SHOULD CELEBRITIES BE FINED ACCORDING TO THEIR MILLIONAIRE MEANS?

 24. Aug. 2010. – 13:57:45 

It`s unusual to comment on offences in far away jurisdictions of which we know little but the case of Lewis Hamilton`s four wheeled escapade on the public roads of Melbourne Australia is interesting not for the reasons for behaving like a Jack-the-Lad instead of one of the best racing drivers this or any other country has produced. No; it`s because even as a defendant with presumably no record of “previous” down under he was fined the maximum possible under Aussie Rules at Melbourne Magistrates` Court for what they term “hoon” or reckless driving when he was fined the maximum amount of $10,000AUID; about £5,725. 

Although I have no experience of having a multi millionaire sports star before me [they are usually reserved for the DJ…bah humbug] it is rare to read of individuals of such worth being fined the maximum possible for driving offences which do not cause injury. Careless driving attracts a maximum of £5,000 + possible disqualification. In January, a Swiss driver was fined $290,000 - the current world record. When an offender is caught speeding Swiss law takes into account the wealth of the driver and the speed recorded. 

When individuals` wealth is measured in tens of millions even disqualification does not bring the same inconvenience as it would to most of us. Drivers can be hired for as long as needed. Perhaps we have something to learn in this regard from the clock makers.

A CLEAN OUT OF THE STABLE OF A BANANA KINGDOM

 23. Aug. 2010. – 11:20:31 

Prior to reaching my current state of cynicism and when I was naïve enough to believe that although I might disagree with conclusions or political intent I did assume that governments had sufficient input from wherever it was needed that the repercussions of proposed policies would be thoroughly investigated. In addition apart from Profumo and Rotten and Pocket Boroughs of the 19th century I thought most politicians were an honourable lot. How foolish I was.

The last few days have had three decisions of the Labour government more or less shredded. The legal arguments have been and are being put by those whose knowledge base is infinitely greater than mine and I do not propose to go down that route.

I have previously extolled the website Big Brother Watch. Many of its revelations have concerned the operation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. This legislation was criticised by many but of course the Labour government with its huge majority steamrolled it through parliament under the watchful sightless eyes of David Blunkett a cabinet minister who was twice forced to resign for conduct that was not exactly befitting that of somebody in his position. Recently he was quoted as having remarked that he hadn`t foreseen the manner in which the legislation would be applied. We have been promised by the Coalition that the powers of local authorities to employ this Act to the detriment of the privacy of the individual will be curtailed. 

The European Extradition Treaty is another example of sign up and consider later. Whilst Wikipedia is not the last word in accurate information the following extract makes useful reading;

Exemptions in the European Union

The usual extradition agreement safeguards relating to dual-criminality, the presence of prima facie evidence and the possibility of a fair trial have been waived by many European nations for a list of specified offences under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant. The warrant entered into force in eight European Union (EU) member-states on 1 January 2004, and is in force in all member-states since 22 April 2005. Defenders of the warrant[who?] argue that the usual safeguards are not necessary because every EU nation is committed by treaty, and often by legal and constitutional provisions, to the right to a fair trial, and because every EU member-state is subject to the European Convention on Human Rights[citation needed].

Perhaps in the light of recent experience some of the 232 newbie M.P.s will attach as much importance to the scrutiny of new legislation as to their attempts to ascend the greasy pole?

The Kelly affair has reached a pitch which in my opinion hammers another nail into the reputation of this country that it is above the sleaze which affects most other nations. Instead there is a slippery slope more akin to that of a banana kingdom removing public confidence in the integrity of their government. Once more the possibility that the labour government was as bent as a three pound note is being mooted high and wide because an inquiry was held and not full inquest.

The Coalition has an opportunity to sweep the stable clean. We watch and wait.

FASHION`S ABOUT POLICE AS WELL AS FASHION

 20. Aug. 2010. – 13:02:17 

A couple of definitions of the word “fashion” are a prevailing custom or conventional usage. The word itself is often associated with dress and especially female attire; hemlines up, hemlines down, necklines up or more usually down. 

