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.