by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 25.
Nov. 2010. – 23:47:32
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 25.
Nov. 2010. – 23:47:32
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 25. Nov. 2010. – 14:13:44
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 25.
Nov. 2010. – 09:45:38
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 24.
Nov. 2010. – 16:07:58
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 23.
Nov. 2010. – 15:31:25
In my other life where I tried
hard to make an honest penny I was the one who authorised the finance and
generally oversaw the arrangements for the small firm`s ubiquitous Christmas
party. So I have no experience whatsoever of the oft derided common or garden
office Christmas party except as chauffeur and “talk to me please” accompaniment
to my wife at her virtually compulsory appearances at various places of
employment around early to mid December.
When I was appointed my bench
was a jolly mixing of personalities but when we left the building that was it.
It is still a mix of jolly and some not so jolly personalities. But in the last
few years there have been Christmas parties from 6.30pm to 8.30pm organised by
the “social committee” on the assigned day. I have not attended any. I am not a
grumpy; I enjoy good company accompanied by the requisite amount of food and a
few ml of the amber liquid. But I generally choose when to avail myself of such
occasions and with whom I wish to share the anecdotal evidence of the events of
the preceding weeks, months or years that might be of interest. Colleagues who
have attended our Christmas parties previously have told me of their general
lack of enthusiasm to attend another. I`m not surprised. Most of us drive to
court. I don`t drink and drive at all. Some colleagues will have the one drink
that will not turn the crystals. With a large bench one`s relationships are
usually no more than semi formal with most, an acquaintanceship with some and
friendly with a few. I will not be changing my habit of declining the
invitation to this year`s event.
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 22.
Nov. 2010. – 16:03:37
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 22.
Nov. 2010. – 15:24:02
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 22.
Nov. 2010. – 15:16:37
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 22.
Nov. 2010. – 14:21:54
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 22. Nov. 2010. – 08:48:03
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 21.
Nov. 2010. – 12:46:16
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 20.
Nov. 2010. – 12:25:05
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 19.
Nov. 2010. – 05:29:49
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 19. Nov. 2010. – 05:19:12
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 17.
Nov. 2010. – 18:52:16
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 15.
Nov. 2010. – 11:13:30
Intimate relationships are just that…….intimate……..definition; closely personal generally of a sexual nature. It took a long time for the law and its various agencies to become involved when these relationships took a violent turn precisely because of the unique circumstances surrounding any accusations of violence associated with that relationship. A glance at Wikipedia offers this information.
Droit de seigneur, "the lord's right", often conflated with the Latin phrase "Jus primae noctis"), is a term now popularly used to describe an alleged legal right allowing the lord of an estate to take the virginity of his serfs` maiden daughters. Little or no historical evidence has been unearthed from the Middle Ages to support the idea that it ever actually existed.
Since it is accepted that history is written by the victors in any conquest it is not unlikely that all powerful newly ennobled French henchman of the Conqueror would seek to impose their authority in any form they wished. Be that as it may, rape always has been and to a certain extent probably will be a means of imposing male power over women in the most basic of ways. It is and has been used on a massive scale as an instrument of policy eg by the Russians in Berlin April/May 1945; Congo 2010. It is not an offence about which magistrates have any greater knowledge per se than any other lay people except that as for all offenders the accused rapist will face justice first of all in the magistrates` court. However at the lowest level of [usually] male violence against [usually] a female with whom there is or was an intimate relationship magistrates are well versed to comment. Although there is no such designated offence in law it is known as domestic violence or assault in a domestic context.
For decades the standard police response to accusations of assault perpetrated on a female by her male intimate partner/husband/boyfriend was referred to somewhat disparagingly as a “domestic” and unless resulting in serious injury the offender was rarely taken through the courts. However some four or five years ago the Metropolitan Police in a change of policy announced that even when a complainant withdrew her accusation all cases of suspected domestic assault would be pursued in the normal manner if the evidence were available. This resulted in vastly more offenders being convicted. It also resulted in increased difficulties for prosecutors and courts when complainants withdrew their original statements based on which charges had been laid. Sometimes these withdrawals are taking place on the day of trial. My post on November 11th detailed such a case. At such times emotions including fear, love and hate are such a fateful mix that justice is clearly seen not to have been done.
In the recent case of a mother of four at Mold Crown Court whose husband was accused of raping her, her subsequent statement of withdrawal, whether written or verbal did not prevent the CPS from continuing with the prosecution so she then retracted her accusation saying she had lied and that she had not been raped. As a result her husband who had originally pleaded guilty was discharged and she was jailed for perverting the course of justice. This is or was subject to appeal.
There are those with sharp axes to grind who offer spurious statistics regarding the failure of police and courts to offer justice to rape victims. However the case above described relates in microcosm to what is happening every week in many magistrates` courts throughout the country. When judges and J.P.s have to peep through the bedroom keyhole to deliver justice it is often not a pretty sight.
ADDENDUM 24th Nov 2010
In the above case in which a rape complainant was imprisoned for attempting to pervert the course of justice Lord Judge with two colleagues has ordered her release from jail and reduced her sentence to a two year supervision order with a community requirement.
