06.
Mar. 2010. – 14:13:22
06.
Mar. 2010. – 14:13:22
06. Mar. 2010. – 12:19:34
05. Mar. 2010. – 11:24:29
Recent retiring room discussions reminded
me of an interesting case on which I sat four or five years ago. A young Somali
woman faced a charge of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or
behaviour ". She was not represented.
In the street she was very drunk and the
medic on the ambulance which had been called by a bystander could not persuade
her to go to hospital so he called police and with their knowledge left to
attend another emergency call. On their arrival her situation seemed
precarious....she was in and out of consciousness and they recalled the
ambulance. Before its arrival for a second time she appeared to be more lucid
and began swearing and verbally abusing the officers who arrested her, took her
to the station where she was charged. In her own defence she agreed she was so
drunk she remembered nothing at all of the incident. She continued her denial
under cross examination.
Discussing whether or not the CPS had
proved the charge we decided that her intoxication went beyond an aggravating
factor and that if we accepted her version she was without awareness, control
or intent. However our legal adviser on hearing our intended conclusion and
referring to the appropriate sections told us that if intoxication is self
administered awareness of which the defendant had none must be considered as if
not intoxicated and therefore she was guilty.
I cannot recollect having sat on a similar
case since.
03. Mar. 2010. – 19:15:29
03. Mar. 2010. – 14:23:41
Today the Home Secretary has announced another "government initiative"; The "Safe and Confident Neighbourhoods" strategy he asserts will build on the success of neighbourhood policing and will ensure anyone with a concern about crime and antisocial behaviour gets the assistance they need. This is another pre election announcement purporting to be a policy but is rather a good intention re-stating what is or should be expected from current management. Whilst it is possible to hold one`s self up to be a hostage of fortune when commenting on government`s intentions when very little is known of the practicalities there is one aspect published which I find disturbing. He outlined a strategy which included inviting chairs of magistrates' benches to make appropriate arrangements by which magistrates could be involved with neighbourhood partnerships in their areas, whilst protecting judicial independence and avoiding any perception of bias;
Call me old fashioned but my view is that Magistrates who are all unpaid volunteers are best suited for that which they have been extensively and expensively trained; to preside over courts of justice where 95% of criminal cases are heard. In their own time many JPs are involved with "Magistrates in the Community" programme demonstrating to local school children just how the legal system works including mock trials where children assume the roles of the court officers....magistrates, lawyers, probation officers etc. Many colleagues also have roles within local organisations giving insights and personal opinions of their role in particular and in general. But the wording of the above quoted paragraph leads me to wonder whether the "arrangements" to which references are made are perhaps at the boundary of what members of the judiciary should be expected to do especially re-reading the last phrase "whilst protecting judicial independence and avoiding any perception of bias"
26. Feb. 2010. – 10:51:47
I cannot overstate my complete opposition to such developments. Whatever the ostensibly benign motives behind this proposal it is the increasingly not so thin edge of an ever increasing wedge with the potential to develop into what can without euphemism be termed a "police state". A culture of police authoritarianism is slowly gaining momentum and with the public cynicism of our parliamentarians in full flow who or what is there to plug the leaks in our democracy?
26. Feb. 2010. – 10:18:18