SAD TALE OF MAGISTRATE WHO THREW HER WEIGHT AROUND

 

08. Apr. 2010. – 11:40:54

One of the major issues at this election is the integrity of our MPs. However they constitute just one group in whom trust is placed by the public. Teachers, doctors and those generally we empower on our behalf to perform complex and/or supervisory activities must be laid bare before their fellows when their probity is in doubt; hence the public scrutiny over Baroness Scotland`s employment of an illegal immigrant.

Not every selection committee for every professional, academic, examining or appointing body gets it right 100% of the time and the conduct of Justices of the Peace whilst of a transparently high standard is prone to the odd black sheep as much as others in the legal world.

Such is the case of Stephanie Lippiatt J.P. who was found guilty at Croydon Crown Court of criminal damage and illegal eviction of a tenant. She was fined £2,000 for the illegal eviction and £250 for the criminal damage. She was also ordered to pay £1,900 prosecution costs and defence costs up to £5,000 - making a total of £9,150.

The lesson is simple; if somebody offers him/herself for public office it behoves him/her to behave with the highest standards in all aspects of life or face the consequences.

FOOTBALL BANNING ORDER; AN OWN GOAL?

 08. Apr. 2010. – 11:03:36 

Magistrates and courts are often the subject of criticism from those who consider that "the courts aren`t tough enough" and from the literary or liberal end of the critical spectrum of sending too many defendants into Her Majesty`s care for short summer holidays at £600 per week to live alongside two others to eat and defecate in a concreted room about eleven feet by eight. For those at the receiving end of a sentence pronouncement their reactions are occasionally almost as much a comedy as a tragedy.

Such was the case with Darren D a few weeks ago. He was a nineteen year old who had been cautioned once as a youth. He was before us for being drunk and disorderly in the street close to the local League 2 football club where his team Darlington, currently bottom of the league, were playing away. His behaviour had been provoking home fans into returning his swearing and obscene gestures ten fold when despite warnings to desist he had left local police with little option but to arrest and subsequently charge him. 

After his guilty plea he was informed of the amount of his fine and costs which were calculated according to his very low income but the moment that raised a hard to suppress smile on the faces of all those in court was when he was told that he would be subject to a twelve month Football Banning Order; "Thank you your honour, who`d want to see another year of that f*** ing team`s s*** football anyway". 

In that case perhaps we were the ones who`d scored an own goal.....the defendant liked the sentence or at least part of it. 

SECT V PUBLIC ORDER ACT & CATCH 22

 06. Apr. 2010. – 17:24:19

On March 6th I commented on ramifications under Sect V of the Public Order Act causing harassment, alarm or distress which was commented upon with his usual wisdom by ObiterJ http://www.obiterj.blogspot.com/

I had cause recently to remind myself of another such case a few years ago. For those unacquainted with court matters this charge is very very common and could be used to charge for using abusive language to standing on a zebra crossing and refusing to move. Essentially a young couple was arguing, he drunk, she very drunk. She falls, police approach and walk her away telling parties to quieten down. She falls again and he rushes to help and protect her. Police tell him to move and say he hit out at officer. He says put arms up to protect himself. Upshot he is arrested and charged. He pleads not guilty and on trial. Now the interesting bit……..these ostensibly “minor” cases often depend on quite deep legal thinking. As he was unrepresented our learned clerk advised him of the defence of “reasonableness” when his actions to protect girlfriend could be “reasonable” but that defence could be put only if he admitted behaviour as described by prosecution. As I said to my colleagues that is a classic Catch 22……He is denying behaviour but that defence which could stand in law required him to admit said behaviour……We discussed for some time and as it was getting late called for the Deputy Justices` Clerk. His advice was that the defendant had had to be aware that his behaviour would have caused alarm or distress to be guilty and if we considered he was unaware then he was not guilty. 

A few minutes later he was relieved to walk away from court retaining his good character. An additional point which did not enter the mix of the above case is that generally being drunk is an aggravating factor in such a matter as it is in other charges but if he were so drunk to be unaware…………

THE LETTER OF THE LAW OR ITS SPIRIT?

 

05. Apr. 2010. – 11:10:44

Since the G20 riots a year ago and the subsequent acquittal of Sergeant Smellie [usually pronounced "smiley" in Scotland] much media coverage has been given to the fact that he had no visible number on his uniform by which he could and should have been identifiable.  Controversy of this type has been going on for a long time and it was following a riotous situation many years ago that police vehicles were required to have similar indentifying characters on their roofs and/or sides.

It therefore makes for interesting reading of a Freedom of Information request on the website of Surrey Police.  This observer would opine that as with other public organisations perhaps the letter of the act is being observed but the spirit appears distinctly lacking.  And often in legal arguments of one sort or another the question arises as to which route to take to resolve an issue; the letter of the law or its spirit.  I`m a spirits man myself when it comes to alcohol and similarly with the law that it is the intent of the draftsman whether it is the Constitution of the United States or the Freedom of Information Act under discussion. If the draftsman has erred in not making the intent clear enough he should be given the doubt and doubtless many "letter" lawyers might disagree.

