EITHER WAYS ON THE WAY OUT?

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 09. Oct. 2010. – 13:51:25

Either way offences can be tried at crown or magistrates` court. Magistrates [or D.J.] can accept or decline jurisdiction depending upon the seriousness of the charge and the possible disposal. Jack Straw commented at the last A.G.M. of the Magistrates` Association and others more recently that owing to long established quirks of the English courts defendants on either way offences can themselves choose trial by jury or summary trial in magistrates` court. He added that about 20,000 outcomes of such cases at crown courts resulted in sentences within the powers of the magistrates courts. The corollary is that this is a colossal and unnecessary cost to the exchequer.

There appear to be two reasons for this figure; either magistrates with the consent of their legal advisers are inhibited and too conservative in their interpretation of guidelines or judges are too lenient in their disposals. Of course there are many caveats. The CPS might be lax in their process of reviewing the case. The prosecution case at its highest might later be undermined by evidence for defence and/or mitigation for the defendant. A weak bench might be cowed by the prosecution. On the other side a judge might be mindful of pressures regarding the prison population. A case which seems to merit declining of jurisdiction by magistrates is by its very nature a relatively minor matter for a case hardened judge.

An example was heard recently at Teesside Crown Court where a violent domestic assault resulted in the perpetrator receiving six months suspended for two years and 150 hours unpaid work [community payback]. We do not know if a bench declined jurisdiction or jury trial was chosen by the defendant, whether he pleaded guilty at magistrates` court who sent him to crown court for sentence or whether he changed his plea on the day of trial. The fact is the disposal was within the powers at the lower court.

In no other jurisdiction as far as I am aware does a defendant have an opportunity to choose where to be tried . What is not in doubt is that within this parliament the nature and/or guidelines in dealing with either way offences will have been brought into the 21st century. If the change is not undertaken on the basis of legal argument it will be undertaken on the basis of saving unnecessary costs.

JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN DISCIPLINED BUT NOT SACKED

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 08. Oct. 2010. – 12:35:53

So Judge Bathurst-Norman has been disciplined earlier this week over comments made at a trial. I commented in detail on this unsavoury matter on July 20th. The reprimand is merely a slap on the wrist for this apology of an English judge whom one hopes will never be in a position ever again to preside over an English court. If a similarly phrased statement[s] as Bathurst-Norman`s had taken place in a magistrates` retiring room in deliberation over a case of [minor] criminal damage in all probability the J.P., who would certainly have been reported without any qualms by any right thinking colleague, would have been sacked.

There is no place for any hint of anti Semitism in public service and within the legal profession especially. This disciplinary action in itself will allow the maggots who deliberately conflate an antithesis with the policies of the State of Israel with the mere existence of Jewish people to insinuate yet again that Jews control this or that……..”that” in this matter being the “law”. I am indeed disturbed that Bathurst-Norman was not removed from his position on the bench.

PCSOs COST A FORTUNE & FOR WHAT?

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 05. Oct. 2010. – 15:46:17

Over the last few months I have tendered some facts and offered my opinions on cardboard policemen and plastic policemen otherwise known as Police Community Support Officers. Neither the facts nor the opinions were complimentary. My experiences of PCSOs in court do not impress.

The Tax Payers` Alliance, loosely described as a right wing pressure group, has certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons with its latest press release. Once again it`s dispiriting to read that this latest information was obtained by a Freedom of Information request. This legislation is probably the best thing that Tony Blair did and an action which in his memoir he now regrets. But it is dispiriting insofar as the amount of material that government clings to until forced to spill the beans.
And the can of beans opened revealing the unholy cost to the council tax payer of these poorly educated, poorly paid police wannabees. Examples are that Nottingham`s 265 PCSO s cost £7 million in 2009/10.  In that year it cost Hampshire Constabulary £7.8 million to pay 330 PCSO s who detected just 50 crimes and handed out only 122 fines. The list goes on.

I have noted conflicting opinions on various police and PCSO forums as to whether PCSOs are going to be reduced in number to allocate what funds are available to real police officers or whether the option will be to keep the monkey and sack the organ grinder. All should be revealed by the year end.

In the meantime feast eyes below on the current powers given to PCSOs and reflect that they are the tip of an iceberg concealing many other powers given to other poorly educated, poorly trained and poorly paid men and women of quasi uniformed status.

1.Power to require name and address for anti-social behaviour
2. Power to require persons drinking in designated places to surrender alcohol
3. Power to require persons aged under 18 to surrender alcohol
4. Power to seize tobacco from a person aged under 16
5. Power to seize drugs and require name and address for possession of drugs
6. Power to require name and address for relevant offences or relevant licensing offences
7. Power to photograph persons away from a police station
8. Power to issue fixed penalty notices for littering
9. Power to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of offences under dog control orders
10. Power to remove abandoned vehicles
11. Power to issue fixed penalty notices for cycling on a footpath
12. Power to stop cycles
13. Power to control traffic for purposes other than escorting a load of exceptional dimensions
14. Power to carry out road checks
15. Power to require name and address for relevant road traffic offences
16. Power to place signs
17. Power to seize vehicles used to cause alarm
18. Power to enter and search any premises for the purposes of saving life and limb or preventing serious damage to property
19. Power to stop and search in authorised areas (terrorism)
20. Power to enforce cordoned areas (terrorism)
21. General Power of Seizure Section 19-22 PACE
22. PACE Section 18 – Power to enter and search a premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for an indictable offence and to seize items found on such a search.
23. Power to convey a detained person to custody
24. Power to carry out non intimate searches in respect of persons in police detention
25. Duty to prevent escape in respect of persons in police detention

