LICENSING ACT 2003,s.146 ALCOHOL SALES TO CHILDREN

 14. Jul. 2010. – 12:27:13 

Alcohol has been part of man`s cultural tradition before he realised what “culture” meant. The discovery of late Stone Age beer jugs has established the fact that intentionally fermented beverages existed at least as early as the Neolithic period (cir. 10,000 B.C.) Beer was the major beverage among the Babylonians, and as early as 2,700 B.C. they worshiped a wine goddess and other wine deities . Wine making along with the distillation of olive oil was amongst ancient civilisations` earliest industries. The classical pioneers of surgery used various forms of alcohol as anaesthetics and medicaments. A Chinese imperial edict of about 1,116 B.C. makes it clear that the use of alcohol in moderation was believed to be prescribed by heaven. Beer was brewed by monks in the 17th century. The name of the celebrated cartoonist Hogarth became synonymous with his cartoons of Gin Lane and Beer Street in 1750/1. 

The benefits and problems associated with drinking alcohol are imbedded in us. However sales of alcohol have been subject to various forms of control for two hundred years and laterally sales from on and off license premises to children have come under increasing scrutiny. The health traumas and social disturbance associated with alcohol and developing brains has long been a cause for concern. 

With increasing affluence reaching down to the back pockets and purses of even the pre teen group, legislation against sales to under 18s enshrined in the Licensing Act of 2003 s.146[forbidding sale of alcohol to children] was intended to deter potential offenders. In my opinion if it is perhaps too soon to say it has failed, it is not too soon to say that it is not being used to its potential and there are few things worse in socio/legal terms than the appropriate office having powers to use legislation and not using those powers. Apart from anything else it brings the law [and the lawmaker] into disrespect. 

Three weeks ago [24/06/10] I blogged inter alia that it had been a year or more since I had sat on a case of breach of s.146. Of course the man upstairs was spinning the wheel and a few days later before me [and my colleagues] was a case brought, as these cases usually are, by the local trading standards officer of the borough. A 60+ part time employee had been working in the off license for over ten years. She was of good character. In addition some six months previously [as we were later informed] she had successfully refused an alcohol sale to a minor working under cover for the council`s trading standards office in a mystery shopper test. This time however she had pleaded guilty to selling beer, in another trading standards office under age shopping test, to a 12 year old whose picture in evidence left us in no doubt of the child`s appearance being very much under age. The means form and her lawyer explained to us she had been sacked, had little income and was living with and supported by her son. In questioning the prosecutor regarding his asked for costs account of over £1,200 some disturbing facts emerged. When it was pointed out that those council employees whose time was priced in his account were paid to do the job he quoted case law to support his claim………so far so good. When we enquired about the history of sales at the premises we were told of the successful test mentioned earlier but also that other employees….at least on two occasions in the previous two years….had been convicted under s.146. On further questioning he told us that the licensee had never ever been summonsed. He was asked why not. His reply was that policy was to summons licensees of large outlets eg supermarkets but not small retailers. Since this offence also carries the possibility of a Penalty Notice of £80 we asked why this had not been applied to the defendant in these particular circumstances. He told us that he would have required a police officer to administer such a disposal and that was not policy or practicable. 

We considered a Conditional Discharge in view of mitigation presented but decided against. Our sentence was Fine £55, Victim Surcharge £15 and costs £55; a total of £125. 

The country is bedevilled by juvenile drunkenness and the disorder which follows in its wake. Only when public policy insists why licensees should not lose their license and consequently their income for the actions of their employees will headway be made to control the sales of alcohol to children.

THE WISDOM OF AGE AND BODY OF YOUTH

 13. Jul. 2010. – 08:52:44 

I`ve been a JP for a while. Unlike many of my colleagues who post their opinions on the Magistrates` Forum I`m not looking for a long [or short] service medal or letters indicating association with a defunct empire when I step down or to be more precise when I am here today and gone tomorrow the day after I hit the biblical time span….if I last that long. I don`t seek self aggrandisement by pondering whether I do or don`t use the J.P. suffix in correspondence . I don`t. Anyway I`m much happier in the anonymous position where most of my friends are not even aware of my judicial status. Judging….to coin a phrase……… from comments I hear in the retiring room I certainly don`t want to appear to others a font of all knowledge criminal and a source of advice on matters not my business. 

But with an unprecedented increase in my bench`s intake over the last couple of years more and more of my newer colleagues are expecting words of wisdom when they ask for advice or information. And truth be told I`m finding that increasingly most of that advice or information is actually accurate. That certainly is a continuing function of the process of intellectual osmosis which we all hope will see us through before we need somebody to change our nappy. 

