TYPICAL MORNING AT COURT

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 13. Oct. 2010. – 14:54:16

All those involved in the work of the courts from ushers to judges would have appropriate comments when they hear of government ministers seeking to address “inefficiencies”. If one was Henry Ford then the answer would be fairly simple……employ a rigidly selected workforce at a wage just enough to keep it from joining the masses of unemployed, ensure that all bits of the final product are in the proper place at the proper time and enforce a strong disciplinary culture…..and of course have an admiration for the ethics of the nazi party.



However Jonathan Djanogly seems to think that efficiency or utilisation at magistrates` courts can be raised from the current 64% to 80%. [Written Answers - Justice: Courts: Closures (6 Jul 2010)] This is an admirable target.; so is landing a man on Mars by 2025.



Our court along I suppose with others habitually double lists trials to ensure work goes ahead. This of course is as a result of the number of trials vacated, cracked or foreshortened for any reason. Case progression officers still seem to be caught short. A colleague`s experience a few days ago reminded me of a typical morning`s under utilisation in late September.



We had two trials listed for the morning. No usher was available so that was a good start. We told our hard pressed L/A we wouldn`t proceed until an usher was available. So with a ten minute delay [an usher became available] we began the sitting with two trials listed for the morning. The first was a second listing of an assault and everyone was ready to go…. the defendant, his counsel and witnesses and CPS with their three witnesses. The other matter was not so straightforward……..is anything? It was a third listing, and the second for trial on alleged handling. Apparently legal aid according to the court file was not granted until the morning of the [adjourned] trial and the solicitors were informed the following day. On this day he appeared before us without representation having been told by the solicitors in question that legal aid had not been granted. He told us quite definitely that he did not want to phone the solicitors to sort out the confusion and that he would represent himself. He was again offered an adjournment which he declined. He had no witnesses. CPS told us that their case was mainly agreed statements and two police officers. Her estimate was two hours maximum. Thus we had two trials ready. Since the handling matter had been adjourned previously through no fault of the defendant and with his determination to go it alone we decided to proceed with that prior to which pronouncement the defence counsel for the assault had made quite a performance of her observations on our position. We adjourned that case to a later date but then our usher who had proved her usefulness whispered to our L/A that another court might have a trial vacating but it would be a half hour before that could be confirmed. It was now about 11.00am. That knowledge was conveyed to the assault party. Counsel consented to waiting until 11.30am. and we retired for five minutes to allow the L/A to finish paperwork during which time we spoke to our DJ who commented that he was light for work and could have taken the trial himself but he had no CPS lawyer only a DCW who was of course not qualified for trial work. With that we began the handling trial. When we concluded at 12.30pm we were told that at 12.00 noon the case at the other court was a no go and they could have taken our assault trial.



Such is a typical morning at a magistrates` court. The minister might have his 80% utilisation but at what price? Our court was at 90% utilisation, our neighbours were left looking for crumbs after 12.00 noon and the DJ was being paid to have coffee and biscuits. Double listing might be good for HMCS but it shows less than respect for those who are the users.

AN ANIMAL LOVER

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 12. Oct. 2010. – 08:11:47

I have fond memories of having a cat which was more a watch dog or a mountain lion than a moggie. I`ve heard of the word “dogging”. I know what it means. Dictionary dot com has still to be as up to date as Wikipedia where it is defined as a British euphemism for engaging in public sex. And I know or thought I knew what it means to be an animal lover but I don`t think it is the appropriate term for what Edward Cullen, 39, of Mountain Crescent in Dewsbury is accused of. 

He was before Huddersfield Magistrates last week, but the hearing was adjourned for committal to Bradford Crown Court on October 29. And the charge………? having sex with a dog. We are not told the sex of the dog but I don`t suppose it matters much. If anyone in Bradford has the opportunity to be in the public gallery on the day perhaps they can post a comment here.

AT LEAST JUDGES KNOW OUR VALUE

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 11. Oct. 2010. – 16:11:32

In a period when major changes in the system and practice of magistrates` courts are likely it is heartening to read some praiseworthy words instead of platitudes from government spokesmen.

At the swearing in of new Justices of the Peace in Bristol His Honour Judge Simon Darwall- Smith said the following, “You've joined a group of people without whom the freedom of every one of us would not exist at all. The only thing that stands between us and tyranny is the rule of law, and you are the guardians of that.” He continued, “You should no more pass a custodial sentence because the Daily Mail thinks you should, or a non-custodial sentence because the Ministry of Justice tells you the prisons are full.”

Would that these words were uttered by the Secretary of Justice but then he`s a politician.

