EMPLOYERS -V - EMPLOYEES

 15. May. 2010. – 13:41:50 

Once upon a time in a far off land there was a boss and there were his workers. And for reasons unknown and not required the boss sacked a worker and the worker and his family were starving such that his children were taken into the workhouse, his wife died from the gin and the worker was hanged for stealing a leg of lamb. And lo! Unto this land came a man with a thick beard speaking a strange tongue and he preached against money lenders in the City temple and those who believed took his name and spread the word. Those words spread east and in time revolution took place in one country. But in the west where the preacher had expected the workers to rise in his name the majority rejected his teaching.

And today the ability of an employer to sack staff has reached such labyrinthine difficulties that the Court of Appeal has been involved in the case of Roldan -v- Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust. 

I make no comment on the case itself. However as employment lawyers are only too well aware there are pots of gold in this area but the true cost is against a natural entrepreneurial spirit in this country epitomised by Napoleon`s reference to "A nation of shopkeepers". Increasingly restrictive employment laws make life extremely difficult for the small independent employer. Perhaps there might in the new government be somebody who can rekindle the spark of ambition for those wishing to "go it alone" but with the saintly Doctor Cable in charge of the medicine I have my doubts. 

WARNINGS FROM THE BENCH ON FUTURE SENTENCING

 14. May. 2010. – 11:05:20 

Within the Magistrates` Courts system, at least as far as Justices of the Peace are advised by their legal advisers, one bench cannot "tie" another; ie any sentencing decision made must allow a subsequent bench freedom to act as it so wishes. For that reason when a matter is adjourned prior to sentencing, for probation reports to be presented on a convicted defendant, such reports being laid before a sentencing bench at the adjournment date, a requirement of the report will often have the addendum, "all options open including sending to the Crown Court". This makes lawful the possibility that the defendant might be sentenced by a Crown Court judge whose sentencing powers exceed the maximum of six months at a Magistrates` Court

It was therefore surprising that yesterday at Bootle Magistrates` Court where a milkman who was a recidivist user of cannabis was told by a District Judge who sentenced him to pay a total of £185 in fine, costs and surcharge,

I can disqualify you from driving and disqualifying you from driving would stop you from doing your job, and you would then lose your job, wouldn’t you? Next time I see you in this court I will ban you from driving.

It is entirely possible that a further appearance by that individual could be before the same District Judge but not necessarily. Another D.J. or a bench might take a different view so the original "threat" would have been an empty one. Whilst I and others I`m sure have suggested to offenders that if they are here next time they are likely to....or......it is not unlikely that next time...etc...etc

Magistrates and District Judges operate under the same guidelines and apply the same laws. If I and my colleagues were to make such a statement it is highly likely we would be reprimanded. 

A NEW BEGINNING WITH A NEW SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE?

 13. May. 2010. – 17:53:00 

It seems a trojan had invaded my cyber fortress when I was last posting on Pagan Police despite the efforts of SpyBot and McAfee. My faith in internet security has now been entrusted to Mr Kaspersky. 

With regard to faith it seems our Crown Prosecution Service wishes to push the wedge in the door of jury trials a little bit wider..........surprise surprise. The old story of offering the devil a finger and he`ll take your whole arm could not be more appropriate. I commented on the first such trial on 19th February and now it seems that last week a Crown Prosecution Service spokeswoman said: “I can confirm that there are two cases going through the process.” Gagging orders prevent the disclosure of further information. Many actions in our jurisdiction are based on precedent. I would hazard a comment that despite vehement opposition from many involved in our justice system we are going to have many more such applications and that the bar will be lowered.....to what level one can only speculate but within the tenure of our new Secretary of State for Justice Ken Clarke I predict it will be almost commonplace; so much for Magna Carta. 

And mentioning Rt Hon K.Clarke MP QC it was when he was Secretary for Health in 1988 that he "privatised" eye examinations causing a major blip in that market, infuriated opticians and encouraged heated criticism that the nation would go blind as a result. He is the perfect personality to pursue unpopular policies the professionals involved abhor but can be sold to the public as a wonderful benefit. 

My colleagues in the Magistrates` Association have just got round to mentioning Drink Banning Orders". They should keep up with this blogger who posted on 16th April the details of this example of knee jerk legislation. I hope that our new government will adhere to D.Cameron`s pledge to repeal some of the unnecessary legislation of the last thirteen years. This could be a good place to begin. 

A MAGISTRATE`S ILL JUDGED RANTS?

 10. May. 2010. – 18:19:19 

Having the luxury of a couple of hours for doing the garden or watching Sky News I chose the latter. Perhaps some digging would have been a better for my psyche. G Brown has just told the world that he will resign as leader of the Labour Party so that a new one can be unveiled at the party conference in September....the new improved variety no doubt. 

All this is in the public interest for stable government. Various acolytes came to the microphone to consider and comment on this magnanimous statement including John Mann MP who graced the TV screens a couple of days ago telling der fuehrer to get lost.

As magistrates my colleagues and I are used to hearing testimony under oath on many occasions. In my opinion to hear the weasel words of those in whom we trust to serve us through internal and international machinations, serves only the purpose of individual or party aspiration, is not just profoundly depressing; it continues the process of a public distrust in the integrity of our representatives and although thankfully the BNP lost its trousers in the election I am acutely aware that a more refined and appealing demagogue than is currently around can only be over the political horizon with carefully crafted sound bites and popular appeal. Truly the ground is being laid. 

