DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHOULD BE A STAND ALONE OFFENCE

 

25. Feb. 2010. – 16:25:54

Once again I want to mention statistics. The subject is now so vital to government and myriad organisations it deserves a place in year 6 school classes because so few people are able to make reasoned judgements when presented with even the simplest form of statistical analysis. Government by Forums on this that and everything is nothing more than trying to please some/all of the people some/all of the time or any combination that suits. Nowhere is this more apparent or important than in criminology. From the effects of Magistrates` Courts being able to impose suspended sentences with an unforeseen requirement subsequently for more prison spaces owing to the unexpected need to activate such sentences for those who committed further offences during the period of suspension to the increased use of PNDs [Penalty Notices for Disorder] by police being counted as crimes cleared up statistics rears its [ugly?] head.

This is nowhere more important than on the subject of Domestic Violence; a term frequently used to describe a crime which officially doesn`t exist per se except as a particular type of assault where DV is an aggravating factor. All judges and magistrates have undergone specialised training before being allowed to sit on such matters. Much of the training focuses on statistical analyses of the subject many obtained from foreign studies. Since, we are told, so much such violence goes unrecorded it is not heretical to question some aspects of some studies.

In the last decade much more has been done to arrest, charge, convict and punish perpetrators of such violence which causes the death of hundreds of women annually. But even so, numbers are sometimes flung about like confetti.

In Asian News it is reported that during 2008/9, there were more than 70,000 incidents of domestic abuse recorded by Greater Manchester Police. On the web site of Greater Manchester Police it can be found that there were 49,678 DV victims {my italics}in 2006/7. I`m sure that other varied statistics could be found which one would find difficult to fix to a common base and therefore worthy of comparison. The sooner the incoming government instead of legislating for the sake of "doing something" or "setting an example" introduced as a Bill or part thereof an offence of Domestic Violence clearly defined and well drafted the better for us all.....victims especially but also magistrates and judges.

POLICE PRAYERS REDUCE CRIME!?!? WHAT NEXT? GARLIC

 

23. Feb. 2010. – 11:42:31

When religion, its adherents, its trappings, its rituals and anything else similarly associated hits the headlines as has been increasingly the case I begin to fear for my sanity. The rational thought that has guided humanity for two hundred years seems to be fast disappearing. Even the Inquisition under a more user friendly title is once more stirring.

Last year a community nurse was criticised for praying for a patient. The nurse Caroline Petrie, said she asked an elderly woman patient during a home visit if she wanted her to say a prayer for her. The patient complained to the health trust about Mrs Petrie who follows the Baptist faith. Now we have a senior policeman Inspector Roger Bartlett who says that in Barnstaple Devon the power of prayer has helped catch criminals, boosted crime detection rates and even reduced the number of ­people killed on the roads. With such unscientific medieval nonsense in our midst what hope is there or does the Inspector think that his mumbo jumbo has a place in modern crime reduction? Perhaps it should be a pre requisite for new recruits to be skilled in prayer? How about compasses for Jewish and Moslem recruits so that they can face East two or three time a day when they do their devotions? Are officers` arrest figures to be weighted if they are atheists? After all, without a god to help out surely they`re at a disadvantage?

As a refreshing contrast Chief Constable Peter Fahy has shone some much needed light on some of the daft goings on of a few of his officers who logged six incidents of snowball throwing during last month’s cold snap. All were classed as ‘serious violent crime’ even though no one was injured and no arrests were made. The Chief criticised his own officers for failing to show 'common sense.' I say three cheers.

FOR FINE DEFAULTERS WOULD ONE DAY IN CUSTODY FOR EVERY £ OWED REDUCE THE DEBT?

22. Feb. 2010. – 16:04:40

Her Majesty`s Court Service should not be organised to make a profit. It is part of the justice system and without it the law of the jungle would be upon us. It is a fundamental part of a government`s responsibility to its citizens as important as ensuring the armed forces have sufficient resources to protect us from invasion. It is arguably more important than the NHS. This was a democratic country before 1948.

But notwithstanding the above it is the duty of government to ensure that all monies owed to any of its branches is collected as efficiently as possible. Hence the frequent advertising of the dire repercussions for those not buying a TV license or taxing their car.