Last week a colleague posited a question I should put on her [and our] behalf to a trial witness. After a couple of seconds I decided it was not appropriate and told her so with reasons. She accepted my decision. At the post court review I brought this question up with our very senior legal adviser for his opinion as to whether I had acted correctly or perhaps had been over cautious. Without any hesitation he replied and gave succinct reasons why the question might have upset the level playing field over which we had presided. My colleague chipped in with, “A Brownie point for you Mr Chairman”, and I haven`t even been a boy scout. 

Oh that we had the wisdom of age and body of youth……..now who said that? 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND LICENSING BILL SCOTLAND

 12. Jul. 2010. – 11:39:12 

I have previously blogged here that legal processes in Scotland are often more soundly based and applicable to this century than some of those in England & Wales. However since the formation of the current Scottish government disturbing trends have been noted under the auspices of the Cabinet Secretary Kenny MacAskill whose responsibilities include criminal law and procedure, youth justice, criminal justice social work, police, prisons and sentencing policy, legal aid, legal profession, courts and law reform, anti-social behaviour, sectarianism, human rights, fire and rescue services, community safety, civil contingencies, drugs policy and related matters, liquor licensing, vulnerable witnesses, victim support and civil law, charity law, religious and faith organisations.

The Al Megrahi affair showed the world that arguably Scotland`s justice system was not above having its ear bent for political and/or financial/business purposes. It even caused unfavourable comment from US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton; an uncommon utterance. 

Last week this same Scottish politician steered through Holyrood a Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill which amongst other things will virtually abolish custodial sentences of less than three months and rejected attempts to impose mandatory six month sentences for carrying a knife. Proposals to criminalise all aspects of prostitution and tougher licensing laws for lap-dancing clubs were also defeated, as were plans to give victims of crime the opportunity to speak at parole hearings. However in a halt to the apparently onward march of retaining DNA samples forensic data will be collected from children in relation to serious offences only. 

Whilst there is no doubt that independent of one`s viewpoint the Bill could be described as a mixed bag it does demonstrate an attempt to include in the basket many disparate measures that go towards a joined up legislative basis underlying law and order north of the border. It certainly should be compulsive reading at the Home Office and Ministry of Justice.

SHOULD UK POLICE BE ROUTINELY ARMED?

 11. Jul. 2010. – 13:41:13 

There was a semi interesting accompaniment to my coffee and toast this morning on BBC 1 TV where during a discussion on whether police should be routinely armed the presenter informed her guests [and us] that 40% of members of the Police Federation approved of such a change. This is virtually double the minority from 2006. The reason for the debate was of course the two recent week long manhunts in two of the most rural constabularies in England where police in both cases were chasing their tails for most of the time.

Various avenues of discussion opened up some deserving of serious thought and some not worth their proponent’s intake of breath. One such nonsense was the assertion that it would ruin the citizens` inclination to approach a police officer and ask for directions. Another was the oft heard description that we have a "citizens` police". I`m not quite sure what that means except perhaps police as citizens have been empowered to enforce the law. Possibly I live on another planet but in all reality what other type of police could we have unless there is a state of martial law. 

In the last century pre World War2 police were routinely armed; in some cases it was voluntary. The growth in British travel abroad has familiarised us with armed police virtually everywhere except New Zealand and Bermuda although I`m sure there are other small countries where the police officer still goes about his business without a sidearm. An attitude pointer could be defined as the answer to the question, "At a UK airport do you feel more safe or less safe with officers on patrol with machine pistols?"

Those occasions where police shoot innocent people are, thankfully, so rare that they are instantly remembered. But we are also very aware of regular reports of police using lower levels of force quite out of proportion to any perceived threat. And that leads to the fear that if such officers had access to lethal force they would be just as indiscriminate with a Glock 17 as with their baton.

As in many other ways this country is governed, the back door approach is often the favourite way to implement policy. Country wide there are patrolling police vehicles with an armoury in the boot. There is no doubt that for a minority of criminals from the teen gangs of London, Birmingham. Manchester and other cities to the hundred crime bosses said to be at the summit of most of the [drug, prostitution, people smuggling, counterfeiting] crime in this country force must be met with overwhelming force. Properly informed debate both within and without parliament is long overdue on this topic. 

MAGISTRATES` ASSOCIATION IS UNREPRESENTATIVE OF JPs

 10. Jul. 2010. – 13:27:12 

The Magistrates` Association is an unusual organisation insofar as its membership does not join by virtue of exams passed, degrees achieved, professional qualifications awarded or employment requirements. It does not truly represent its members` interests in the manner eg of the BMA . The only criterion for membership is that one must have been appointed Justice of the Peace. It was founded in 1921 and “is funded by its members to represent their interests”. And that`s the rub; representation. A magazine is published about ten times a year. It is certainly informative but does little as far as representing members` views apart from a few letters. Representation is by the outdated, inefficient and open to gerrymandering delegate to branch to council method. Branches include Middlesex; a county not now in existence. One must keep in mind that Branches can cover a geographical area containing several benches; considering that most JPs on a bench meet on duty only occasionally owing to sitting about once a fortnight on a rota system and rarely meet other members from other benches within the branch except at often poorly attended branch meetings the scope for self serving individuals to propel themselves from representative to council member to committee member, in addition to those who genuinely wish to represent their colleagues, is enormous.

