BREACH COURTS LEAD TO JAIL FOR SOME

 16. Jun. 2010. – 15:31:04 

About a month ago a friend who lives a couple of hundred miles away and whose twenty something daughter was known to the courts in her town asked for any advice he could pass on to her regarding her impending appearance at their local Magistrates` Court on breaching conditions imposed by the court for her to undertake unpaid work in the community. I told him only that she should be honest before the bench.

"Breach Courts" are a regular function undertaken by JPs. With increased pressure from both those with knowledge and those without to reduce the numbers being jailed for short periods and for greater use of out of court settlements it is essential that offenders who fail in the requirements of the probation service are brought back to court to answer the charges and to realise that they could face more severe penalties including imprisonment if admitted or found proved.

Last winter an addict aged around thirty was before us for a regular monthly review of his case. He had been attending a drug rehabilitation centre where he was drug tested twice weekly for two months. Each visit had indicated that he was positive for heroin but the officer present indicated that the mere fact that he had not missed a testing session was a step forward even although he was still using. All we could sensibly do was to make our suggestion to him that the next step if he really wanted to get clean was to have at least one negative next month when we told him to return. So success albeit at a low level is for an addict just to turn up regularly to the testing centre. This is the real state of the drug problem. His history was not unusual........many convictions mainly for theft and varying sentences including custody. Later that day another drug user appeared because he had failed to keep an appointment with probation officers. He was so spaced out the duty solicitor asked for the case to be adjourned because his client was incapable of answering to his name. We did not therefore enquire how he remembered to come or travel to court. The final case that afternoon was of a twenty three year old woman under a curfew with a tag who was not at her designated address when she should have been when Serco telephoned her. They had arrived later, so we were told, to find her in a drunken sleep in her garden some yards from her front door having apparently lost her key. As a result her curfew was increased in length by a considerable amount. 

Many such cases result in immediate imprisonment especially for those with history of repeatedly disregarding court orders. It is only after considerable discussion and often with great reluctance that magistrates impose a custodial sentence. Those who would abolish short [usually under six months] sentences should visit a court a few times and realise that for some offenders locking them up to protect society is the only sensible outcome. 

SHORT SENTENCES ARE NOT TO BE DISPOSED OF

 

14. Jun. 2010. – 16:05:31

I am somewhat disturbed to read today that Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke has indicated that he has doubts on the "effectiveness" of short term prison sentences. In the interview he does not define "short" which in my opinion indicates he is flying a kite to see which way the wind is blowing. There are many charitable organisations whose prime long term goal is the the eradication of sentences of fewer than six or twelve months and the supplanting of them with various forms of community sentences. Those who are against such arguments are diverse and comparisons with so called "reformers" are ludicrous....I would not see a charity eg KEEP OFFENDERS IN JAIL being able to achieve good public relations. Prison reformers when real reforms were needed from the time of Elisabeth Fry are now part of a zealous single item issue. 

Comparisons are regularly made of the cost of incarceration vis a vis out of prison disposals. It is no surprise to even a non economist that building and maintaining huge establishments each to house 500 to 3,000 people to be kept under strict controls leading to a total population of perhaps 100,000 is going to cost per person more than any other disposal. This is a fatuous argument philosophically but excellent for politicians. Since most short sentences are made at Magistrates` Courts this is where Mr Clarke`s observations are aimed. 96% of all criminal cases begin and end at such courts. No major changes in their sentencing can sustain a detailed argument to eliminate them. In addition sentencing is governed by the Sentencing Council which requires benches to state publicly if the guidelines are being subject to deviation in any case. So a committee of publicly appointed members of the great and good fraternity appointed through the Ministry of Justice to produce sentencing guidelines is having sand kicked in its face by those who appointed them. Depending on which statistics are preferred it is estimated that about 90% of offences are committed by those who have a drug problem. It might be as politically an incorrect statement as can be made but there are many cogent arguments for decriminalising the possession of Class A,B and C drugs. Then and only then will there be money available and incentives to control and eradicate this evil at source......the dealer who would still be subject to prosecution would be deprived of his customer and his customer would have the link with criminal activity severed. The details of such a radical proposal are not for this writer to speculate upon at this time. But for all involved drugs and current policies are the elephant in the room. 

JUSTICE SEEN TO BE DONE BY "TIME SERVED"

 

11. Jun. 2010. – 11:13:10

Jacob, whose immigration status was unclear, had arrived here two or three years ago from a central African country. He was about 5ft 7" flanked by two security guards and quite dishevelled...not surprising since we later found out he`d been on remand in custody for four weeks having twice breached his bail for sect. IV public order offence for which he was before us for sentencing after pleading guilty as his trial was about to 
begin.

