DRINKING BANNING ORDERS

 

16. Apr. 2010. – 14:32:28

In the last thirteen years we have had introduced over three thousand new laws, Police Community Support Officers, revamped traffic wardens with powers to issue penalty notices in addition to parking tickets, ASBOs which are civil orders the breach of which can lead to lengthy custodial sentences. I referred recently to controlled drinking zones and their associated corollary; the drunks just move next door where there is no control.

Since 21/08/2009 Magistrates` and County Courts have had the power to make Drinking Banning Orders. DBOs on conviction came into force on 1st April 2010 in 25 Local Justice Areas. Recently Kidderminster Magistrates` Court issued a two year DBO against Laura Hall, 20, of Bromsgrove banning her from consuming alcohol or purchasing alcohol in pubs, nightclubs, membership clubs or hotels, and from purchasing alcohol in shops and off licences. It also bans her from having alcohol in any unsealed container or consuming alcohol in any public place. The conditions apply throughout England and Wales.

So this offender who was also required to undertake an approved course to tackle her alcohol-misuse issues will be breaking the order if she buys a bottle of cider to take home for her friends. This is what is termed being set up to fail. And if she fancies a pint in the highest pub in England after an exhausting walk up hill and down dale the local bobby can arrest her on the spot and she would then face a criminal charge and possible custody. Unfortunately there are many young people with severe drink problems which ruin their health and often lead to unlawful behaviour the result of which can be personal disintegration and enormous cost to the public purse. But surely legislation of this format cannot be the best way to deal with problem?

DON`T DRINK IN MY HIGH STREET; TRY THE ONE NEXT DOOR

 15. Apr. 2010. – 15:45:50

If a driving instructor told you that for safety`s sake you should drive with the handbrake on you would correctly question his/her ability to do the job of instruction but if you were told that is the law you would probably seek the nearest bucket of water and into it place your head.

A few years ago the government removed the licensing of pubs from Magistrates` Courts to local councils. At the same time the limit on drinking hours was abolished which has led perhaps to eighteen hours a day opening if not the twenty four license predicted. Despite many warnings from magistrates, police, doctors and others of almost certain disastrous consequences the matter went ahead. We know now to all our costs that a twenty four hour cafe culture so beloved of sweet talking politicians was a chimera. Perhaps in twenty years Britons and especially those under twenty five years old might learn to drink in moderation on weekends but that does nothing for those whose local high streets are virtually no go areas after 9.00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights.

And lo! it was 2001 when "controlled drinking zones" were established. Once a control zone is in place, police or PCSOs can seize alcohol from anyone who is not on licensed premises, even if the bottles or cans are unopened. Although drinking is not banned in the zones, police can ask anyone to stop drinking and it is an offence to refuse, punishable by a maximum £500 fine. No explanation or suspicion that the person could be a public nuisance is required. The highest fine is £2,500. The law made clear that the zones should cover only streets or city centre areas with a record of alcohol-related disorder or nuisance. 

In a small town with a single high street a CDZ might offer a significant improvement to residents but in a large city the likely displacement of the drinking to a nearby area should have shown the impracticality of such measures.

Camden Council in north London has on its website, "The CDZ is aimed at those involved in anti-social behaviour, and does not mean that anybody with an alcohol container will have it confiscated."

This week the Council of the London Borough of Barnet which borders the London boroughs of Camden and Brent announced its latest CDZ. Councillors approved a proposal to introduce a controlled drinking zone around Cricklewood Broadway, Cricklewood Lane and Hendon Way after hearing evidence from the police that nuisance drinkers assembling in the area came from Brent and Camden. 

Is this not truly akin to driving with the handbrake on? Let the plebs drink all of the day and all of the night [with apologies to the Kinks] then sweep them off the streets from one borough to the boroughs next door. And they are asking for our vote for more of this. Soon they`ll be telling us they can make the trains run on time. Does that sound better in Italian? 

RELIGION AND THE LAW

 

15. Apr. 2010. – 11:09:45

On April 11th I wrote on the topic "THROWING SHOES IN PUBLIC IS NOT JUST A "SYMBOLIC" POLITICAL GESTURE;IT IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE". The essence was that the words of the judge seemed to fly in the face of the concept of the old adage equality before the law. The British Humanist Association is a charity supporting and representing non religious people within our society where religious fundamentalism of one sort or another appears to be increasingly vocal and not just confined to the extremist elements within Islam.

Last week an Employment Tribunal found against a nurse who had claimed that she was discriminated against when she was asked to remove a crucifix from around her neck. BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson said, "Many observers share our concern about the false and misleading narrative that increasing numbers of churches and aggressive Christian lobby groups are attempting to create when they react to or actively promote cases like this. The story they are telling has it that Christians are being marginalised from public life and persecuted at work, when in fact churches retain enormous privileges and there is no evidence at all that employment discrimination against Christians is a real phenomenon. Freedom of religion or belief is a precious freedom, but its interests are not best served by attempting to talk up claims of persecution and discrimination."