An enterprising techie colleague about five years ago produced his independently constructed and funded forum where a few individuals discovered the benefits of almost instant discussion on a variety of matters of common interest. This has now morphed into a Forum organised and run by the Association. It would be thought that with about 1,000 registered and about 30 regular contributors the four aged sixty something candidates for the impending election of two vice chairmen would be eager to ascertain their colleagues` views and offer themselves to online discussion of what they could offer to their voters, their opinions on the many varied problems facing magistrates and in effect allow a knowledge based democratic process to be seen to take place. Even the leaders of the main political parties realised that direct appeal to the electorate was an event overdue in its arrival. Despite several on line entreaties none of these men has bothered to communicate. Indeed of all the candidates only Richard Monkhouse has been a contributor to the Forum 

Candidate Clift in his hustings column in the current magazine is up front about parading his MBE, takes 70% of his column inches to tell of his good works and supplies no idea of any concrete action he would seek to initiate.

Candidate Fassenfelt standing for re-election has the gall to write, “I envisage an Association that communicates better with its members….”

Candidate Richardson whilst less of a politicised clone than Clift or Fassenfelt nevertheless has only platitudes to offer. 

To have these four men of 60+ years standing as candidates is a reflection on the soviet style system of branch representatives. This allows the Council eg to state that if the North Report recommendation of a reduced drink driving limit of 50mg/100ml becomes law the Magistrates` Association would recommend against North`s opinion that the current and well established minimum twelve month period of disqualification be retained;

It would be a retrograde step to diminish the force of that weapon, with the conclusion that, in addition to the current band C fine, 12 months mandatory disqualification should continue to be imposed if the limit is reduced to 50 mg/100 ml.

This decision taken by an almost self selected group might be representative of the Association`s Council members but it almost certainly without debate cannot be said to be an accurate reflection of the opinions of the country`s JPs. A decision like that and others of such import ought to be based on firm foundations. The representation system of this organisation needs to be from ground up like the proverbial pyramid. And that means having branches based upon each bench where formal and informal contact can readily take place with direct contact then to the top. Multi bench branches with perfunctory contact from rep. upwards insulates a hierarchy which is virtually self perpetuating. It has to change or be changed.

BORN 1360 AND NOT GOING SO STRONG

 08. Jul. 2010. – 21:11:21 

Justices of the Peace have their 650th birthday this year. We must have been a good idea to have lasted so long. We`ve seen out Henry V and the long bow, survived bloody Mary and regicide Cromwell, served under William of Orange, become upper middle class with Victoria, continued under a National Government and are still alive and ethnically diverse under the first peace time coalition for decades but we`re hardly kicking.

With the forthcoming closure of many if not all the courts signalled recently and the amalgamation of benches it is inevitable that many JPs will call it a day. When a job is voluntary one of the perks is no loss of income when one chooses to go.

If we were all put out to grass it`s unlikely we would be missed after a couple of years. No government spokesman has ever even hinted at such a possibility but a sentence with words and actions speaks louder. Virtually all our courts have at least one full or part time District Judge. They are certainly necessary insofar as they sit on any category of case and are available for extended hearings. Whether trial and sentence by a single judge is wholly in line with the "jury" concept is a moot point but it is unlikely to change. But what is likely to change is the increasing numbers of cases coming before DJs by virtue of their increase in numbers. The Judicial Appointments Commission is currently advertising for thirty new DJs which I estimate will cost the exchequer a sum in excess of £40 million p/a. The fiscal argument is that DJs can do three times the volume of work done by a JPs bench which must be served by a legal adviser who is a barrister or solicitor at half the cost of a DJ. Once DJs are persuaded that they can dispense with the legal adviser cost comparisons are not simple. If and when that happens JPs` current role will be history. We`ll be kept for appeals or to sit as wingers at trials with a DJ in the middle chair as a sop to the judges and those of us who are left.

If we make our 675th birthday I`ll be surprised; I`ll also be well retired and I hope still going strong. 

LEGAL AID DENIED AT MAGISTRATES` COURT INCREASES LEGAL AID COSTS AT CROWN COURT APPEAL

 @ 08. Jul. 2010. – 16:12:11 

Applications for legal aid for appeals at Crown Court have to be made at the Magistrates` Court where the original hearing was held. This procedure is fairly recent according to His Honour when I was sitting on an appeal not so long ago.

