STATUTARY DECLARATION & SERVICE OF SUMMONS

 

21. Mar. 2010. – 13:03:11

Most holders of a UK driving license have heard of "totting"; the addition of penalty points which are endorsed on a license for various offences eg speeding, no insurance, careless driving etc etc. In most cases upon reaching twelve points there is an automatic six month disqualification from driving in this country. It is the accepted practice that in order to ensure a driver is not unaware of the sanction when penalty  points reach or breach the magic twelve s/he is summonsed to appear before magistrates.  The summons is considered "served" when proof of first class posting is presented to the court.  This, as is all too obvious, allows defendants to declare truthfully or otherwise that they have never received such a summons.  There are arguments for and against instituting "signed for" service but that is for another time.

A very common appearance before a bench is the individual making a statutory declaration in which s/he declares and signs to the effect that eg an event has or has not occurred and the applicant wants to put matters straight.  One common such "has not occurred" event is the non receipt of a court summons and therefore the consequent inability to have complied with the subsequent court directive deriving from that summons.

A couple of weeks ago a woman made and signed such a "stat dec" to the effect that she had not received a summons for a motoring offence for which she was in her absence fined and disqualified from driving as a "totter" the court having had a print out from the DVLA in front of it and therefore full knowledge of her previous penalty points.  She had been away from home for three months and as she lived alone nobody had forwarded or opened her mail.  She came to court two days after coming home and reading the summons.  She was advised that after her form had been countersigned by a Justice of the Peace on the bench the matter was "dropped" and the papers would be returned to the CPS and court involved which would at its discretion decide whether or not to re-issue the summons. She was told that she was still able to drive as the points which had tipped her over the edge were erased at least for now.

          

       The whole system of the service of court summons is a cause for concern.  For example there are millions of immigrants new to the country in the last fifteen years; many live in rented accommodation and frequently change address; most are law abiding members of the community but unfortunately anecdotal evidence suggests that they are  liable to appear in court at least as often and possibly at a higher rate than UK citizens. For them and for all citizens the obvious answer is personal service but the cost, the cost, the cost!

IS THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE PROSTITUTING ITS OWN SERVICE?

 
 
18 Mar. 2010. – 22:13:50 

The Crown Prosecution Service has announced that it plans to deploy Associate Prosecutors formally known as Designated Case Workers to prosecute at summary trials at Magistrates` Courts.  These individuals were not and are not qualified lawyers.  When they began work some few years ago in remand courts, dealing amongst other things with bail applications and sentencing we were told they would not be involved in trials where in addition to legal and procedural knowledge the art of advocacy is of major importance.

Think back a few years when nurses` leaders began the push for their new applicants to be graduates and that the messy business of  dealing with patients` actual physical and bodily requirements could be undertaken by lower or virtually unqualified  auxiliaries.  Who heard of teaching assistants actually taking classes fifteen or so years ago?  Police Community Support Officers are on the streets where many would argue trained police officers should be.  The educational requirements for PCSOs are very low but so are their wages.  And there you have it.  Powers that be sniff out jobs which they believe do not need high paid well trained personnel.  And so to the courts.  With the sorry story of the Crown Prosecution Service in London and a surplus of unemployed lawyers it seems ridiculous to infuse this mess with staff not legally qualified however eager they might be. They will be regulated by IPS, a regulatory company established by ILEX to take responsibility for the regulation of Legal Executives. ILEX is the professional body representing 22,000 qualified and trainee Legal Executives and is an Approved Regulator under the terms of the Legal Services Act 2007.

As many doctors have commented on nurse prescribers taking many primary care functions; if they want to do these tasks let them study medicine. Not surprisingly IPS chief executive Ian Watson said the standard was sufficient to ensure competence.  Legal Aid is available to provide legal representation for defendants under certain conditions.  This does not extend to legal executives being paid by the state to defend miscreants.  The only justification for this lowering of standards is not to provide a high class service but to save money.  But don`t wait for any member of the government to admit this.  And the bosses at CPS are like service men and women; they will do their jobs as well as they can and keep their criticism until they are no longer in harness.  Haven`t we heard similar previously from senior policemen, ex chairmen of this or that quango, former generals and of course former cabinet members.  Plus ca change..............