Extremist members of the three monotheistic religions are increasingly crying "foul" when in conflict with the legal process. I`ve mentioned Islamist shoe throwers but Chassidic Jews in East London have whispered of anti Semitism when planning decisions have gone against them. Religious discrimination in general and anti Semitism in particular is a scourge within any society as any reading of history will demonstrate. When that discrimination tends to positively favour in law those of any denomination the effects are equally pernicious but perhaps take longer to percolate and filter through to public awareness. At a time when six hundred and thirty six parliamentary seats are up for grabs appeals to religious factions for votes based on discriminatory wish lists should be avoided for all our sakes, for those with religion and equally for those without.

OLDHAM GETS MORE NON POLICE POLICE TO ADD TO THOSE ALREADY ON THE STREETS

 

13. Apr. 2010. – 18:03:18

Greater Manchester Police have been the subject of a few posts on this blog 26th February included. I`ve also commented unfavourably on the various non police officiates who are regular sights on our streets and who have varying powers the limits of which are not generally known to most people. That aspect of this whole "cheap" policing is not just a factor to be accepted eg bouncers now euphemistically known I believe as door operatives have been given limited powers to hand out instant fines for offences from drinking in an illegal area to disorder, harassment, fly posting and dog fouling.

It is an affront to society to allow groups of people to have so much power and so many varied reasons to question, detain or fine citizens. It often leads to their authority being questioned and that leads some individuals into full face contact with proper police officialdom.

GMP are now abrogating their policing of Oldham`s Metro system. They are creating eighty "Travel Safe Officers" to issue fixed penalty notices, confiscate alcohol and cigarettes, direct traffic, and share police intelligence. And of course they will be issued with that essential requirement of authority on the streets or in this case on the trams; a uniform. Metrolink director Philip Purdy is quoted as saying that during a station block TSOs will be stationed at all entrances and exits to and from the tram stop. A separate team will then board each tram passing through the stop and check tickets. He continued, “The operation is highly visible, acting as a deterrent to other passengers who may consider travelling without a ticket.”

If those responsible admitted that all this delegation of powers is primarily because of the cost saved by employing at low wages those who are not capable of being police officers and therefore benefits the public purse we could have an honest discussion but when we are treated to bland statements that it is all for the public`s benefit it just adds another layer to general disillusion about the type of society that we are becoming; a society where there is uniformed authority with little or no discretion which is empowered to issue various penalty notices acting as police, judge and jury. 

THROWING SHOES IN PUBLIC IS NOT JUST A "SYMBOLIC" POLITICAL GESTURE;IT IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE

 

11. Apr. 2010. – 17:01:38

Did we think that there was one law for the rich and one for the poor? Wasn`t it a great day when the law was equal for Protestants and Catholics?.....apart from the need for the Act of Succession where Papists can`t accede to the throne. Or how about when newly elected Jewish MPs could swear allegiance on the Old Testament and not the New Testament as previously had been required? Not yet convinced about all this equality business? Gone are the days when you could preface your disparaging comments or harassing behaviour about a member of an ethnic minority whether racial or sexual and get away with it. Now there are offences of racially aggravated this and sexually harassing that. Sounds all very equitable so far.

If you`re a follower of the Prophet you have Scotland Yard`s permission to throw shoes as a sign of your protesting at public events apparently as a result of Judge Denniss`s decision at Isleworth Crown Court when he agreed that the act of shoe throwing should not be considered in a charge of violent disorder because it was "a symbolic" political gesture. The good judge is worthy of respect from a mere magistrate and must have cogent reasons for what on the surface appears a bizarre decision but what he has ruled goes against all my ideas of equality of the individual before the law.

The obvious questions to be answered are what happens to this finding if in another situation a Moslem injures a third party with his thrown shoe? And what about a shoe throwing atheist or Hindu throwing his shoe alongside the shoe throwing Moslem? Would s/he therefore be given the privilege of her/his act also being a "symbolic" gesture or would s/he be prosecuted for a violent act? What other "symbolic" gestures could be employed and what various sects would be considered as being religiously robust and/or established to justify such acts? I could continue in this manner but I think the point has been made.

We, the law abiding private citizens of this country, require an immediate statement from the Director of Public Prosecutions after this trial is over. 

DO ALL LAWYERS STILL PUT THEIR CLIENTS` INTERESTS FIRST?

 11. Apr. 2010. – 12:56:09 

On November 21st 2009 I discussed either way offences. This category of offences is triable in either a Magistrates` Court or by a jury in Crown Court. England and Wales is unique in having this choice for defendants. Other English speaking jurisdictions including Scotland, Ireland, USA, and the Commonwealth do not offer this to defendants. 

During Magistrates` Courts procedures prior to the trial of a defendant on an either way charge who has pleaded not guilty the Bench will be asked whether or not it accepts jurisdiction or whether it considers the matter and the likely disposal if there is a guilty verdict to be such that it should be tried before a judge and jury. That decision is made without the Bench having knowledge if the defendant has any previous convictions or is of previous good character. If the Bench declines jurisdiction arrangements are made to send the matter to the Crown Court. If, however, the bench accepts jurisdiction the defendant then has the right to accept a summary trial or to opt for a trial at Crown Court. Many defendants with or without their lawyer`s opinion consider their chances of acquittal are better at Crown Court although statistically this is not a well founded opinion. The consequences of course of a guilty verdict at the Crown Court are sentences not limited to the six months in prison which is the maximum available at Magistrates` Courts. So electing Crown Court can be a high risk strategy. For lawyers state funded fees are higher for Crown Court appearances.