I had been reminded of the history of legal aid when sitting in the justices` room with a colleague from another bench prior to the case being called. 

The appeal was against conviction and sentence for driving with excess alcohol. She was of previously good character. The appellant who was unrepresented before us and, she said, at the Magistrates` Court where it seems legal aid had been refused. She told us she was a recent immigrant from Bosnia. By her appearance she was a strict Moslem although her face wasn`t covered; an escape for His Honour who would have had to decide whether a fully veiled person in her position was appropriate in the circumstances. Her religious observance was pertinent to the case as we discovered.

She had accompanied as a passenger two [non Moslem] friends to what she thought was a cafe but in reality was a bar. The driver had parked nearby. Never having drunk alcohol she offered to sit outside in the vehicle whilst her friends had a drink. Shortly afterwards one of them brought her out a can and a packet of crisps. The friend was doubtful if she was legally parked and asked the appellant who had a valid license to move the car a short distance to an unregulated parking spot. So after emptying the can, she was thirsty, she drove off to be stopped by police after a short time owing to a broken rear light. The officer`s notebook reported a smell of alcohol, she was breathalysed and taken to the station where the reading was 79 in breath. So far so good.....but what was the basis of her appeal? Eventually the judge teased out of her that she hadn`t known she had been drinking alcohol; she had never in her life had an alcoholic drink....not exactly unknowingly drinking a spiked drink.....the coke and vodka defence as His Honour termed it. Crown counsel offered to speak to her "off the record" in an attempt to expedite matters. The upshot was that she asserted now that in addition she had driven only about 20M. She had not mentioned this on arrest, at the station. There was no way of knowing if these factors had been stated at the original hearing where she had pleaded guilty. So there were two grounds....short distance travelled and a variation of a spiked drink defence. Without representation for the lady or the presence of the arresting police officer for the Crown it was impossible to continue. A young barrister awaiting the following case offered her assistance to the court and at this stage the clerk advised his honour that legal aid to the dock from the Crown Court was no longer possible; an appellant had to apply at Magistrates` Court. The young counsel nevertheless offered her services. However the conclusion was that the matter would have to be adjourned for the police officer to give evidence re distance followed which was not in his notebook and that legal aid would be necessary on both means and interests of justice. 

So a saving of the cost of legal aid at the lower court will have led to greater costs at Crown Court. Whether the outcome would have been much different if a duty solicitor had interviewed her at the outset and discussed the possibilities is open to question but the fact remains that we as magistrates are going to have to get used to increasing numbers of un-represented defendants. 

THE £BILLION SCANDAL OF UNPAID FINES

 

07. Jul. 2010. – 16:13:09

I had hoped to avoid any post that had even the most distant relationship to the short sentences debate but like Homer Simpson when he sees a doughnut I can`t keep my mouth shut.

The protagonists of that debate consistently propose increasing the use of financial penalties in order to reduce custodial sentences......as if magistrates are not doing that when the circumstances are appropriate. I have previously commented that at any time there is currently half a billion pounds outstanding in unpaid fines. Seems the National Audit Office has now issued updated and comprehensive figures for outstanding confiscation orders, fines, compensation and legal costs. A summary from the Magistrates` Association website is copied below.

The Magistrates' Association reads with astonishment the National Audit Office report that there is a staggering £1.3billion in unpaid confiscation orders, fines, compensation and legal costs. At a time of financial constraint with 103 courts threatened with closure to save money the failure to secure such a large amount of potential income will be considered by magistrates to border on negligence. The large sums uncollected send an unacceptable message to offenders, undermine the sentences of the courts and are a significant blow to public confidence.

Criminals will rejoice that they can retain the proceeds of their offending behaviour despite court orders. Magistrates were criticised recently for not imposing more fines to provide funding to service the justice system. They will now be rightly angry that the sentences they impose appear not to be adequately managed. Victims awarded compensation for the hurt and distress they have been caused continue to suffer. Magistrates are reporting a reduction in the number of courts with resultant delay in hearings and trials. The significant amount of unpaid costs would be more than sufficient to employ enough prosecutors to service all our current courts without further court closures. The MA appreciates these figures are a legacy of a previous administration and is therefore willing to engage with the review it believes is necessary to restore the confidence of both the magistracy and the public.

Notes for Editors:
The £1.3 billion is made up as follows:£706 million in unpaid confiscation orders;£350 million in unpaid fines; £150 million in unpaid compensation orders; £110 million in unpaid legal costs.

Clear and unambiguous information such as this which is lacking in many areas of public accountability is certain to fuel backbenchers` demands that "their" local court is exempt from closure. I predict the Rt Hon K.Clarke will be eating hubris over his precipitate announcement and that reasoned argument might at long last inform the debate.