UNPUBLISHED CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE STATISTICS RE "NOT GUILTY" LONDON TRIAL VERDICTS

 

16. Mar. 2010. – 12:43:29

Arresting suspected criminals is the job of the Police. Bringing suspected criminals to court and offering evidence against them if they plead not guilty is the job of the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS operates within a strictly defined code.

Very many defendants plead guilty at various stages from arrest or even when their trial is about to begin. I am not about to consider this category. This post is about those who have pleaded not guilty and proceed to trial at Magistrates` Courts in London.

Discussing trial outcomes with colleagues and senior officers in other areas of the criminal justice system it was suggested that I endeavour to ascertain the proportion of those found not guilty after trial at Magistrates` Courts. Subsequent conversations showed that the publication of such statistics ceased in 1999. However this blogger has been given figures for the last three years which are cause for concern.
Today's report from the BBC also expresses that concern and here are the figures which prove that concern is well founded:-

The overall figure for London`s Magistrates` Courts where the defendants are found not guilty after trial is 36.96% Disregarding those London magistrates courts where the numbers are too low to be meaningful the latest statistics for those found Not Guilty after trial vary from 13.88% at Wimbledon MC to 81.82 at Acton MC.

NAME OF MAGISTRATES` COURT                                                   % FOUND NOT GUILTY

Wimbledon                                                                        13.88
Richmond                                                                           14.92
Harrow                                                                               16.41
Bromley                                                                              17.41
Havering                                                                             17.61
Bexley                                                                                 20.81
Barking                                                                               21.38
Acton                                                                                  81.82
Greenwich                                                                          78.03
Thames                                                                               76.86
Woolwich                                                                           75.60
Highgate                                                                             75.56
Kingston                                                                             75.52
Enfield                                                                                75.25
Ealing                                                                                  73.56
Camberwell Green                                                                                    73.33
South West                                                                          72.46
Highbury                                                                             71.27
Sutton                                                                                  71.09

West London                                                                      70.20                      

I make no attempt to explain those figures but they do require to be explained by one more versed in the subject than I. And certainly CPS London should be focusing their minds if they are not already doing so on why such variations exist.

• NO HALF MEASURES; IF YOU DRINK A TEASPOONFUL AND DRIVE YOU`RE GUILTY 

15. Mar. 2010. – 16:05:41

Like every magistrate and judge I am bound to follow legal practice and make appropriate decisions whether or not I am personally in agreement with the necessary application.  If I am faced with applying legislation of which I heartily disapprove I can resign; that is my choice.  When the matter under consideration is driving with excess alcohol [drink driving] I am applying a series of laws of which I heartily approve. The fact that a drunk driver caused the death of somebody close to me was a personal reminder just how necessary is such legislation.

Therefore it was disturbing to me that  a report in The Sunday Times [14 th March]   indicated that the government plans to cut the legal limit to 50mg alcohol in 100ml blood from the current level of 80mg and perhaps reduce the driving disqualification for those guilty,  from the minimum twelve months if their alcohol level fell within the new reduced limit.  It might be thought odd that I describe this news as "disturbing".  There is not a driver who does not know that part of the punishment for drink driving is a ban of at least one year.  Those who drink and drive deserve no pity.  To achieve the current level usually more than one pint or two glasses of wine or spirits is needed.  The drink driver is highly culpable.  If a reduced blood alcohol level were to be  introduced it is possible in my opinion for that culpability  to be considered at a lower level,..... "I only had half a pint your worship......."  Worse still would be if the introduction of penalty points instead of disqualification became an option. This would be an encouragement to have just a "small one".

