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.