But the same word can safely be applied to policy whether by government or any agency which purports to be “engaging with the public requirement”. One such is “targets” or “targeting”. In my own courthouse there is an area of wall in the retiring room about 10ft x 5ft with graphs, histograms and pie charts about how long it has taken to do this or do that or to get to this stage or that stage in proceedings, how much of this and how much of that and all compared with “targets”. One factor missing is “results”. This seems to be common. It was due only to somebody`s Freedom of Information enquiry that the numbers of those found guilty after trial at Magistrates` Courts for the last three years were made available and published on this site 16th August. 

Well it seems for some bodies the fashion for targets is being rejected or so say Gloucester Police. In a 53 page document full of endless platitudes and clichés about their intentions and plans for the forthcoming year there is on p3 the following statement, “We will move away from the traditional culture of achieving performance targets and instead concentrate on improving public confidence.” What this means is that this agency does not want to be left pursuing what was considered the optimum way forward, when the previous government pushed achieving “targets” as the means to cure all society`s ills, when the fashion has changed. We have all manner of senior people who as soon as they are safely squirreling away their largely tax payers` provided generous monthly pension payments begin pontificating on the mistakes made by others when they were in positions to have been able to make positive criticism but about which they kept silent.

I suppose it goes back to the old adage, “Do not bite the hand that feeds you”. And that`s why Gloucester Police are now changing track. I wish good luck to Tony Melville the new chief constable who will no doubt carve out his own path in compliance with time honoured trends.

MAGISTRATES` ASSOCIATION IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE

 19. Aug. 2010. – 12:39:10 
When there is a confluence of power and unreasonable, poorly thought out proposals from one side of a negotiating party and disharmony, obsequiousness and top down unrepresentative arrogance from the other negotiating party the result often is crass stupidity by the weaker of the two parties. Thus is the state of the Magistrates` Association. It is governed by a self serving body of people who spend without financial reward many hours on attending all kinds of meetings as much for their own aggrandisement as for the benefit of those they purport to represent. In times past many trade unions operated in a similar manner by virtue of the disinterest of the average member allowing officials to masquerade as being representatives. 

On 20th January I reported that the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police had suggested that courts should be set up in the local Arndale Centre. The idea was ill conceived but the Chief had a perfect right to suggest this option. However, and this is where we were warned of the impending descent into pantomime, John Thornhill, chairman of the Magistrates Association, was quoted as saying: "We need to be taking justice to communities and it seems to me having a court in the Arndale Centre would be one way of doing it. In principle, if we can deal with things speedily and pragmatically we are happy to do that." It appears that either the Council of the Magistrates` Association was unaware of this or ignored it. In any event Mr John Howson deputy chairman repeating the suggestion has recently made a complete fool of himself, the Association he represents and magistrates in general. Apart from a change in geography this lunatic suggestion reappeared recently in many media outlets of which the London Evening Standard was just one and The Solicitors` Journal another. He endorsed the suggestion for a vacant shop premise in the Westfield shopping centre in West London to be used as a court. There are many reasons why this should be dismissed the most important of which are that at a time when courts in West London are likely to be closed the cost of ensuring a shop has the basic requirements for a court....security, offices, cells, communications etc etc etc etc is disproportionate to any benefits. 

Mr Howson is now covering his tracks. He told Solicitors Journal that "it`s not likely to go anywhere....probably. But it is the sort of thing that the papers like at this time of year, it makes them appear interested in the issue. And let`s face it, we got some pretty good PR out of it." What rubbish comes with these words. Obviously Mr Howson belongs to the school of thought which believes all publicity is good publicity. 

This brings into focus what happens when a top heavy organisation has reached its sell by date. The coterie at the top is exposed as a hard working self opinionated group of aged JPs working towards their metallic rewards associated with such positions. They do not represent rank and file. Until the branch representative system is subject to total overhaul this will continue. Perhaps this event will be a trigger. 

ADDENDUM 20th Aug 2010

It seems the courts in shops proposition put forward with no consultation by the Vice Chairman of the Magistrates` Association has provoked a civil war within the magistracy a body formally known for its reticence in becoming embroiled in public debate, a reticence well founded it seems judging by today`s developments. 

