END OF DAYS FOR MAGISTRATES?

 

02. Feb. 2010. – 12:41:38

In February 2005 Magistrates' Courts lost the power to deal with liquor licenses ie pubs, clubs, restaurants opening hours, suitability of licensees etc. The power was given to local authorities with Magistrates' Courts acting as Courts of Appeal.

Since then this government against most of the advice it received proceeded to implement its plan to turn England & Wales into the "cafe society" common on the continent where most people including teenagers can drink in bars and restaurants almost around the clock without the displays of drunken anarchy found on our streets from Andover to Yarmouth and including most towns in between.

Since then all the disease trends amongst heavy drinkers have escalated. Binge drinking, liver disease, drunkenness associated with criminality have appeared to be on the increase.

The Magistrates' Court, a local institution for 650 years, is being eroded. The result of removing its powers as described above and allowing a single District Judge to officiate at trials and high profile cases eg Pete Doherty last week, is a signal that our days might be numbered.

Think about it.....if you were on trial would you prefer three local people to decide your case and if proved to sentence you or that a single Judge performing as judge and jury took over both these functions?

WHO RUNS PRISONS? INMATES, EMPLOYEES OR THE GOVERNMENT

 
31. Jan. 2010. – 15:10:02
There are three constituent parts of any criminal justice system, the process of catching suspected offenders, charging and convicting them in the courts and incarcerating them in prisons. The first two components consist of many people with corresponding checks and balances to ensure justice is done with fairness to all and is seen to be thus done. However when it comes to the running of prisons in general the governor is "king" and almost but not quite an absolute monarch. Controversy erupted last year when it was revealed that governors had power and were using that power to release prisoners far sooner than anybody had authorised.

If prison governors are "kings" then prison warders are the "nobles" and as we learn in history kings and nobles were often in conflict as to where the power would lie. In prison it is forbidden for inmates to possess or use mobile phones, drugs, or to use networking sites. So there is no drug problem in jails.....? no criminal activity involving mobile phone contact between convicts and the outside world.....? And today in the Sunday Times it is revealed that one of the country`s most notorious gangsters was using his Facebook account to threaten his enemies.

It has been said by many with knowledge that the Prison Officers Union is the last bastion of left wing union extremism where union power and not the management is in control of the work place . Similarly it has been said that whilst drugs are illegal if they were totally excluded from jails there would be serious riots with the result that to a certain extent a blind eye is turned to the illegal supply in prisons. If using Facebook is contrary to prison rules how does a dangerous inmate access it without the knowledge of those paid to keep him secure and out of contact with the public at large?

If prisons are being run for the benefit of a quiet life for their employees as a first consideration and the protection of the public as a second somebody should explain.

P.DOHERTY,13 WRAPS of HEROIN & £750 FINE

 

30. Jan. 2010. – 14:53:07

There`s an old well used phrase, "everyone`s equal but some are more equal than others". Where this application should apply is within the criminal justice system. There are often media reports from places as diverse as Russia and Rwanda or Cambodia and Cameroon where, when justice meets the individual, it`s not what you are [a free citizen] but who you are. In my opinion there is a similar trait occasionally appearing in this country.

On Wednesday January 20th the singer Pete Doherty appeared at Gloucester Magistrates` Court in front of a District Judge....why the good judge and not a bench of three magistrates, but that`s another story.....charged with possession of thirteen wraps of heroin. Apparently when he was at Gloucester Crown Court in December the drugs had fallen out of his coat pocket. Seems he has an unusual desire for publicity or he`s just plain stupid. The guideline punishment for such an offender with a clean record ranges from a "medium level" community order; eg 180 hours unpaid work plus perhaps other orders to sentencing at Crown Court which could indicate more than six months in prison and that`s for somebody who hasn`t any previous drugs conviction. Doherty, 30, was charged with possession of heroin and fined £750 with £85 costs. The judge explained that he was not putting him on a drugs rehabilitation order because he was able to afford that for himself. It is unknown whether the judge explained why he was given such a lenient sentence.

It is high profile cases like this that in my humble opinion lead to questions regarding my opening sentence. Because they are in the public eye should those such as Doherty be treated any differently from Joe Public? Do we expect higher standards from them? Why was the fine so low even considering that most other offenders in similar circumstances would be disposed of with a higher band having gone beyond the point at which a fine was suitable punishment.

