"P" PLATES CAN P*** OFF

 

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!

UNPAID FINES

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 12. Nov. 2010. – 08:12:09

I`ve posted in the past on unpaid fines which currently total around £500 million and rising. Routine pronouncements from the bench when issuing fines, costs etc include stating that a collection order will be made if the fine is not paid according to the agreed schedule. That means that without further formality bailiffs can be given instructions of seizure. All very well in theory but different in practice.

Reality television has made the daily work of bailiffs a half hour series of entertainment. Bailiffs of course work for any contractor who has unpaid sums owing from a customer for services rendered…….from the sale of a car to the supply of a parking space. Unpaid court fines` procedure allows for an offender to be arrested and brought to court to explain his non compliance with the court order. Either of two findings can be made by the court which allow the offender to be imprisoned for his reluctance to part with his/her cash; wilful refusal to pay or culpable negligence to pay. Custody can be up to seven days for an amount unpaid not exceeding £200 to one year for a sum in excess of £10,000. The major problem for the courts is the hoops through which they have to jump to impose a jail sentence.

It was interesting therefore to read a report in This is Cornwall about the police in Truro in conjunction with the local magistrates` court attempting to prise some outstanding fines from the reluctant hands of offenders.

For some people only direct action of this nature with the threat of imprisonment will force payment. With the stated policy of the Coalition to reduce the numbers of prisoners come what may there is absolutely no prospect whatsoever of the fines deficit being reduced……..another story of too much carrot and not enough stick.

VACANT and VACATED

 

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.