The facts were that in the middle of the afternoon two months previously he had approached a parked car as two women had just got in and mouthing misogynist abuse had attempted to prevent the passenger from closing her door. The two women were truly terrified but further possibly more serious criminality was prevented by a passing stranger`s forceful intervention and the prompt arrival of police who coincidentally were on the street [of Jacob`s family home] to speak to the defendant about breaching his bail on another matter.

His "previous" showed that he had within the last six months been cautioned once and imprisoned once for assaulting his partner. His sect. IV offence was committed in the street where his bail conditions for the second assault had prohibited his being. He had been remanded two days before pleading guilty and being imprisoned for that assault. His lawyer in mitigation asked us to remember he was drunk at the time and distraught about not being able to return to his partner. We reminded him that being drunk is an aggravating feature not mitigation....many lawyers pull this one as if we don`t know how to treat that factor common in many offenders. He also suggested we deal with the matter on the spot by considering how long Jacob had been on remand ie "time served". Our job of sentencing was made more difficult by not knowing how many days he had actually served for the assault before being released early from prison. Part of his period inside would have included sentence for assault and remand time on the sect. IV. Fortunately enquiries to the prison cleared that gap in our knowledge. We retired to consider his sentence.

"Time served" allows a defendant who has been held in custody on remand who would otherwise have been fined or given a custodial sentence to have the time spent in prison considered as sufficient to have paid his dues to society and to be released immediately or to be reduced accordingly. This matter was far too serious for a fine to be considered. Sentencing Guidelines indicated a minimum of 200 hours community payback [unpaid work] or a few weeks jail if the offence were so serious. He was borderline. On the basis of a structured decision we were considering the exact number of hours when we re-visited the reality of the sentence; he had already spent more time on remand than would have been the case if he had been jailed for the offence. It would be unjust therefore in effect to punish him twice. We could not allow "time served" on a community penalty so we sentenced him to ten days custody meaning that he would be released as soon as the prison had done its paperwork.

This was a pragmatic approach brought about by the seemingly illogical gap in "time served" regulations. There are those who would prefer magistrates to follow very strict sentencing guidelines and deviate at their peril. We announced in open court our reasons for a custodial sentence and the consequences. We considered that on that morning as on other mornings justice was done and seen to be done.

STUDENT LAW BREAKERS AND VERY SEVERE CONSEQUENCES

 

10. Jun. 2010. – 13:29:27

The notorious Harold Shipman whose name will live alongside Crippen in the annals of rogue medical murderers ......I won`t use his title the honour of which he fouled so heinously.......changed the manner in which most professions in this country are regulated.

Information from contacts within the optical profession has informed me of sweeping changes in the regulation of that profession; changes which are not necessarily unique to that group. But for a minute I would suggest that readers whose "previous" included a period as a student before 2,000 think back to their conduct and whether or not it included perhaps minor misdemeanours which resulted in meeting face to face the criminal justice system. I would suggest that not many of us could say that our behaviour in those days was as upright as age and experience developed. A bit too much to drink at the wrong time and place, smoking substances other than tobacco, a tendency to speak rather bluntly with a few more decibels and expletives than would have been necessary, a mistaken inclination perhaps for males to consider every female possible fair game and for females time at last to discover that beauty and brains is a deadly combination when applied appropriately. All that and myriad similar personal recollections have been and still are put down to youthful exuberance.....not any more for students of optometry and the allied profession of dispensing optics.

The aspiring optometrist must be registered with the General Optical Council. Not registered? Can`t study. This compulsory student registration means that eighteen year olds away at university are subject to similar controls as are qualified practitioners. But in the case of students the G.O.C. when and if it removes a student from the register is effectively preventing that individual continuing to study for his degree in optometry. Removal is of course the most serious sanction at its disposal and is used only in the most serious cases.

An undeclared fixed penalty notice received in 2007 and a police caution the following year for assault and possession of cannabis has led to student optometrist Amandeep Sandhu being issued with a G.O.C. warning which will remain on his record for three years.

This cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as double jeopardy but it is a warning to students within the caring and legal professions that whilst some of their non vocational friends have only the law with which to concern themselves when spirits or nervous systems are perhaps higher than is sensible they face major problems for their entire future if thoughtless activity becomes lawless activity.