LITTER LOUTS

 10. May. 2010. – 12:57:50 

People of a not so certain age when discussing current social mores will sometimes use the phrase, "in my day" to describe changes which in their opinion are for the worse for each of us as individuals and for us all as "society"; the entity for which Maggie T doubted the existence. 

Aged relatives who lived through the horrors of World War 2 on active service and the Blitz at home have described to me [and I presume others can claim similar discussions] that if not "law" but certainly "order" was encouraged if not enforced by individuals be they family, neighbours, bus conductors, train guards or park rangers to name a few. Unless there was direct violence or a risk of such, admonishment from such individuals was enough to oil the wheels of public civility and avoid confrontation with most people including rowdy teenagers most of the time. 

Street tidiness was a job for local authorities and street cleaners were a common sight keeping the environment clean and tidy and also providing low level employment for those who would otherwise be unemployed or unemployable. A clean and tidy neighbourhood has been shown to reduce disorder especially low level disorder which can blight many lives. The "zero tolerance" concept pioneered in New York City is a direct result of this thinking. 

The Keep Britain Tidy Campaign began in 1954 as an initiative of the National Federation of Womens` Institutes. Some might remember the iconic posed picture of Margaret Thatcher tidying up in Trafalgar Square. The Litter Act of 1983 consolidated all previous legislation. Prosecutions for littering are brought under section 87 - Offence of Leaving Litter - of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The offence is: "A person is guilty of an offence if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which this section applies and leaves it.”

However, a person convicted of this offence could be liable to a maximum fine of £2,500 (a level 4 offence on the standard scale). Current criminal prosecutions are conducted by local councils under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2006. 

And that was why two women who dropped cigarette ends in the street ended up at Magistrates` Courts. Lyndsay Moore, 32, of Firleigh Road, Kingsteignton, who pleaded guilty, was ordered to pay a total of £115 in a case brought by Teignbridge Council, while Charlotte Sleep, 35, of Silver Street, Ipplepen, was ordered to pay a total of £265 in fines and costs in a case which was brought by Torbay Council and heard in her absence. It is indeed a sad reflection on our conduct when the criminal law must be applied to such basic anti social behaviour. Singapore has the reputation of being the world`s cleanest city. In 1992 Corrective Work Orders were introduced as an alternative to fines up to S$1,000 [£500] for littering and offenders were required to wear distinctive clothing whilst cleaning streets for a specified number of hours. It is open to discussion whether or not the forthcoming change of government will lead us closer or not to the highly regimented regime of Singapore and whether or not that would or would not be desirable. 

Without entering into any religious context whatsoever the original precept for the individual and society to rub along with minimal friction is to do to others what one would ask them to do to oneself. And that includes taking one`s rubbish home to dispose of carefully [including cigarette ends]. 

THE ASBO: A MONSTER OUT OF CONTROL ?

 08. May. 2010. – 12:56:20 

Anti Social Behaviour Orders [ASBOs] have been around for eight years. They were and are designed in general to curb the type of behaviour which has a demonstrably disturbing effect on the quality of life for those citizens who are trying to lead normal law abiding lives eg graffiti, excessive loud noise especially at unsocial hours, swearing, drunken behaviour, drug dealing etc. The minimum period for which they can be applied is two years. The orders are not criminal penalties and are not intended to punish the offender. However breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of five years in custody.

Until December 2007 almost 15,000 ASBOs were made. An ASBO to prevent offender[s] from meeting in a certain street, area or town is in my opinion an obvious simple prohibition which the offender[s] can reasonably be hoped to observe and which will give respite to those affected by offensive behaviour in their neighbourhood. However like the proposed inter stellar sail space ship which from a velocity of virtually zero to an attainable velocity estimated at half a million MPH or the proverbial acorn to oak the ASBO has become a monster out of control and an example is the case of Robert Sansford 56 of East Sussex who in February attacked two women in the Setting Sun pub in Brighton leaving one unable to return to work. Sansford is currently in prison awaiting sentence for the Setting Sun attack.

A council application for an ASBO against Sansford was succesful yesterday at Brighton Magistrates` Court preventing him from entering all clubs, pubs, bars and off-licences in England and Wales for six years.

When he is released can any sane person believe that this order will be effective? Does it seem likely that a pub landlord in eg Penrith will call the local bobby to report this offender is having a drink in my snug. Of course he won`t but here`s the rub; if and when he is arrested after committing an offence in a prohibited environment his record will appear on the Police National Computer and he will be brought to court for breach of his ASBO. 

Is this form of retribution really beneficial for the social soul of this nation?

ELECTION DAY BUT NOT FOR MAGISTRATES

 06. May. 2010. – 12:23:58 

I have just cast my votes for the general and local election. Nothing unusual in that of course. At this late stage I must admit to voting at the age of eighteen when the voting age was set at twenty one. What was a politically aware teenager to do? I had received a voting card and when I presented it at the local polling station there it was written less on tablets of stone; more New Roman typescript, on the electoral role of a solid Tory seat populated 80% by solid working class people who valued their MP and his efforts for his constituency more than the political label around his neck. Anyway back to today`s crosses that we are marking and for the first time I can recollect and I`ve lived in the same house for over twenty years there was a queue at the polling station. It will be interesting to discover whether the turn out nationally is higher than expected.

The whole process of voting set me thinking about the procedures under which judges and magistrates arrive in their positions. It is well known that many judicial positions in the United States are elective. My colleagues and I are appointed until the age of seventy when we are put out to grass. Being an enthusiastic carnivore I can`t say I`m looking forward to that day.