01. Jul. 2010. – 11:56:31
Not surprisingly media in all its forms have been occupied with two coincident policy announcements from the Ministry of Justice; the abolition of short prison sentences and the closure of perhaps a third of the Magistrates` Courts in England & Wales. Even in these times of budgetary parsimony government press offices are working overtime. Their spinning of the associated data to justify these policies is akin to describing the sinking of the Titanic as ,"Ship sunk...over 1000 saved by Britain`s merchant ship Corinthian".
Court closures could be said to occupy a no man`s land between political policy and the administration of justice. I would opine that the policy is political and as such those organisations with an interest in the topics including the Magistrates` Association have promptly made their opinions in all forms available to those who will promulgate them to as wide an audience as possible. This writer too has taken welcome advantage of what technology allows. But in Penrith the Chairman of the local Bench has taken it upon himself to offer his individual opinion on the proposed government policy whereby his local court might be closed.
A senior magistrate has vowed to fight plans to close Penrith court saying he won`t take it lying down.
This opinion is probably in line with those JPs in a similar situation whether more concerned about their own ability or willingness to travel to another court building or on behalf of the offenders and staff involved in any court. It is completely to be applauded that individuals take up Kenneth Clarke`s offer of consultation as the bench chairman at Eden says he intends to do but it is in my opinion quite another to sign off a long piece of his views in a local newspaper. This appears to be a deliberate political intervention by a member of the judiciary and not at all in keeping with A Media Guide for Magistrates from the Judicial Communications Office 2006 in which are quoted the wise words of Lord Irvine, a previous Lord Chancellor,
There is a distinction between judicial participation in public controversy of a political nature and the judges participation in public controversy concerning the effective administration of justice ..... I think that judges would be wise to confine themselves to controversy about the administration of justice. If they engage more extensively in political controversy, they risk undermining public confidence in their political impartiality.
I would humbly suggest that other colleagues who might have similar thoughts or intentions to allow them to remain purely cerebral until they are conveyed privately or through appropriate organisations to the relevant office at the Ministry.
Court closures could be said to occupy a no man`s land between political policy and the administration of justice. I would opine that the policy is political and as such those organisations with an interest in the topics including the Magistrates` Association have promptly made their opinions in all forms available to those who will promulgate them to as wide an audience as possible. This writer too has taken welcome advantage of what technology allows. But in Penrith the Chairman of the local Bench has taken it upon himself to offer his individual opinion on the proposed government policy whereby his local court might be closed.
A senior magistrate has vowed to fight plans to close Penrith court saying he won`t take it lying down.
This opinion is probably in line with those JPs in a similar situation whether more concerned about their own ability or willingness to travel to another court building or on behalf of the offenders and staff involved in any court. It is completely to be applauded that individuals take up Kenneth Clarke`s offer of consultation as the bench chairman at Eden says he intends to do but it is in my opinion quite another to sign off a long piece of his views in a local newspaper. This appears to be a deliberate political intervention by a member of the judiciary and not at all in keeping with A Media Guide for Magistrates from the Judicial Communications Office 2006 in which are quoted the wise words of Lord Irvine, a previous Lord Chancellor,
There is a distinction between judicial participation in public controversy of a political nature and the judges participation in public controversy concerning the effective administration of justice ..... I think that judges would be wise to confine themselves to controversy about the administration of justice. If they engage more extensively in political controversy, they risk undermining public confidence in their political impartiality.
I would humbly suggest that other colleagues who might have similar thoughts or intentions to allow them to remain purely cerebral until they are conveyed privately or through appropriate organisations to the relevant office at the Ministry.
No comments:
Post a Comment