If this government is considering another pre-election announcement it should be zero tolerance for drink driving ...ie anything other than a zero level of alcohol in blood would be considered enough to convict [medical cases excepted as is the case occasionally at present].  Culpability would then continue be at its highest with very very few occasions allowing anything but an automatic disqualification as now of twelve months.

 

NEED TO PEE IN CITY OF WESTMINSTER?

 

12. Mar. 2010. – 14:09:05

The capital's biggest ever crackdown on people urinating in the street saw 12 shamed-faced revellers face magistrates after being caught red-handed in Westminster.

They were all sentenced and fined a total of £1900 by the court, with fines ranging from £50 - £250, after either being found guilty or admitting to the offence of urinating in a public place following a crackdown by Westminster City Council and the Metropolitan Police in the run up to Christmas.

The above is an extract from a report on the City of Westminster website.  It does not seem unreasonable one might think.  However next time you eat and drink in a cafe or sandwich bar in the same City of Westminster and feel required to relieve yourself bear in mind that such establishments do not require to have lavatory facilities for their customers.  Such is the state of joined up government in the London Borough which hosts the Houses of Parliament.

VIRTUAL COURT MELTDOWN

 12. Mar. 2010. – 12:48:22

I have written previously of virtual courts  based on the principle that taking justice away from the courtroom where it belongs so that apart  from exceptional circumstances all can participate "in the flesh" and imposing in its place remote access is a technological and social step too far.

The Law Society Gazette reports today that the whole system being piloted in Camberwell Green Magistrates` Court went into "meltdown" last month.  This is just another nail in the history of this government`s rushing into IT projects which benefit nobody except the pockets of IT specialists, IT  companies and their shareholders.  I have today instructed my GP to withhold my details from being inputted into the NHS Summary Care Records program.  I would suggest that anyone who believes rightly or wrongly that the state is becoming dictatorially oppressive goes to BIG BROTHER WATCH

NO SECURITY AT MAGISTRATES` COURTS

 

12. Mar. 2010. – 12:04:37

Hendon Magistrates Court is situated in North West London amidst private and council houses, offices, light industrial units and many car showrooms..........a typical court  in a typical building.  And as is the case in most......perhaps all, but that would be only a reasoned presumption............courtrooms, bar the main remand court,  there are no permanently placed security personnel or police officers.  Contrast that with the courts  I have visited in America and the Caribbean where there is always at least one armed police officer on duty.

Earlier this week an irate member of the public left the public gallery at Hendon Court and entered the courtroom mouthing abuse at the three JPs on the Bench. He was restrained by a defending solicitor and rapidly ran from court.  The magistrates had left the court for their own safety.  This is not an uncommon occurrence.  My own colleagues have faced similar actions and threats to kill from in the courtroom and without.  The security of a courtroom and those within is paramount for the effective process of our open justice system.  Until a judge or magistrate is killed in court there is no chance whatsoever of requisite security being available.

YET MORE CRIME STATISTICS BUT ARE WE ANY NEARER THE TRUTH?

 

09. Mar. 2010. – 11:13:01

My repeated comments on the need for respected audited crime statistics which would provide a solid base for discussions and proposals on what is one of the most important concerns of voters come once again to the fore with the publication of figures by the Independent Commons Library.  These show a 44% increase in violent crime since Labour came to power.  Tory and Liberal spokesmen will make a sumptuous meal of this latest  piece of numerical juggling.  It is truly medieval akin to the study of chickens` entrails by the three witches that figures mean what the speaker wants them to mean.  It is an insult to our intelligence that all political parties  are eager to play this game.

COURTS STAFF ON STRIKE

 9 Mar. 2010. – 10:50:43

Members of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) went on strike yesterday [continuing today]for the second time in the last few years. I was in court all day yesterday and whatever was happening in the boiler rooms of office administration at the surface disruption was minimal. I do not know how many of our legally qualified and other staff stayed at home but there were no picket lines and a visitor from Mars would have been hard put to detect any change in normal procedures. 