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 14.
Nov. 2010. – 12:01:40
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 13.
Nov. 2010. – 12:58:11
One would have thought that a
representative body faced with the most radical shake up of its members`
practices in a generation…..even in two generations……..would find it logical, expedient
and productive to concentrate all its efforts and limited resources to hammer
out its message to the public and opinion formers. One would have thought so
but when the organisation in question is the Magistrates` Association it
appears that logic, expediency and productivity go out of the window.
There are pressing matters and
pressing arguments to concentrate minds with regard to the Coalition`s
intentions to reduce prisoner numbers, close prisons and divert many thousands
of addicted and mentally ill offenders to non existing [at present] community
institutions staffed by non existing [at present] personnel paid for with non
existing [at present] resources. Thus there are many directions in which the
M.A. could be firing its short supply of arrows and still find a useful target.
But that would too obvious. Instead, according to a report today
in The Telegraph, the M.A. has proposed that newly qualified drivers should be
legally required to have on their cars front and back a green P plate to warn
other road users of their inexperience. This story for emphasis is subbed as
policy of the 28,000 member M.A. I have searched high and low in the impossibly
difficult to navigate website of the organisation and found no mention of this
policy. One would have thought that a document sent as official policy to
Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary would have at least been noted in the
minutes of the latest meeting of the association`s Road Traffic Committee on 7th October. One
would have thought wrongly.
One would have again thought
that such a radical proposal from those who represent us, the magistrates who
sit in judgement of such matters, would have been discussed with others who
might have some input learned from experience. Perhaps the M.A. has had talks
with driving school representatives, or those involved in road safety matters,
or motoring organisations, or the police and Crown Prosecution Service who
would have to detect and prosecute those who flouted this proposed new
legislation. From the report we are told the A.A. gives it short shrift.
The A.G.M. of the Magistrates
Association takes place later this month. It will be attended by a couple of
hundred at most. And that is the way the incumbents prefer to keep its
meetings……close confined. The minutes of the last A.G.M. will not be available
until the impending get together. That is another way of ensuring minimum
criticism. There is no good reason on this Earth for these minutes not being
available in advance on the labyrinthine website recently re vamped at a cost
of perhaps £50,000. The 2008 minutes have no information of members in
attendance. Obviously each would have had to sign in. Why should the names of
the attendees not be added on a separate page[s]? At least the numbers
attending and voting should be published without web site obstacles which make
navigation nothing short of a joke impeding efforts to seek answers. Why is
there no facility for distance voting?
When many of an organisation`s
functions are carried out in a less than transparent manner errors of judgement
will be made and re-made and made again. Irrespective of the soundness or
otherwise of the proposal described above to have made it with apparently
little or no consultation and been singularly rebuffed by the Minister of the
department involved is sheer crassness. I have said it before and I say it
again……..in its current form the Magistrates` Association is not fit for
purpose!
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 12.
Nov. 2010. – 08:12:09
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 11.
Nov. 2010. – 12:56:44
A full day`s sitting last month
did not seem to hold any surprises when I consulted the court lists at 9.30am.
There were two trials to be prosecuted by the CPS scheduled for the morning and
one for the afternoon. Apart from extremely simple matters such as no insurance
or some non CPS matters very few trials are listed for less than half a day.
Having two trials listed that morning each an allegation of assault but one in
a domestic context was normal. The official policy it seems is that with a high
rate of cracked or non effective trials the only way to improve efficiency is
to double list. In blunt terms if everyone appears for both matters one of them
is likely to be adjourned or to go part heard…….rough justice for a defendant,
his/her lawyer and witnesses if any.
On that day priority was given
to the DV case and so from 10.00am after the usual preliminaries and request
from the prosecutor to have a very short adjournment with the Officer in the
Case we heard a sorry tale of why he could not proceed. At that moment the
defendant, a grim faced well built male of twenty seven, seemed unable to
suppress the hint of smile. We were told of a history of statements made by the
complainant at the scene, repeated at the police station a day later, withdrawn
a month after that, the withdrawal itself withdrawn four weeks prior to trial
and now a refusal to appear even although she had briefly attended court at
9.30am. The prosecutor announced formally that he was offering no evidence and
accordingly we dismissed the case. During a brief recess we were told that a
previous bench had found the defendant not guilty of a breach of his bail
condition of non contact with the complainant. The strong sweet black Italian
coffee didn`t taste as good as usual.
The second case of assault was
of the usual kind insofar as there is a “usual” kind. An argument in a pub
leads to an altercation outside and the loser gets a bloody nose whilst the
defendant is in the dock unrepresented after being refused legal aid on income
grounds which means he earns more than about £21K. He was forty four, had
dressed for the occasion, well cut suit and white shirt and tie. He seemed to
be comfortable in such clothing and judging by his address lived in a smart
part of town. I often wonder why those who might have money for cars, holidays
and restaurants don`t spend some of it on a lawyer when they are before the
court especially when they are of good character. This chap, when the crunch
came and he was asked if his plea was still not guilty, decided that at this
the third listing he would change his plea.