However when it comes to the collection of unpaid fines perhaps there is room for improvement. In the financial year 2007/8 there was £500.6 million unpaid. In 2008/9 that figure had risen to £545 million. It seems that in Swansea enough is enough.Swansea magistrates court will stay open after hours this month as part of a blitz on fine defaulters and offenders who have failed to attend court dates. Operation Crackdown will see court enforcement officers and South Wales Police taking part in a series of blitzes on offenders' homes as part of the two-day operation. They will chase up warrants for non-payment of outstanding fines and warrants issued for failure to attend court.Extra vans have been drafted in from outside the area to take offenders to the magistrates court which will remain open until 8pm on both nights of the operation.

Accurate figures for the number of people imprisoned as fine defaulters are hard to come by. At the third reading of the Criminal Justice Bill on 27th February 2003 David Heath MP for Somerton and Frome stated that; "Things have changed over recent years and far fewer fine defaulters are imprisoned now. I hope that my figures are accurate: in 1994 22,469 males were imprisoned for an average of seven days and 1,454 women for an average of five days; by 2001 those figures were greatly reduced to 1,382 males for an average of six days and 73 females for an average of two days."

On 31/10/1995 414 fine defaulters were in custody. On 30/06/2004 there were 52 fine defaulters in custody. It would appear to the untrained eye that amounts of fines outstanding increase as the number imprisoned for non payment reduces. In other words deterrence just doesn`t exist for those who don`t pay. Perhaps we should not be too quick to disavow ourselves of the methods used in some southern United States. I can vouch for the rate of $1 per day in a County Prison for every dollar owed after all other methods have been exhausted in attempts by the court to get its money. 

DANGEROUS DOGS ACTS 1991 & 1871

 21. Feb. 2010. – 12:22:58

Owning a dog is a major responsibility although we can all recall incidents where such responsibility was apparent by its absence.

A couple of months ago a young man appeared charged under that cobbled together in a hurry knee jerk legislation known as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. His or rather an absent relative`s  Alsation had escaped through a hole in the garden fence and run amok in a nearby park. No harm physical was caused but a concerned dog walker called police and the dog was restrained and later returned to the proxy owner who was charged essentially with having a dog out of control. He pleaded guilty and during his mitigation....he was unrepresented.........questions were put to him about the status of the animal which it turned out had been trained and used by its owner as a guard dog at an industrial site. My colleagues and I rejected the CPS`s application to order destruction of the dog but wished to impose controls particularly an order that it be on a lead and muzzled when in a public place. However after consultation with all the law books on her desk our legal adviser told us that since there had been no complaint under the DOGS ACT OF 1871 such action was unlawful. The case could have been adjourned for consideration for such a "complaint" to be lodged. We decided on a pragmatic approach to end the matter then and there. He was fined £100, costs of £85 and the iniquitous £15 "victim surcharge". He also gave what was clearly explained to him by the chairman a non legally binding undertaking to muzzle the animal and have it on a lead in public places. He was advised that that undertaking we considered as substantial mitigation, noted by the legal adviser, the breaking of which in itself would not be illegal but would be a factor for consideration if he appeared on a similar matter in the future.

Section 2 Dogs Act 1871
"Any court of summary jurisdiction may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous, and not kept under proper control, and if it appears to the court having cognizance of such complaint that such dog is dangerous, the court may make an order in a summary way directing the dog to be kept by the owner under proper control or destroyed."
This extract from the Dogs Act 1871 is reproduced under the terms of Crown Copyright Policy Guidance issued by HMSO.