LOCAL JUSTICE GOOD? LOCAL PRACTICES BAD? THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 05. Oct. 2010. – 11:29:41

I am a member of a fairly large bench. With proposed court amalgamations on the horizon and its being certain my courthouse will not be closed many new faces and opinions are going to be seen and heard in the retiring room. That is to be welcomed. But what will be very unwelcome will be any attempt to import bench practices of another era which have, like the Komodo dragon, survived in a particular location.

Putting three people ideally of mixed sex…ie the bench is two of one and one of the other and not, to use current terminology, of mixed or trans gender [or is that fats?]………and mixed race is the ideal that Her Majesty`s Court Service would have presiding over a magistrates` court. I have absolutely no argument with that objective. It is however easier in theory than in practice. As far as I am aware appointments committees have race, gender and age in a small corner of their minds when J.P.s are selected. Modern technology and efficient staff within the courts` budgets has allowed my court to use quite sophisticated software to have a good mix of colleagues to sit on up to seventy courts per week. Those of us whose lifestyles allow a variation in available days and/or can provide the necessary sittings over and above recommended levels will rarely sit with the same colleague more than perhaps three or four times annually and the chances of an identical bench sitting {except for a part heard} more than once in two or three years is remote. And that is how it should be. All my colleagues, bar none with whom I have discussed this system, agree.

However pre historic processes are still retained and jealously preserved like a spider in amber by some other courts. Within a gallon’s worth of four star at a steady 30MPH from my courthouse the practice of a daily chairman appointing benches prevails. This inbreeding approach is an affront to the cohesion of a bench by promoting cliques, stifling the integration of new colleagues and distorting the public face of the magistracy.

This and other practices can be explained by the concept of “local justice”. The quasi independence of historic police courts and local petty sessions still has some meaning today. This term has been recently widely used by magistrates officially and unofficially in the campaign to retain as many existing courts as possible. But it rides uneasily with government emphasis on consistency across the magistrates` courts system so far as eg appointments, training and sentencing are concerned.

If and when the process of absorbing mainly smaller benches into their larger neighbours begins many of my colleagues countrywide especially those most experienced and perhaps within five years of retirement will decide they`ve had enough and put themselves out to grass.

In 2011 the magistracy will be celebrating its 650th year. There will be pomp and ceremony and lords, ladies, judges and Secretaries of State will be toasting the fine achievements of a uniquely English system of summary justice while plotting its demise in any form resembling that which pertains currently. Enjoy the champers when it`s offered and remember he who pays the Piper-Heidsieck calls the tune.

STATUTORY DECLARATION

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 04. Oct. 2010. – 12:27:19

As previously alluded to over the last few months Justices of the Peace perform many functions outwith sitting as a tribunal in matters of criminal law. One such is the signing of a statutory declaration. This procedure is available at court at no charge for anybody who wishes to make a declaration that has the force of law. It is commonly used when an individual belatedly discovers that s/he has been fined or worse for a driving offence. Non receipt of fixed penalty notices is a common reason for stat. decs. to be declared in front of a bench. Sometimes matters of that nature can be complicated by the issue of whether the recipient of the F.P.N. was indeed the driver at the time the offence was alleged to have been committed.

But it becomes more serious when the offence is one for which penalty points have been endorsed on a driving license eg for driving with no insurance. The alleged offender when the matter comes to his notice should realise that if s/he has been continually driving as previously, being stopped by police could lead to more serious problems. Having come to court to make a stat. dec. which is accepted by the bench the court can either void the proceedings altogether or can void the conviction and allow the opportunity to plead not guilty and contest the matter. If, as is often the case, the court originating the prosecution is not the court at which the stat. dec. is made the voiding process will not appear on the police national computer which leads to the risk as above.

To alleviate this risk my advice to an applicant after having signed the stat. dec. has always been to take the form to the court office, have it stamped and to request a copy F.O.C. to carry with driving license to preclude further unnecessary police involvement. I had, in my ignorance, not realised until recently that a charge was being made for this service for some time past.

Sect. 92 of the Courts Act 2003, Statutory Instrument 2008 no. 1052 authorised a £5 charge for this photocopy. Now £5 to many readers here might not seem a lot to pay to rid one of a legal albatross around one`s neck but for the low paid and those on benefit it is more than two pints in the pub. There is process for remission of the fee but it must be made at the time the fee becomes payable and involves the production of evidence eg of being on benefits.

Those who might be eligible for such remission often lead disordered lives to the extent that the procedure simple for some is a nightmare with which they are unable to cope.

It is understandable to a degree that in the civil court litigants should be prepared for such expenses but in the criminal court such a charge is iniquitous. Justice must not be obtained at the price of attempts by Her Majesty`s Court Service to profit from inefficiencies of innocent parties or errors by prosecuting authorities.