by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 07.
Nov. 2010. – 10:46:50
It`s called the freedom of the back benches. What it means is that for whatever reason an M.P. finds him or herself in the back stalls instead of the front row whether by demotion or as in the case of Jack Straw his party losing power s/he can now speak as s/he feels fit as opposed to mouthing the claptrap that office sometimes demands. That in itself is a blight on our system of government when the general realisation is that one cannot expect our masters to speak the whole truth even some of the time and for the rest of the time the story of Hansel and Gretel would often be more accurate.
H o w e v e r…….Jack Straw, truly a man for all seasons, and most recently Justice Secretary, in a recent interview with his local constituency newspaper has waded into the debate……..long overdue, of defendants in either way offences having the power to choose whether to be tried by three magistrates or a District Judge at a magistrates` court or by a judge and jury in a crown court. Almost every week there is published a case of a defendant electing crown court trial for a charge of theft to the value of only a few pounds or in a case at Kingston a couple of years ago a charge of theft of a single solitary banana. That was concluded with “guilty” in twenty minutes as I recall. All my colleagues know the feeling………low value theft over which of course the bench accepts jurisdiction and then the defendant`s anxious glance to his lawyer when he is asked which court should try him before he chooses “crown court”. Mr Straw, hardly over supportive of J.P.s when he had power to be, when discussing proposals thrown out by the House of Lords,is quoted as saying “they did not trust magistrates to conduct fair trials”.
Many lawyers including the respected “Obiter” who occasionally comments here opine that an Englishman…let`s call him a British citizen………has a fundamental right to be tried by his peers. Are not three magistrates his peers……?
No comments:
Post a Comment