THREE FAILED TRIALS BUT HE CAN STILL WALK OUT THE DOOR

 . Feb. 2010. – 16:25:07 

There are many reasons put forward why Peter Blake at his fourth history making trial by a judge without jury was allowed to leave the court and subsequently abscond. The background is that three previous attempts to try this man failed owing to a suspicion of jury tampering. This current trial where verdict as well as sentence will be that of the single judge will continue without him. It is argued that since he had not failed any previous court hearings remand on bail for this trial was not inappropriate. His bail was not surprise surprise unconditional. Apparently somebody had put up £250K surety and at 2.15pm Feb. 17th there was an indication that a large part of that surety was to be withdrawn the result of which would have been a remand in custody for the duration of the trial unless a substitute were found. He was allowed to speak to his lawyers. There is nothing known about why he was not escorted by officers for that promenade. It was not contrary to his bail conditions. The man was considered so dangerous to three juries that his trial made history. It`s made history again for a totally absurd waywardness on somebody`s part. 

JUST A WHIM BUT GOOD LUCK BARRY MAGISTRATES

 19. Feb. 2010. – 16:07:37

The mantra of so many organisations especially within the civil service is "centralise" or "bigger is better". In any event it often means removing input of whatever description from a local area at point of contact or taking the button a long way from the buttonhole but putting an extra long chord on it. When this happens efficiency is as likely to be reduced as improved. My own experience with Her Majesty`s Court Service bears this out.

News has been released that administration work from the Vale Magistrates Court in Barry will be transferred to Bridgend. This type of thinking leads me to ask would government or this one in particular only be satisfied if every form of administration were transferred to a huge new "administrative capital city" somewhere between Milton Keynes and Newcastle on Tyne where a million civil servants could all live together in a bomb proof concrete underground place called Britannica and run the country as they do now except they would have nobody to blame for the trouble they`d cause except their own blind mistaken confidence in centralisation. 

ARE JURIES AS FAIR AS THEY COULD BE?

17. Feb. 2010. – 12:49:26 
The Document recently published  "Are Juries Fair?" has quite correctly had massive exposure in the media. A justice system in which everyone has confidence is  essential to maintain our current liberties reduced as they have been in the last thirteen years.

A purpose of any justice system is to punish the guilty and acquit those against whom the evidence cannot sustain a guilty verdict. That definition in itself does not constitute a guarantee of a free and just society or a society governed by law as we in this country would have it. According to their legal systems at the time the USSR and nazi Germany punished the guilty and occasionally acquitted others.

By the Juries Act 1974 the only requirement to serve on a jury is to be listed in the electoral roll. And laterally the exclusion of those involved in various professions has been lifted so that even legally qualified professionals no longer have exemption.
The document runs to 87 pages so my comments here are necessarily compressed.

As the title implies the main concern is with outcomes and especially with consideration for the effect of ethnic minority groups both as jurers and defendants. There is little consideration apart from race and religion on the composition of juries or alternatives to the jury. Presumably these factors were not in the authors` remit but in my opinion when considering the title of the paper it is self restricting insofar as the concept of "fair" is being examined with a macro lens instead of a wide angle.

There are conclusions which prompt considerable disquiet. Non fatal offences against the person have a 52% conviction rate. And in offences where understanding the state of mind of the defendant is crucial the conviction rate is less than 50%. These examples require a juror to have a certain level of insight, to be able to reason, to be able to draw conclusions in addition to being satisfied "on the facts". In efforts to be representative no investigations are possible into a juror`s understanding of English language whether oral or written. Is this faculty not worthy of being a pre-requisite for sitting in judgement over one`s fellow man? Twelve is not a magic number for a jury panel. If two juries of seven each were to sit on a case with both having to bring in the same majority verdict would that not ensure "fairness" if a split between the two would indicate a re-trial or acquittal? Since the removal of the either way category of offences is not on the horizon is there not a case on the same basis for a defendant to elect Judge or Judges only trial for very limited range of offences? The jury system is far from infallible as can be demonstrated by very high profile cases in the last decade of verdicts successfully appealed.

Our criminal justice system allows District Judges to sit as both judge and jury at Magistrates` Courts trials. Magistrates sit as three person judge and juries on the vast majority of trials in England. They would not be appointed with poor language or reasoning skills. In addition both JPs and DJs must give reasons for trial verdicts; juries do not.
This study certainly provides food for thought but in my opinion cannot deliver a verdict because so much was excluded. Without more information and input I am not convinced that we are doing as much as we can to ensure the prime directive; to punish the guilty and acquit those against whom the evidence cannot sustain a guilty verdict.