind bars because the deterrent effect has failed. And of course we are familiar now with the scandal of prison governors releasing prisoners at their discretion without any notification to anybody.
The cost differences between using about 29000 unpaid JPs [expenses only] and a much much smaller number of £100K p/a District Judges is perhaps beginning to attract the attention of the cost cutters in this Labour inspired economic meltdown. The price for justice would be that a British citizen who currently has a right to be tried by his peers in the form of a Bench of three magistrates would face trial before a single professional judge. JPs who can resign at any time over a point of principle without financial sacrifice would be replaced for ever by professional judges who would forfeit their living if they had to rule on laws over which they profoundly disagreed and consequently resigned. A sad day for justice; a sadder one for democracy! 

ACPO AND PROPOSED POLICE RESTRUCTURING

 23. Nov. 2009. – 12:13:02  

Sir Hugh Orde, president of ACPO wrote recently in The Times with his recommendations for a restructuring of policing. He appears to be taking not unnaturally a top down approach as opposed to giving consideration to the requirements at a local level where the vast majority of the population is not a victim or terrorism or cross border organised crime. He criticises, "people who are claiming to represent communities" who suggest that more police on the beat is what is required by offering ridiculous statistics about a patrolling officer rarely coming across a burglary being committed. In this statement he reveals his apparent indifference to the concern of local communities that above all they want assurances that their properties will not be burgled per se and that officers seen to be patrolling are a deterrent to criminal activity which might impinge upon their desire for a quiet peaceful life. He continues in the same manner when he says that control of police and democratic policies cannot co-exist. This subject is surely worthy of debate rather than an authoritarian denial of its practicability .

The original principles of Robert Peel were that police patrol to prevent crime and disorder and that they must have the public`s approval and willing co-operation.
If Sir Hugh cannot persuade us that he and his colleagues can succeed with prevention as the prime objective they are unlikely to continue to carry the public with them on the other two requirements as is becoming apparent almost weekly.

• IS IT TIME TO SAY GOODBYE TO EITHER WAY OFFENCES?

 

21. Nov. 2009. – 14:18:34

Long before the recent financial debacle which the citizenry of this country will be paying for twenty years from now the government was looking for cost savings wherever it could primarily as a political stick to beat the Tories in a Dutch auction to demonstrate that "Prudence" was the watchword. Of late this belt tightening has more in common with a financial famine where the survival of this country in the political premier league is uncertain.

The Ministry of Justice is certainly more than a bit player in this race to the bottom. Unlike the NHS where most of us have personal experience HMCS impinges upon a minority and a minority by its very being that has little influence the professionals running it the exception. It is only in England Wales.....the Scots and the Irish have more sense.......that within a certain catagory of offences the alleged offender can choose to be tried at the Magistrates` Court or the Crown Court. At the former the bench comprises three highly trained personnel generally representative of the community they serve who give their time for no payment except minimal expenses. The maximum sentence that bench can impose is six months` imprisonment which can be appealed before a judge in the Crown Court where a life term can be the disposal. Thus generally although over 90% of cases are completed at Magistrates` Courts and the most serious at the Crown Court there is an intermediate level of offences; either way offences, in which the defendant can elect to be tried at either venue. At Crown Court the trial will be in front of a jury of twelve.

Recently the Crown prosecution Service has launched a consultation paper on proposed changes in policy with regard to the initiation of a prosecution amongst which is the following, "The changes extend this test to include a requirement asking them to consider whether a prosecution is proportionate (balancing time and cost of prosecution with the seriousness of the offence)". What this means in simple terms is whether prosecuting a case is worth the cost the inference being in my opinion that the costs of a trial are not worth the low level of offending. A recent case demonstrates this. A man was taken to court for stealing a banana worth 25p. It was an either way offence of Theft from a shop. He elected trial by jury at the Crown Court where it took a jury about ten minutes to acquit him. Latest figures show 59,000 people were sentenced at Crown Court for either way offences. Depending on one`s viewpoint many of these offences could be considered as suitable for one court or the other with perhaps the majority at Magistrates` Court especially if the maximum sentence available there were increased to twelve or even twenty four months imprisonment.