So by 11.15am our official
morning list was over. We did manage to employ ourselves undertaking the
Queen`s business until about 12.30pm by taking work from the remand court which
is so over burdened by design that without other courts` availability due
process would be impossible.
And so at 2.00pm with two new
colleagues we said our “Good afternoons” to the few assembled for my third
attempt at a trial that day. Arthur Nixon, Nick Arthur or Arthur Nicholas aged
37 was on our list as having assaulted a male and a female, his wife`s brother
and the brother`s girl friend six months previously. CPS prosecutor rose to
tell us that nobody has appeared. Both the defendant and the wife`s brother
were apparently serving time for Her Majesty and the female was not
contactable. When enquiry was made as to why all this was not taken into
account by the CPS during normal review prior to trial and information conveyed
to the court we were not surprised to be told that reduced staff availability
had led to a lowering of quality control. He shrugged, our L/A sighed and my
two colleagues who had been rostered only for the afternoon moaned audibly when
we were told that there was another bench taking remand court`s leftovers. We
were released about 2.20pm.
Such is the reality of why a
court does not always reach 80% utilisation demanded by the Minister of
Justice.
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 10.
Nov. 2010. – 16:36:23
Benefit Fraud is an either way
offence with a maximum sentence at Magistrates` Courts of six months custody
and/or £5,000 fine. Tried on indictment under various Acts at the Crown Court
the maximum sentence is ten years. Until about a couple of years ago magistrates`
benches were usually advised to decline jurisdiction if the sum involved was
over £20,000. Indeed as recently as October last year at Hendon Magistrates`
Court in London a case was sent to the Crown Court when the sum
involved was £35,000. At my own court within that self same period of one year
we have been advised by prosecutors on behalf of the Secretary of State that
Magistrates can accept cases where up to £60,000 is the alleged sum involved.
Our L/As appear to have received similar advice.
It was therefore interesting to
read the case of a mother who was sentenced after trial to three months custody
[suspended] at Crown Court when
the amount obtained was less than £20,000. Not having been there I would hazard
a guess that it would seem likely that this defendant elected trial by jury.
Defendants take such legal advice for one reason; the belief or hope that they
would be more likely to be found not guilty. I do not think they fully consider
that if found guilty they might receive a greater sentence than at the lower court.
If that were the case and being unaware of all the facts I would stick my neck
out and suggest that her sentence was indeed probably more severe than that
which would have been handed down at least in my court.
Because two cases are perhaps
similar but not the same I suppose it is difficult to analyse the difference in
sentences for similar cases in either way offences such as above. I have a
vague recollection of reading somewhere that it is thought that in comparisons
such as I have described judges do tend to impose heavier sentences than are
imposed in Magistrates` Courts. If that were so would defendants follow the
maths or would they would they hope for acquittal? And of course the temptation
of legal aid at Crown Court might be attractive to some.
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 08.
Nov. 2010. – 16:33:57
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 08.
Nov. 2010. – 14:14:37
There is democracy within an organisation and there is the appearance of democracy. After having listened to an interview this morning by John Humphries on “Today” with a very senior Chinese government official who when he asserted that there is no single pattern of democracy and that western ideas of such are not the only forms of the Athenian innovation I could not but think of the Magistrates` Association and its version of the “D” word.
Recent statements have indicated that the M.A. is considering changes in its structure to render it more representative of those it purports to represent. Perhaps it will consider a change along the lines of ridding us of the outmoded branch system and make benches the unit of organisation; a change I have long advocated and which my own branch has soundly ignored without debate. Another innovation would be using cyberspace in its many facets to gather in opinion from a wider constituency. However despite pleadings from Fitzroy Square it cannot and should not try to control individual magistrates from speaking out on their own behalf whether anonymously or not when they make it clear that their opinions are those of themselves as individuals and not representative of anyone or any organisation. The debate in the last few weeks to keep open courts threatened with closure has been led by individual magistrates and judges far more effectively in their local press than by the M.A. pontificating from on high. Of course J.P.s run the risk of drawing fire from the Ministry of Justice or one of its associated bodies if they stray too far into certain areas. From my own experiences of professional bodies negotiating with government departments the negotiators often begin to act, talk and behave like the civil servants with whom they`re dealing to the detriment of the cause they are supposed to be espousing.
The long established magistrate blogger Bystander broadcast on 5 Live last week under his own name in a debate with Louise Casey on the subject of a defendant`s right to choose in either way matters touching on whether all or some E/W matters should be abolished and/or whether the right to choose mode of trial should be abolished for defendants. He made it perfectly clear he was speaking for nobody but himself. No doubt he was selected because of his high public profile. Any reader here will know that I am firmly of the opposing view and that the right to choose is an anachronism which could and should be jettisoned from our trial system with no resulting reduction in the quality of justice from a bench of three cf a jury chosen at random.
However the M.A. cannot and should not seek to stifle individual opinion. Only when it becomes truly a representative body for Justices of the Peace will individuals consider that there is no need for them to make an individual contribution. Until then…………………………
by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 08.
Nov. 2010. – 09:27:52