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT CONSULTATION

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 11. Oct. 2010. – 15:53:03

There are some countries where referendums are commonly used to effect major legislative changes and some where they used increasingly sparingly often to get a government out of a tight situation. These two different approaches are epitomised by Switzerland and the U.K. The problem with the latter approach is what is good eg for the goose for Scottish or Welsh devolution is less palatable for the gander of the European Union. Once the referendum cat is out of the bag it`s very difficult if not downright impossible to get it back in.


And so it might be with the Magistrates` Association latest effort to persuade its members that it really does listen to them. A few days ago the chairman sent an e-mail asking our opinions on what best constitutes a suitable size for a bench. This was obviously in light of the impending forced amalgamation of many courts brought about by the current economic meltdown. Apart from the fact that the e-mail link to the voting options was unreliable the decision in itself has now set a precedent.


In June this year Sir Peter North`s Review of Drink and Drug Driving was published. I commented on July 5th when I discovered that the M.A.`s position as published in Magistrate magazine of that month was that the mandatory disqualification period for drink driving, if the alcohol level were lowered, be reduced from the current twelve months; a position with which I and others profoundly disagree. Where is the logic that that extremely significant decision should not be put to an e-mail referendum? Such is democracy.

UNTOUCHABLES AT THE METROPOLITAN POLICE

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 11. Oct. 2010. – 11:53:09

We don`t all read the Guardian. We might have pre-conceived impressions of its editorial drivers. But in common with all similar media when it prints news as opposed to commenting on such news we generally accept its accuracy . And when that news concerns comments by the Commisssioner of the Metropolitan Police it is not a waste of five minutes to read what he has said. And his comments reported yesterday 10th October certainly make interesting reading.

He is reported as saying inter alia, that he has privately lobbied the Home Secretary to make it harder for people to take legal action against his force. Not surprisingly this interview has provoked blogging comment in abundance so out of curiosity I had a brief look at the Met Police website at “latest news” and surprise surprise there was not a whisper of the Commissioner`s remarks. I then looked at Police Oracle, a widely read site for all matters to do with the men in blue. Once again there was no reference to the interview except by following a link in its newspapers links. Even Inspector Gadget amongst the most widely read blogs in the known world has not commented.

I find this deafening silence of some concern. Does it indicate that the lesser mortals in the police service are somewhat embarrassed that big chief Stephenson has raised an Aunt Sally of a target to be shot down when there are other pressing matters of concern eg preventing Islamic terrorists blowing up some more of us? Or is it a touch of collective conscience about fifty odd marksmen lined up to take out a drunken addict armed with a 50 yards range shotgun? Or perhaps that unlicensed untested tasers were unlawfully involved in the shooting of another admittedly dangerous man in Morpeth.

As the old joke goes; “Just because I`m paranoid doesn`t mean they`re not out to get me”. And if they do, and Mr Stephenson got his way he wouldn’t allow my family`s lawyers to have their day in court. Tell that to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes

SHADOW OF DOUBT

 by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 10. Oct. 2010. – 15:52:22

Before during and after appointment J.P.s have to jump through more hoops than a circus poodle. The list of “competences” required reads like a treatise on the correct behaviour with and use and disposal of a knife, fork and spoon at an Edwardian banquet with napkin use as an extra facility for those aspiring to head the table.

A chairman of a bench in my humble opinion has from experience and/or DNA the ability to do the job or s/he hasn`t. One of the most difficult tasks s/he has to cope with is that of a colleague who despite all the training seems unable to follow a structured pattern in decision making in deciding questions of fact ie is the case against this defendant proved or not?

Soon after becoming a chairman I was sitting on a matter of alleged assault by an ex Ghurkha on his wife. Having heard the evidence we retired to deliberate. In approved fashion we assembled the facts which had been agreed by both prosecution and defence and isolated the areas of disagreement before exploring the weight attached to these areas. My two colleagues each concluded that the facts proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. I took an opposing view and proceeded to show how in my opinion if the facts were logically appraised there was sufficient room for doubt. I was unable to persuade my colleagues to my point of view. Accordingly I then wrote a preamble to our reasons which would be presented in court to justify the case having been proved. As I was about to ask my colleagues to dictate their reasons I passed the A4 pad across the table and said, “OK; you`ve found him guilty; please start writing your reasons.” James started to put pen to paper, hesitated and looking at Graham hesitated before they shook their heads in unison. They had not concluded his guilt on a logical structured basis. They had felt his guilt in their stomachs....a real gut feeling. There was a shadow of doubt. I agreed with them that he was probably guilty but that we could not be sure that guilt could be supported on the evidence we had heard.

I think that afternoon a lesson was learnt by all three of us.