• 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?}