THIS IS WHAT WE`VE COME TO: DO A "BASIL FAWLTY" GOOSE STEP AND YOU COULD BE IN COURT

 04. Apr. 2010. – 12:57:57 

Like millions of others I can enjoy watching John Cleese in Basil Fawlty persona almost as much as his silly walking etc at Messers M. Python.  Indeed one phrase from the sixth episode has stood the test of time and is well remembered today thirty years later, "Don`t mention the war". His goose stepping scene with a finger across his upper lip will be shown in TV clips a hundred years from now as an example of the last throw of the intellectual freedom of the late 20th century because it is extremely doubtful that the inhibited grey suits with their political correctness, who control many visual media diluting writers` and performers` talents, would today sanction such a sketch. If it is thought I am, to coin a phrase, going over the top on this..........going back to that episode of Fawlty Towers I was watching recently, it reminded me of a case two or three years ago.

The defendant of previous good character  was a veteran of World War 2.  He had been charged with using threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress contrary to Section V[1] and [6] of the Public Order Act 1986........a "catch all offence". Those whom he had been charged with receiving his "words or behaviour" were two Police Community Support Officers.   He had been arguing with a car driver who, he asserted, had almost hit him on a zebra crossing.  The PCSOs had told the pair of them to desist; the driver drove away and our 80+  year old defendant had then performed a Basil Fawlty Hitler goosestep around the PCSOs to demonstrate in his words their bloody interference.  One member of the bench dissented with the verdict of guilty but guilty he was found.  He was sentenced to a Conditional Discharge for six months and to pay £50 of the £350 costs asked for by the prosecution. 

The only conclusion I can draw from this tale and from others of a similar nature is that whilst police officers have discretion, and long might it continue, these ill educated poorly paid apologies for Chinese neighbourhood  wardens [spies], now defunct traffic wardens  or park rangers of my childhood are little better at replacing police officers than repairing a damaged Rolls Royce with filler and expecting it to be as good as new.  It might be cheaper at the time but in the long run the value of the Rolls can never be recovered. And thus the ship of state sails on its being only a matter of time before all the holes below the waterline coalesce and the deluge begins.

NO JURY BUT THREE TRIAL JUDGES

 

03. Apr. 2010. – 12:43:21

Recent legislation allowed for a single judge to sit without jury on certain trials under certain circumstances.  Recently the verdicts were handed down in the first major criminal trial in 400 years to be conducted in this fashion by a  judge sitting without a jury. The important word is major. Sections of the press best described as appealing to those who are impressed by the images rather  than the news or editorials failed to make much mention if any that judge only trials have been conducted in this country for centuries and that defendants have no right to choose any other form.

Those charged with summary only offences can be judged and sentenced by a District Judge sitting alone in a Magistrates` Court. Defendants pleading  not guilty to these same summary offences can also face a bench of usually three magistrates who will rule on facts and when appropriate determine the sentence. Appeals at Crown Court from sentence or verdict at Magistrates` Courts are heard at Crown Court in front of a judge sitting with two magistrates.  The Supreme Court must have at least three judges sitting on an appeal.  Tribunals of three or five judges are common in Europe. 

The argument that an Englishman has had, since Magna Carta, a right to be tried by his peers   is more fancy than fact. It has, however, opened up a deep divide within the legal profession and amongst those closely associated.  Former Met Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, a regular contributor to The Times, wrote yesterday that, "It is time to wake up to reality and accept that sometimes one good judge and true is the answer". It does not seem to have been considered that in the certain circumstances to which I referred earlier three judges would constitute a highly learned bench and would I am sure be acceptable to the "jury is all" brigade who are currently so vociferous in their opposition.

THE BIZARRE GUIDELINES OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

 

02. Apr. 2010. – 18:19:45

The Police are always open to criticism not necessarily because their speech or actions or any contact with the public is against any sort of regulation or law but because they are police officers per se; they have such powers over the citizen that many people involved in some aspect of the legal system would have some difficulty some of the time over some possible infraction of that law. That said they also have to tread carefully in the dispensing of said powers.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is a Quango of the premier division of quangos. Its investigations have led to many police officers having to face the music of one sort or another. Therefore in my opinion it behoves that organisation to do its utmost to retain the respect of all parties; police and citizen. Recent news leads me to think that in bending over backwards to be seen as so totally non partisan and politically so correct its contortions have led to its head being somewhat up its rear. In new guidance to police it states that, "even if the complaint seems to be bizarre, implausible or intrinsically without foundation it should still be investigated and recorded"  and continues "The mere fact that a person has been diagnosed as having a mental illness or learning disability does not mean that he or she will lack capacity to make a complaint against police."

Not surprisingly this has not been greeted with joyous rapture by those blue uniformed guys `n gals who have frequent encounters with those, who, quite frankly, until the 1980s were kept under close care in large locked buildings for their own good as well as ours those buildings now often re-developed as luxury flats.

Not surprisingly this has not been greeted with joyous rapture by those blue uniformed guys `n gals who have frequent encounters with those, who, quite frankly, until the 1980s were kept under close care in large locked buildings for their own good as well as ours those buildings now often re-developed as luxury flats.

The guidance includes the following, "The Police Reform Act does not permit an appropriate authority to decline to record a complaint simply because it appears bizarre, implausible or intrinsically without foundation."

I leave it the imagination of readers to muse on what form a bizarre and/or implausible complaint could take......flying saucer disturbed the daffodils perhaps or Boris Johnson ate my hamster...............