OUT OF COURT DISPOSALS AND SOME CONSEQUENCES

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 30. Oct. 2010. – 11:50:42

I`ve commented here many times on matters emanating from Crown Courts but rarely on reports from the High Court for the obvious reason that cases there are usually unconcerned with the run of the mill events orientated around magistrates` courts eg cases involving dog bites and similar. Earlier this week, however, both a Crown Court and a High Court report involve disposals well known to those of us who occupy the bench at the lower court…..fixed penalty notice [FPN] and caution.

At Preston Crown Court His Honour Judge Anthony Russell QC commented that a FPN given to defendant and amateur boxer Jonathan Toomey six months previously for a public order offence involving a pub fight prior to the realisation of the seriousness of the assault persuaded him that immediate custody was inappropriate and his twenty four week sentence for assault occasioning grievous bodily harm was suspended for 24 months. The full report is available here. Those who regularly practise at crown court might have their own observations on that sentence. 

In the High Court an appeal against a caution under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was dismissed. To this non lawyer it seems unusual that this matter was allowed to get so far. Simple cautions are or should be administered only after guilt has been admitted. Normally if an individual refuses to admit guilt a charge would be laid by CPS in conjunction with police and the case would be settled at trial. We do not know more than the very basic facts of this case but in a perverse way it demonstrates that perceived injustice can be taken to the highest levels of jurisprudence by anybody who has the perseverance and the cash so to do. 

Having been a jogger with many instances of having various parts of my body scratched from ankle to shoulder by dogs varying in size from tiny terriers to a St Bernard [stood up and laid its paws on my shoulders as it looked down at me] whose owner in her defence remarked, “He`s only my pet puppy.” and I kid you not I replied, “He might be only a puppy to you but he`s a terrifying ten stone animal to me.”…. I can only add that all dogs should be muzzled in public……just like some bloggers perhaps. 

NO PUBLIC CASH HANDOUT FOR J.P.s` CELEBRATION

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 29. Oct. 2010. – 15:17:05

We read yesterday that the E.U. is demanding additional £billions from constituent governments in order to fund its profligacy. David Cameron is fighting his corner on our behalf for the “Parliament” and Commission to [once again] put their houses in order especially at this time of international belt tightening. Those whose purpose is to spend money supplied from outside sources especially those without representation tend to do so without constraint. At the very least their demands are not often tempered by considerations for the ability of the potential giver to afford the demand.

It appears that my colleagues in Gwent via their branch of the Magistrates` Association are infected with that same E.U.bug albeit on a much smaller scale. £2,500 was requested from each of five various local councils to fund celebrations of the 650th anniversary of the Magistracy. To this observer it is no surprise that at least one such council has refused. I cannot say I disagree with that decision. One could argue that the institution of the Magistracy is a benefit to the community and that as such is entitled to a donation for the celebration. But what of other voluntary organisations in similar circumstances now or in the future……….should they be so treated. Mountain Rescue, Lifeboat Service, St Johns Ambulance, Salvation Army and others all have their unique and respected place in society and are mainly run by volunteers. In times of local and national cash reductions this is no time for J.P.s to go out with the begging bowl for a bit of pomp and circumstance. Fund it from within the organisation or forget it.

CONTEMPT

 by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 28. Oct. 2010. – 11:24:23 

Dictionary dot com and doubtless other sources define contempt of court as

a. wilful disobedience to or open disrespect for the rules or orders of a court (contempt of court) or legislative body.

b. an act showing such disrespect. 

In this country it is governed by the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the Practice Direction {criminal:consolidated}. The Judicial Studies Board in 2005 issued a five page checklist for magistrates which deals with the subject from defining it, acting upon it and punishing it and all stages in between. 

For a J.P. these five pages are certainly a substantive guide but no more than that. The old adage………if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck then it must be a duck can loosely be applied to recognising a contempt. The judgement that must be exercised when contempt has indeed been recognised in my opinion cannot be taught during a training session. Bench chairmen who have in their normal life been involved in people situations are more likely to have developed the skills required to deal with the problem than others whose lifestyle has been perhaps more solitary or self sufficient by accident or design. The ultimate sanction is for the offender to be taken to the cells to cool off. If the offence is denied a trial takes place where the maximum penalties are a fine of £2,500 and/or one month imprisonment. 

