ALCOHOL, ASBOs & POPPIES

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 04. Nov. 2010. – 12:42:13

Alcohol has been in the news recently. I suppose alcohol is never out of the news. The report published earlier this week by Professor David Nutt, he who was sacked last year by Gordo or one of his henchmen, proclaiming that alcohol is more dangerous to society than hard drugs was rubbished by some insofar as little or no account was taken of the numbers indulging. Be that as it may is there anybody who would allow the virtually uncontrolled availability of this drug if it had not been part of human society for six thousand years? It is as much part of daily life as music or art. Not everyone is a Mozart or Picasso and some do not appreciate any form of self expression much less that of others but it is part of our being since Homo Sapiens became Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Since licensing was removed from magistrates` courts against the advice of many, there has been a proliferation of premises where the lethal liquor has been available for extended hours sometimes extending to all day availability. Naturally enough this has led to an increase in alcohol related offending. One would have thought that heads much wiser than mine would have put two and two together and managed to come up with the right answer to this development; ie admit the policy was flawed and try to put Humpty Dumpty together again. But no! We`ve got ASBOs [only for a while if Thersa May lives up to her words to abolish them] and we have Drinking Banning Orders about which I commented April 16th.

All this is predicated on the effect on individuals; the whole being the sum of its parts. And the part in question today is 18 year old Peter Gillett of St Annes who was recently the subject of an ASBO the effect of which is that he should do his drinking far from St Annes. No doubt if DBOs had been available to the bench [they are available currently only in selected jurisdictions] he would have had that thrown at him also.

The only way to reduce alcohol related offending is to remove the easy access to booze for those unwilling or incapable of knowing when to stop. Nuff said.

At this time of year the Magistrates Association Forum has for the last couple of years carried comment on the suitability of J.P.s wearing poppies in court. Some of my colleagues for spurious reasons find the practice unacceptable. So far the subject has yet to provoke discussion this year. Unlike on BBC TV where they seem to be de rigueur from the last week in October I wear a poppy from the beginning of November until the eleventh in court and out. Any objectors can take a hike.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GIVES CONVICTS VOTE

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 02. Nov. 2010. – 09:53:19

The European Court of Human Rights was not on my blogging agenda this morning until 8.20am when a convicted killer was interviewed on Radio 4 “Today” attempting to justify his successful campaign to achieve a vote for convicts. He even had the temerity to assert that without such a “democratic right” his former criminal associates inside the walls of Strangeways or Pentonville etc would have less reason not to riot to achieve some spurious aims. He was totally unable to comprehend that in being punished for acting outside society`s norms it was not unreasonable to preclude convicts having an influence on representation in parliament or elsewhere. 

Lord Falconer former Lord Chancellor whose opinion was also broadcast admitted that the previous government and he personally were opposed to the decision taken by the ECR for very sound reasons based essentially on the fact that prisoners` exclusion from society for disregarding its laws rendered their right to elect representatives to that society null and void. He suggested that the loose wording of the decision would in all likelihood allow the government to set a minimum period of sentence as a fault line eg only those sentenced to fewer than two years custody would be given their so called right to vote. Neither interviewee was questioned on the nuts and bolts of the practicalities of this decision. 

I am firmly with his good lordship on this. On practical terms it is a problem; on moral terms it is a disgrace; on social terms it is on a par with allowing the inmates to run the lunatic asylum and on political grounds it will further distance normal law abiding citizens of this country from any confidence that their elected government is wholly in control of this country`s destiny. And that makes for profound concern. When democratic institutions are accused of ineffectiveness or being unrepresentative of those they serve there is always a clear and present danger of the populist who claims that he can make the trains run on time. 

TOO OLD TO BE A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 01. Nov. 2010. – 10:31:48

Parliamentary answers are, I suppose, answers straight from the horse`s mouth. They are as close as an outsider can get to inside information. So those who do not relish compulsory retirement from the bench as they approach three score years and ten have been offered no glimmer of hope that they might continue in office at 70+ after a question put by Anna Soubry M.P. to Jonathan Djanogly (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (HM Courts Service and Legal Aid), Justice; Huntingdon, Conservative) on October 26th and copied below.

Anna Soubry (Broxtowe, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will undertake a review of the requirement for magistrates to retire from the bench at the age of 70 years.
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2010, c216W)

Jonathan Djanogly (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (HM Courts Service and Legal Aid), Justice; Huntingdon, Conservative)

There are currently no plans to undertake a review. The retirement age for magistrates is 70 and is set in statute under section 13 of the Courts Act 2003. This is in line with the retirement age for the vast majority of other judicial offices.

The contribution of magistrates of all ages is invaluable. However, it is important that magistrates reflect the diverse communities they serve. While there has been positive progress on ethnic and gender diversity, 82% of magistrates are 50 or over and the average age is 57. As well as taking magistrates out of step with other judicial offices, increasing the retirement age would reduce the number of available vacancies and thus reduce opportunities for younger people to become magistrates.

So there we have it; the last word from the Minister but follow that logic to Sheffield. Today the South Yorkshire Star reports the swearing in of new magistrates in its latest intake. They total six in number with a mean age of 52 the youngest being 43 and the oldest 61. Personally I consider that 52 is not an inappropriate age to begin this job but I do not consider that any but the most unusual candidates under 21 are equipped so to do. 


Latest age profiles [March 2010] of the magistracy are interesting.
Under 40........3.9%
40-49 ............14.3%
50-59 ............31.0%
60+ ................50.8%


What is perhaps more interesting in relation to the Minister`s parliamentary answer is the profile of newly appointed magistrates at 31/03/2010
Under40.........23.9%
40-49.............28.6%
50-59.............35.7%
60+.................21.1%


I make no conclusions on these figures but when any policy is driven by a target I have fears that underlying requirements might be undervalued.

LEGAL LIABILITY OF CHILDREN IN NEW YORK

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 31. Oct. 2010. – 11:07:23

Events and news are the lifeblood, heart and lungs of any blogger. For this blogger these stimulants usually emanate from the legal posturings and goings on to be found within this country but occasionally a piece of news from abroad is just asking to lifted. 

Anyone who has watched that amazing TV series based on the New York Police Dept. “Law and Order Special Victims Unit” will have noticed that police are in the habit of questioning suspects without their necessarily having a lawyer present. The questioning of children on their own also seems to be within their rules. 

I have attended court rooms in central Manhattan and generally been impressed with the efficiency of the arraignments court and the quality of justice. Indeed after speaking on behalf of a down and out pleading guilty to begging I saw a Public Defender pass a dollar bill of unknown value into the departing miscreant’s hand with the words, “That will get you home”. I`ve yet to see a duty solicitor show similar monetary compassion. This was also the occasion when, as the judge rose at the end of her shift, I stood up from my seat in the open public gallery at 4.00p.m to be sternly told off by one of New York`s finest, “Stay seated until the judge leaves the court”. 

But to return to the topic, a New York judge has ruled that a six year old child can be sued. Even with the bare facts of the report it does seem perverse. Although the American legal system is based upon English common law the ever increasing European influence in this country seems to be taking us away from that common foundation. Whether that is a good thing or not I leave to others.