09. Mar. 2010. – 11:13:01
09. Mar. 2010. – 11:13:01
06.
Mar. 2010. – 14:13:22
06. Mar. 2010. – 12:19:34
05. Mar. 2010. – 11:24:29
Recent retiring room discussions reminded
me of an interesting case on which I sat four or five years ago. A young Somali
woman faced a charge of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or
behaviour ". She was not represented.
In the street she was very drunk and the
medic on the ambulance which had been called by a bystander could not persuade
her to go to hospital so he called police and with their knowledge left to
attend another emergency call. On their arrival her situation seemed
precarious....she was in and out of consciousness and they recalled the
ambulance. Before its arrival for a second time she appeared to be more lucid
and began swearing and verbally abusing the officers who arrested her, took her
to the station where she was charged. In her own defence she agreed she was so
drunk she remembered nothing at all of the incident. She continued her denial
under cross examination.
Discussing whether or not the CPS had
proved the charge we decided that her intoxication went beyond an aggravating
factor and that if we accepted her version she was without awareness, control
or intent. However our legal adviser on hearing our intended conclusion and
referring to the appropriate sections told us that if intoxication is self
administered awareness of which the defendant had none must be considered as if
not intoxicated and therefore she was guilty.
I cannot recollect having sat on a similar
case since.
03. Mar. 2010. – 19:15:29
03. Mar. 2010. – 14:23:41
Today the Home Secretary has announced another "government initiative"; The "Safe and Confident Neighbourhoods" strategy he asserts will build on the success of neighbourhood policing and will ensure anyone with a concern about crime and antisocial behaviour gets the assistance they need. This is another pre election announcement purporting to be a policy but is rather a good intention re-stating what is or should be expected from current management. Whilst it is possible to hold one`s self up to be a hostage of fortune when commenting on government`s intentions when very little is known of the practicalities there is one aspect published which I find disturbing. He outlined a strategy which included inviting chairs of magistrates' benches to make appropriate arrangements by which magistrates could be involved with neighbourhood partnerships in their areas, whilst protecting judicial independence and avoiding any perception of bias;
Call me old fashioned but my view is that Magistrates who are all unpaid volunteers are best suited for that which they have been extensively and expensively trained; to preside over courts of justice where 95% of criminal cases are heard. In their own time many JPs are involved with "Magistrates in the Community" programme demonstrating to local school children just how the legal system works including mock trials where children assume the roles of the court officers....magistrates, lawyers, probation officers etc. Many colleagues also have roles within local organisations giving insights and personal opinions of their role in particular and in general. But the wording of the above quoted paragraph leads me to wonder whether the "arrangements" to which references are made are perhaps at the boundary of what members of the judiciary should be expected to do especially re-reading the last phrase "whilst protecting judicial independence and avoiding any perception of bias"
26. Feb. 2010. – 10:51:47
I cannot overstate my complete opposition to such developments. Whatever the ostensibly benign motives behind this proposal it is the increasingly not so thin edge of an ever increasing wedge with the potential to develop into what can without euphemism be termed a "police state". A culture of police authoritarianism is slowly gaining momentum and with the public cynicism of our parliamentarians in full flow who or what is there to plug the leaks in our democracy?
26. Feb. 2010. – 10:18:18
25. Feb. 2010. – 16:25:54
23. Feb. 2010. – 11:42:31
22. Feb. 2010. – 16:04:40
21. Feb. 2010. – 12:22:58
. Feb. 2010. – 16:25:07
There are many reasons put forward why Peter Blake at his fourth history making trial by a judge without jury was allowed to leave the court and subsequently abscond. The background is that three previous attempts to try this man failed owing to a suspicion of jury tampering. This current trial where verdict as well as sentence will be that of the single judge will continue without him. It is argued that since he had not failed any previous court hearings remand on bail for this trial was not inappropriate. His bail was not surprise surprise unconditional. Apparently somebody had put up £250K surety and at 2.15pm Feb. 17th there was an indication that a large part of that surety was to be withdrawn the result of which would have been a remand in custody for the duration of the trial unless a substitute were found. He was allowed to speak to his lawyers. There is nothing known about why he was not escorted by officers for that promenade. It was not contrary to his bail conditions. The man was considered so dangerous to three juries that his trial made history. It`s made history again for a totally absurd waywardness on somebody`s part.