I have had only one occasion to send a person to the cells and that was because he refused to turn out his pockets when asked to pay part of a fine imposed and was disbelieved when he denied having any cash on him. He was brought back an hour later with the court security officers having retrieved a £20 note from an additional pouch sown into the inside of his jeans. The commonest contempt is mobile phones being used, mostly in the public gallery, but occasionally by court officers as well as defendants or witnesses not having them turned off. In those circumstances a fixed stare at the culprit is usually enough for the item to be switched off. If courts were run efficiently, and they are not, staff would ensure mobile phones were not operative in court. The website YouTube is an incentive for surreptitious filming of court and has been used to propagate the ravings of certain pseudo political activists. More attention must be given to this problem. 

Whether a defendant or witness is showing contempt by keeping his/her hands in his/her pockets is a moot point for some. I am sure that all my colleagues have noted such actions and that it is a matter of judgement whether or not to ask that the hands be taken out. When such a request is made and ignored by the party the authority of the court is demeaned if it is not followed up so one has to be very careful that the slippery slope to the ultimate sanction has been mentally surveyed in advance. Failing such foresight the result of the situation could be embarrassing to say the least.

District Judge Marie Mallon at Huddersfield Magistrates` Court was apparently not taking any nonsense from Jonathan Reaney when, according to a report in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, she ordered his removal from the building when he refused to remove his hands from his pockets. It does appear odd that in these circumstances he was not detained in the cells. 

Thankfully the disrespect for authority widely noticed everywhere, for most people stops in court. If it didn`t, courts would have difficulties insofar as most magistrates` courtrooms excepting remand courts do not have security personnel in place. In the current climate when even ushers are rationed there is no likelihood whatsoever of that situation change

ADDENDUM 30th October 2010
A report on contempt proceedings at Weymouth Magistrates` Court makes interesting reading. I ask myself whether or not the bench showed remarkable restraint or was too weak in its reaction. Generally situations like this must be reacted to very promptly and unless a winger immediately whispers words to the effect….”send her down if she continues…….” the chairman must be decisive and remain in control. Colleagues might have their own opinions. 

WHAT`S SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE.................

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 27. Oct. 2010. – 14:39:35

People have been trying to do it for centuries in one form or another. First it was the medieval apothecary trying in vain to create gold from lead and laterally it could be said that it`s not uncommon for all of us to try and have our cake and eat it. We can`t except the Chief Constable of Humberside thinks he can.

A report in the East Riding Mail hails a perceived reduction in crime which the top cop attributes of course to his force`s efforts in that direction. But when the same original figures from unnamed government sources indicate that sexual offences have risen 25% he claims that the increase is because more victims are reporting crime. But should that logic not be applied across the board? Could the perceived reduction in reported crime not be attributed to the fact that for many people a decision has been made not to bother making the effort to contact police especially about petty and not so petty matters which they realise will not be helped by reporting them. I merely pose the question. An old proverb comes to mind containing the words gander, sauce and goose.

LOCAL OPPOSITION TO A COURT CLOSURE

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 27. Oct. 2010. – 12:27:53

The proposed closure of 157 courts has brought forth such a unified outcry from so many varied sources including M.P.s and local councillors of all parties that the Minister must have dedicated staff conjuring up all the reasons that are going to be put forward in a couple of months when he reveals that probably more than half of the courts in question will not actually shut their doors. If ever there was a public declaration of a policy built on flimsier foundations it has escaped me. From what I have noticed almost every local newspaper in England and Wales in a locality affected by the impending closures has at some time in the last month or so carried a story about why its local court should not be closed. 

Today as an example the Harrow Observer in north London has its own take on its local court throwing facts and figures back in the Minister`s face. When the climbdown on court closures arrives on the front pages and local TV turn down the red tint on the colour control because beetroot will seem as a whiter shade of pale in contrast to the face of the Minister.