So if you`re of previously good character, have a six figure income and you accidentally drop thirteen wraps of heroin in court ask the judge or bench of magistrates why you should not be treated like Mr P.Doherty was?

AN UNUSUAL DAY IN COURT

 

29. Jan. 2010. – 16:53:46

It`s bit like waiting for a bus on a rainy night; none comes for ages and then three at once. I suppose many jobs are routine.....even a heart surgeon or a rocket scientist has a pathway to follow in order to perform his task effectively and then there`s the one situation when the format has to be radically changed for successful completion.

Looking through my 2009 diary before consigning it in a drawer in case I might need an alibi sometime to prove my innocence....can`t be too careful.......I was reminded of a day last April when three matters came on one after the other.

The first was a drink driver having pleaded guilty........not guilty is extremely rare.... had his counsel tell us in confirmation after we had read reports from probation prior to sentence that he would be unable to do unpaid work because he worked eight hours a day seven days a week . Although this young chap stated that he earned £2,750 a month after tax working in retail sales we thought this highly unusual and difficult for us because his conviction fell right into the unpaid work category for punishment. On questioning it was admitted he worked in the family business and earned £3000 after tax. Needless to add his family business had to do without his overtime services for the next six months.

The next chap, also drink driving, had an alcohol level in breath of 191 ug in breath.....so high it`s off the scale. He was told he was lucky to be alive and his prison sentence was suspended so he could have treatment for alcoholism provided through the probation service. Considering he was only 24 years old if he doesn`t stop now that level of drinking will probably kill him sooner rather than later. I hope he`s not been tempted to break his driving ban drunk or sober.

And finally a professional beggar with previous who was disabled and had an alcohol problem arrested at a nearby railway station where he had been frequently observed by colleagues on their way to and from court and now charged with begging and harassing two women late at night by threatening words. He couldn`t be imprisoned to protect the public...law doesn`t allow it....couldn`t be fined......what would he do?....beg for the fine money........so he was sent away with the "punishment" known as a conditional discharge for six months. If he is convicted at any court in the six months he`ll be back again for the original matter to be re considered.

Just an unusual April day in court.

TAKE "GOOD" BABIES FROM EVIL PARENTS?

 26. Jan. 2010. – 14:31:54

Generally it has been considered in the balance between "nature" and "nurture" that a baby even with the most dreadful genetic origins if cared for by and within a loving family can develop into  an upright citizen. This position has been reinforced by studies which show that a baby`s brain and the nervous connections within it grow and take form for some years and even to the late teens the adult brain is still approaching its final configuration. The Society of Jesus commonly known as the Jesuits knew this centuries ago..."Give me the children until they are seven and anyone may have them afterwards." St.Francis Xavier.

With the current case of the two children in Edlington the option of removing the children from their home environment has been and gone. But can this be the event which finally removes the social services from the mantra that where possible it is preferred not to remove children from their parent[s]. Perhaps the question should in future be changed to "why should this child not be removed from a parent and placed with family well vetted and approved for adoption".

As a family man and self admitted libertarian it is difficult to accept that a child and society could? would? benefit from such an authoritarian action but the disfunctionality in our society, even if we don`t all agree with a certain Mr Cameron, has reached such a level that the choice is now upon us.

SOUTH AFRICA, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, FARENHEIT 451?

 25. Jan. 2010. – 14:47:25

Many thousands of pages have been written about the situation when the "rock" of the freedom of publication of news meets the "irresistible force" of the state`s duty of public protection. Indeed the First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.A. guarantees this freedom. It is a matter of perennial debate in this country and every so often a case arises which hits the headlines.

This won`t hit the headlines but for those who can remember South Africa before Nelson Mandela, when an apartheid government governed often by decree, to read of a case where two journalists have rejected demands to reveal full details of two people they interviewed suspected of planning attacks against visitors to the World Cup a breath of fresh air wafts through cyber space. The case against them at Johannesburg Magistrate's Court was postponed today. The Police Minister said, "we have a constitutional obligation, we think that freedom of expression in itself is not absolute and it can't be absolute at the expense of safety and security in the country."