19. Feb. 2010. – 16:07:37
The mantra of so many organisations especially within the
civil service is "centralise" or "bigger is better". In any
event it often means removing input of whatever description from a local area
at point of contact or taking the button a long way from the buttonhole but
putting an extra long chord on it. When this happens efficiency is as likely to
be reduced as improved. My own experience with Her Majesty`s Court Service
bears this out.
15. Feb. 2010. – 16:55:52
A few years ago........about ten or so...........when
applying to be appointed as a Justice of the Peace a candidate had to declare
which political party had been the recipient of his/her last general election
vote, had to demonstrate that "common sense" was a faculty s/he had
and could be demonstrated and that he was or was not a Freemason.
With the current new advice from the Ministry of Justice the
last of those three declarations has been lifted; the others were removed some
years ago.
So now those who objected to having to demonstrate common
sense, owning up to which party they voted for or confirming or denying they
were on the square can apply in good conscience to my boss Jack Straw via the
Appointments Committee.
I wonder what changes in the
Ministry`s estimate of what makes a good magistrate will be mandatory in 2020.
14. Feb. 2010. – 17:11:25
Since its availability to the whole
population there has been a continuing discussion whether watching violence on
TV has any effect on children. Most caring parents of under eights would
certainly take note of the 9.00pm "watershed" even just to ensure
their little darling gets enough sleep. Advertisers who pay millions to advertise
products that appeal to children insist that there is no danger to children in
some of the programmes paid for by that advertising insofar as children are
able to discriminate real life from fantasy. Many who are "expert"
and many who are not so "expert" disagree.
What is not in dispute is that many young
children watch Eastenders. I have to admit that I have never seen the programme
but have been aware of its transmission from the shouting and screaming from
the room where others in my house have been watching it. So it was no surprise
to read that in it’s 25 year history, which will be marked with a special live
episode on February 19, there have been 70 deaths – 16 of which were violent.
That represents a 22.8 per cent murder rate, way over the national average of
0.032 per cent.
If children in families where incoherent argument and violence are perhaps just below the surface are exposed to this "in your face, like it is" material three or four times a week is it not likely that their bases for normal behaviour will be altered? It`s possible to argue that violent video games are seen to be fantasy and have limited effects on juvenile behaviour but "family" programmes with content as described above are not the same thing. I say bring back "Wagon Train" and "Gunsmoke".
12. Feb. 2010. – 12:27:04
12. Feb. 2010. – 14:15:33
On 11th January I commented on the reduction in local court reporting; LOCAL COURT REPORTS ARE A THING OF THE PAST
An erudite legal blogger has posted interesting facts on deterrence as applied in the justice system. However he misses one crucial fact and that whatever is in the mind of the law maker or sentencer the "deterrent sentence" must be promulgated to the others with a propensity to commit similar crimes. For high profile crimes national news programmes and newspapers take an almost ghoulish interest but for low level crime local TV news and newspapers hard copied or on line are the obvious places where such reports would be aired. But with reduced viewing of local TV and court reporting per se increasingly a rare event this just doesn`t happen. Of course there is the word of mouth network in pubs and other places where people of like interests congregate but can deterrence work at a low level. My opinion is that it cannot.
11. Feb. 2010. – 11:18:41
On 6th February I commented on the police chief in Hounslow
blaming magistrates` courts for the high rate of burglaries in the town. It was
his contention that if burglars were remanded in custody between court
appearances the problem would be almost solved. His colleagues in Devon and
Exeter Police are more realistic and are getting on with their job of protecting
us, the public, instead of trying to shift the blame to others.
In 2008, 610 house burglaries were reported compared with
402 in 2009 — a reduction of more than 34 per cent. Detective Sergeant Tim
Thornton, of Exeter’s burglary team said the city’s burglary squad continually
monitor the movements of known offenders. He continued, "The process is
quite simple — find out who is responsible by gathering evidence from a number
of sources, ensure prompt arrests and secure convictions. It’s then about keeping
track of known offenders, monitoring their movements and habits and working on
intelligence. If they re-offend or are not rehabilitated the process is
repeated.”
It could be argued that comparing crime in Wild West
London and crime in rural Exeter is not comparing like with like. It cannot be
argued that by attacking the courts Chief Superintendent Bilsen in Hounslow has
revealed a mind set which if typical in the Metropolitan Police Service is
disgraceful. I hope that by now the Commissioner of the Met has reminded his
senior officers of where their job begins and ends; certainly not by slagging
off magistrates.
09. Feb. 2010. – 11:54:33
05. Feb. 2010. – 12:47:04
05. Feb. 2010. – 11:35:46