Recent statistics on the costs to government of trials at Magistrates` Courts and Crown Court trials are hard to come by but within the last ten years or so it has been guestimated that the latter costs ten times the costs of the former. So by eliminating either way offences we eliminate an enormous expense and in doing so remove an anomaly that has had its day {in court?}

CAUTION GIVEN AFTER A CONVICTION FOR SIMILAR OFFENCE

 

19. Nov. 2009. – 17:48:33

Problems within the criminal justice system generally make the headlines on the relatively limited occasions when a serious mishap occurs. Unlike the NHS where most of us are "customers" the majority of the population has still just managed not to be engaged within the system although the numbers are gradually rising but that`s a tale for another time.

Most caring parents would never dream of giving a very naughty toddler even the mildest slap on the leg or arm for an action which the child could not possibly know was dangerous or in some other way to be avoided. When my own son was three years old and stuck the prongs of a fork into an electric point I grabbed the fork from him and made it clear that action could have been very dangerous and could have hurt him. A few moments later, whilst my back was turned he did it again. I took the fork and lightly slapped his leg whilst repeating the danger warning. I graduated the punishment to suit the circumstance.

Recently when faced with a defendant convicted of criminal damage and considering sentence the list of previous convictions showed he had first been before the courts in 2007 for criminal damage and had been sentenced to a community order. The next and final entry was again for criminal damage less than a year after the first offence. On that occasion he had been cautioned by police! Doesn`t seem right does it? Repeat the offence and the punishment is reduced.

Of course cases like that don`t make headlines but they give such a clear indication of the direction in which the Ministry of Justice and the Police are travelling. And these directions seem to be at right angles to each other. Would it not be better for us all to be travelling in the same direction?

HOW I BEGAN

 

INTRODUCTION  

My latent interest in the law  was perhaps instigated by both a wife and brother who were solicitors  and a father who felt overlooked in his application as a J.P. many years ago.   Having been a professional all my working life by my mid-fifties I felt intellectually and financially able to devote myself to a second career albeit unpaid and part-time. I was appointed a Justice of the Peace in 1998. During my long career as a self employed eye-care professional I learned quickly to communicate with people of all ages and backgrounds. On reflection I`m convinced that facility proved essential to be able to follow to the letter the Judicial Oath: “I do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of 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.”  With much current criticism of the magistracy over so called diversity that oath alone should be enough to ensure that all those who come before the bench are treated not as black or white, rich or poor but as a subtle shade of grey.  Unfortunately the perception at least does not bear out that ideal.  

 The first few years of this millennium were a time of great change for the magistracy insofar as its flimsy hold on independence was firmly trampled upon by a recently elected government seeking to incorporate under its umbrella the various strands loosely affiliated as our justice system.  This culminated in the formation of a dedicated new department known as the Ministry of Justice.  Further developments led to the magistrates courts and those working within them to be part of yet another amalgamation of departments; Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service. 

Recent statistics showed that in 2020 there were 13,177 magistrates - though the Ministry of Justice announced that in September 2020  this number had been overestimated by around 1,000 which was an appalling error. Other statistics of note are that currently 56% of JPs are women, 13% are BAME and 82% are aged 50 or over. There are clearly various factors which contribute to these figures though they are too complex to discuss in this short introduction. 

 During my first decade as a JP when I became what is now termed a ‘presiding magistrate’ colleagues seemed to appreciate my independence of mind both on the bench and in the retiring room. Although I never aspired to the loftier heights of ‘Chairman of the Bench’ a couple of small achievements seem worth mentioning here. I reinvented my bench`s approach to the approving of warrants issued by utility companies and I amended the treatment of fare evaders by the local transport systems.  Both areas had been in dire need of a more level playing field for defendants but for one reason or another no one had grappled with them until then. In November 2009 I put a colleague`s suggestions that I could offer my opinions on the workings of the magistrates` courts and a JP`s perspective of the justice system to a much wider audience through writing a diary. Some of these musings, on everything from sentencing procedures to the police and to other matters of legal interest are now reproduced for this diary