Thirty years ago there were few non white journalists working in South African TV. Thirty years ago any journalist daring to criticise or refuse the government was a hero risking all. Would that government here was moving along a path of improving openness. The Freedom of Information Act is certainly of benefit to we ordinary citizens but only when the temperature of enquiry doesn`t get heated.

Recently The Independent won a three year battle to publish secret correspondence between Buckingham Palace and the government concerning the cost of the monarchy. The Information Commissioner gave the government 35 days to release letters sent during negotiations for an increase in the civil list. It was reported a few weeks ago in the Daily Mail that Gordon Brown plans to use his veto to block publication. Obviously the temperature is getting too hot....Fahrenheit 451?

"STOP AND SEARCH" or SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND

 

25 Jan. 2010. – 12:11:15

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. This phrase of uncertain lineage has been around for over a century. It is even more apposite now in the age of the spin doctor. Nowhere are spurious so called facts and figures thrown at us more often than in the analysis of all that is associated with criminal behaviour.

The latest figure to enter this debate is Professor Marian Fitzgerald visiting professor of criminology at Kent Crime and Justice Centre, University of Kent who states that There is little connection between the use of stop and search powers by the ­Metropolitan police and reductions in knife crime.

It is not my intention to dispute here what the professor is assessing from the figures she has used but the effect isolated analyses such as these have upon a largely innumerate population.

Conclusions such are reported mean absolutely nothing without knowledge of the professor`s remit and sponsor, without detailed information of those actually stopped and searched, their previous criminal history, the consequences of the stop and search eg the arrest rate, the number of cautions issued as a result, the charges [if any] brought and the conviction rate and final sentence of those brought to court. Perhaps some or all of these numbers missing are in the professor`s paper and perhaps not. But the net result is purely political and will be another misleading avenue down which our political parties will travel in the coming four months in their attempts to convince us they are or are not doing all they can in the matter of protecting the citizen and punishing the guilty.

IT`S NOT WHAT YOU SAY; IT`S WHAT YOU MEAN. SOME PERSONAL HUMOUR

 

22. Jan. 2010. – 16:27:20

How often in general discussion do we ask for a remark to be repeated because although we heard what was being said we hadn`t actually been listening. Sitting in court one trains oneself to listen to everything that is said. As I was listening to a Weather Forecast on TV last night the forecaster began by saying, "Most of us will have a wet and windy night". Speaking to my wife for both our sakes "Not me I hope."

CRIMINAL JUSTICE NORFOLK STYLE

 

22. Jan. 2010. – 15:52:24

Every part of government expenditure is being closely examined in order to determine where savings can be made........or so we are told. Within the Criminal Justice System and Her Majesty`s Court Service in particular there is currently a shortage of Legal Advisers and support staff at all levels. Judging by hearsay evidence from individual prosecutors and the apparently increasing inefficiencies at the Crown Prosecution Service that service is in need of all the money it can beg, steal or borrow. At the very least one would expect it to use its limited resources as effectively as possible.....not so in Norfolk....see my previous blog "TRULY THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE CIVIL SERVICE ASYLUM" [also in Norfolk]....where the CPS charged Chantelle Amies, 19, with criminal damage insofar as she was alleged to have poisoned her neighbour’s fish, worth £7, by putting bleach in their bowl during the course of a disagreement. She appeared before magistrates at Norwich on Thursday January 21st. Unfortunately the water in the fish bowl was not sent for testing by the Police so the case was not proceeded with owing to there being not enough evidence likely to have secured a conviction. Witnesses present at court were not needed and all the costs associated with bringing the matter to court were a true waste of tax payers` money. Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers Alliance, said: “The CPS is meant to filter out cases that are too weak to secure a conviction, so it is bizarre that this case got so far."

A year or so ago a case involving theft of a banana worth 25p heard before a jury at Crown Court was thrown out after the jury took all of 15 minutes to acquit the defendant. At that time it was said the CPS would add what I describe as the "is it worthwhile" test to the various thresholds the CPS has in place to determine whether or not to prosecute in any individual case; ie would it be worth the cost to the public purse?

Norfolk as a county has been and is the butt of many a comedian`s joke about its inhabitants being inbred and therefore with limited intellectual capacity. Recent events might indicate to some but of course not this observer that the level of awareness of certain organs of the body known as the Criminal Justice System need a hefty dose of castor oil to clear out their blockages.