The Bench Chairman at Selby Magistrates` Court, Ron Humphrys, has slated the nonsensical proposal. But on the other side of the fence Chairman Brian Hilton of Waltham Forest Bench has given his support. Whether these two gentlemen have taken opinion from their colleagues in advance of public statements is unknown but my guess is they have not. This absurd division……heaven knows what is going on at other Benches………is manna for the government in its efforts to close 103 courts some of which should have been closed years ago.

The Magistrates` Association does not speak for all J.P.s. About 20% don`t consider it`s worth £33 per annum membership. If this goes on that percentage of non members will certainly increase when members are asked to renew. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM 21st Aug 2010

It seems this monumental farce will continue to run whilst those involved attempt, probably in vain, to clear up the mess they have deposited under the feet of magistrates. John Thornhill who began this nonsense by his acquiescence in the idea as written above has issued this statement:- 

You may be aware that there have been some media reports during this past week which have been detrimental to the Association. I am investigating these reports and discussing matters with the other Trustees over the weekend. I intend to come back to you early next week with a detailed response. 

NO MORE LEGAL AID FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS

 17. Aug. 2010. – 12:58:24 

Should legal representation in courts [criminal and civil] be considered as a citizen`s right in a similar manner to the delivery of healthcare? The answer has to be a definite “No” but the reality has been until a few years ago that many defendants, some with ample means, were able to employ quality legal representation at the tax payers` expense. It was called Legal Aid. Many law firms made a good living by providing their expertise on an open ended piece work based system. Gradually this, what some might term gravy train, has been reduced to a slow shunt for the simple reason that costs had increased almost beyond control. 

In the civil courts the “pay if we win” formula has led to the establishment of call centres, widely advertised on TV, whereby solicitors paying for inclusion have customers directed to them. Many householders now have an option on their household insurance polices to be protected against legal costs within certain conditions.

Every magistrate is aware of the effect of reduced legal aid availability; unrepresented trial defendants are becoming an increasing feature of summary criminal justice. In such situations both legal adviser and bench chairman have a duty to ensure that the legal playing field remains as level as is compatible with processing a case satisfactorily.

But the news today that tens of thousands of asylum seekers and immigrants will no longer receive legal aid to fight deportation in order to save £billions is of a different order. The scandals of the appeal system and the abuses used by illegals in their attempts to remain here are the problem. If the systems currently in use had been subjected to scrutiny including obligations imposed by legislation originating outwith these islands there would have been little need for the sophistry of the Justice Ministry in trying to justify this latest attempt to cut costs.

When the power of the state is used against those who are the most vulnerable it is a cause for concern. When that power is wielded to disguise the overwhelming failure of that state to take control of its own borders it is nothing short of a stain on all of us especially those whose memories include being taught what was “Great” about Great Britain. We`re barely a “united” kingdom and certainly Britain is no longer “great” by any interpretation of that description and this latest announcement is in line with our moral decline as a nation.

UNAUTHORISED FILMING IN COURT

 15. Aug. 2010. – 12:31:34 

There is a grouping of individuals who call themselves Freemen of England whose prime entertainment is their anarchic behaviour when confronted by the legislation that most of the time allows most of us to live peaceful lives within a clearly defined set of rules. Their refusal to recognise the courts system has been well documented. Colleagues on my own bench have been faced with their attempted disruption. I was in court when an individual failed to appear on a charge of contempt related to the above mentioned disruption. I presume his subsequent probable arrest would have jolted his sense of separateness. 

One such event was filmed and is available on YouTube. 

I have always been under the impression that recording of proceedings in court was illegal and any person caught so doing is liable to be dealt with under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 maximum sentence one month custody or s41 Criminal Justice Act 1925 carrying a maximum of £1,000 fine. What I was unaware of until reading a newspaper report recently was that in the Crown Court a judge hearing an appeal from a magistrates` court had the authority to allow such recording. When permission was requested in writing from the appellant “ The judge sent a message back, saying he could apply for permission to record the proceedings – but such an application had to be made in person.”

With the over the counter availability of button sized TV cameras and transmitters it is only a matter of time before the surreptitious recording and broadcasting of a major case and/or jury room discussion is a reality. There is an argument that court proceedings should be available to all who wish to observe. Some would say that this development not dissimilar to broadcasting Parliament is overdue. Has this matter been given any consideration by Her Majesty`s Court Service?