In all walks of society some people do their jobs better than others; that`s a fact of life. A couple of months ago a young woman appeared on a charge of theft; an either way offence. She pleaded not guilty and after hearing the facts of the case from the CPS lawyer we decided to accept jurisdiction. Her lawyer who was appearing to receive procedural advice from the prosecutor after consultation with his client indicated a wish to appear at Crown Court for a jury trial. All quite simple. Then came the question of bail and whether or not the defendant would be remanded on bail with or without conditions or be remanded in custody until her next court appearance. At this stage the Bench has access to a defendant`s previous record if there is one and boy oh boy did this defendant have a record of previous robberies and thefts and other similar matters some committed on bail. She was remanded in custody.

The point of all this is to wonder why this woman`s counsel advised her to go to Crown Court and have her case tried by a jury. It is not for me to pre-suppose the result but, and it`s a big but, if she is found guilty she is going to go away for at least eighteen months if not longer whereas if she had remained with the Magistrates` Court the maximum would be six months. 

In these stringent times when the public purse strings are being drawn ever tighter for lawyers and legal aid fees did a higher fee rate at Crown Court have any influence over the lawyer`s advice? Ten years ago I wouldn`t have thought of asking the question. 

NO CASH FOR COURTS BUT MONEY FOR NEW CARPETS

 

11. Apr. 2010. – 12:03:37

Magistrates` Courts both physically and conceptually have been and are struggling on limited budgets. Apparently some courts have ceased the supply of biscuits for JPs causing whispers of rebellion quickly dispersed by more cups of tea and coffee which are still on offer from the public purse. When, however, ushers are unavailable to function at trial proceedings owing to vacancies not being filled and court officials including legal advisers and defence or prosecuting counsel, being required to leave court to find witnesses it becomes a matter of great concern.....it is similar to the difference between sensible dieting and anorexia.

So it was to my astonishment a couple of weeks ago to see in the car park about six very thick rolls of carpet lying in a skip along with hundreds of carpet tiles. Unofficial mutterings from various sources seemed to agree that many areas in our very large building were being re-furbished. It seems that budgets have to be "spent" by the end of March or the following year`s funds would be reduced.

Now I haven`t tramped through every office or corridor but in general there did not seem to my untrained eye areas of threadbare floor covering or damp on the walls. The "estate" budget would appear to be separated from the cash required to run the courts system; hence not enough ushers amongst other human shortages. When politicians shout louder and louder about efficiency savings every five years I begin to wonder where they are going with that subject and indeed whether for their eyes the trees are truly obscuring the wood.

---

TV LICENSE AND THE CRIMINAL LAW

 

09. Apr. 2010. – 11:46:37

Most prosecutions in UK are carried out by authorised government controlled authorities such as the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales and the Procurator Fiscal`s Office in Scotland. Individuals can bring private prosecutions under certain circumstances. And there are, however, organisations such as the R.S.P.C.A., London Buses or virtually any local authority which also prosecute often in Magistrates` Courts where they pay a fee to the court to "hire" a bench to sit in judgement similar to what happens in the criminal cases usually adjudicated.

The C.P.S. is a public service, part of the Ministry of Justice, open to inspection with policies, performance etc available for public scrutiny and monitored by various parliamentary overlords. The C.P.S. does not send mail outs to magistrates on a regular basis.

One prosecuting body which sends mail outs two or three times a year to every member of the Justices of the Peace professional representative organisation, the Magistrates` Association, is TV Licensing. This four page publication "In Brief" more or less extols this quango`s right to operate and the manner in which it "tries its hardest" not to prosecute non license payers. Tosh!!!!!

Anybody moving to a new address or who does not use a TV set at their current address knows well enough of the bombardment of requests, which soon become demands, to pay the license fee. Their so called inspectors have no right whatsoever to enter premises without the permission of the occupier but of course many occupiers do not know this. 

Watching a live TV programme on a TV set or on the internet requires a TV license. Failure to have one is a criminal matter and it is criminal prosecutions which take place as mentioned above. Sometimes the results are iniquitous to say the least. A case which has stayed clearly in my mind was that of a Harvard law graduate attending an English university for a term as a post graduate student. He was staying with friends for a few days watching a football match on TV when there was a knock on the door. He was the person least interested in "soccer" and answered the door. To the question from the official with an ID badge whether the TV was on he innocently answered in the affirmative. That young American was in front of us for having no TV license because that is the current situation; s/he who answers the door to the TV license Gestapo is the one responsible in law. There was no doubt that he was guilty but he was given the second lowest disposal available....a conditional discharge. Although his name would not appear on the Police National Computer he now has a criminal record in England.

It is a question for the next government whether or not the BBC should continue to be funded by a license fee. It is a question of justice that non payment of such a fee should be constituted as a civil matter and judged as such and the anachronism of criminal proceedings be consigned to history.