Of the six scheduled courts one went down but all trials went ahead. Since the creation of  Her Majesty`s Court Service all legal advisers` contracts allow for them to be sent to any court in our cluster and sitting with two such people for the first time was an interesting experience. One had previously been heavily involved in IT in a previous life and her use of the computer on her desk made us sit up in amazement like meerkats in the TV ads at what could be accomplished by one whose fingers moved at warp speed. Our experience in the afternoon sitting was equally stimulating insofar as his authoritative position in front of us and his megaphone tones combined with an encyclopaedic knowledge [not to belittle our regulars] was stimulating for all advocates present as well as the bench.

The top management also took their places in the courtrooms. In fact I think they enjoyed being once again in the thick of it. 

A PARALLEL COURTS SYSTEM

 

 06. Mar. 2010. – 14:13:22

Courts of law are not the only places where the justice system operates. "Courts" held by many professional bodies have procedures similar to those in the Criminal Justice System adjusted for their individual requirements and subject to judicial review and government intervention when considered appropriate.

One such is the General Medical Council which has spawned such offspring as the General Teaching Council, General Optical Council etc etc. Its duty is not just to investigate possible medical malpractice but to adjudicate on whether non medical activities are such that the fitness to practise of a registrant is a danger to the public. One such example is the case of Dr Nushan Pasindu Gunawardana , who having been caught speeding, unprofessionally asked a colleague to provide a letter in mitigation to the Court which was intended to create an impression in relation to the speeding offence which was misleading and dishonest. It is unconfirmed whether or not the erring student was disqualified from driving as a result. Recently a GMC disciplinary panel admitted that although his behaviour had “been a departure from good medical practice,” its members rejected claims that it impaired his ability to work in the medical profession.

The moral question is at what level of dishonest or disreputable behaviour does a registrant, student or otherwise, of a professional body become liable for punishment and if so to what degree. Clearly a student teacher convicted of an offence of abuse against children is unlikely to be considered to be training in the appropriate profession for his/her or the public good. A student optometrist on the other hand convicted of assault might, depending on the facts, be allowed to continue his/her studies. The only undisputable fact is that since the Shipman case all professional bodies have been directed by government to overhaul their disciplinary procedures and make them open to public scrutiny. After all, the removal from a professional register is tantamount to a fine of almost unlimited levels and the loss of a lifetime`s investment in time and money.

VENABLES, LEGALLY, MORALLY, PHILOSOPHICALLY, AND FINANCIALLY

 

06. Mar. 2010. – 12:19:34

Like many others involved directly with the legal system I`ve been thinking through the facts in the Venables case. He is only the fourth individual to have had life lifelong anonymity granted to him. The others being his co defendant Robert Thompson and Mary Bell and her daughter. With Venables in custody and its being only a matter of time before full details are available officially or unofficially decisions will have to be taken on whether he has forfeited his cloak of invisibility. This is primarily a legal and arguably a moral decision. However I pose the question that if he has an absolute right to anonymity would that continue if he were to appear in court on a serious charge? Irrespective of the outcome of said trial would he be offered a further change of identity? Is this process an indefinite guarantee? The legal answers, the moral viewpoints and the financial implications are on a collision course.

SELF INDUCED DRUNKEN SEMI CONSCIOUS ABUSIVE WORDS

 

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.

MAGISTRATES SHOULD BE ABLE TO SIT PAST 70

 03. Mar. 2010. – 19:15:29 

It`s well known now that this is the age of the baby boomers; those fortunate enough to have been born between the end of WW2 and 1960. I`m proud to mention that I`m one of them. Like the others I have been blessed with the most nutritious feeding in my younger years from free orange juice the unique taste of which is still there in a few synapses of my long term memory, the daily supply of free milk at primary school, the lack of junk food because it was not available and a grant from the local authority which along with vocational working allowed me to emerge from a university education owing not a penny. But then I was part of the privileged some would say 10% of eighteen year olds who attended university.

Like my peers I look forward to being intellectually and physically active until I make it four score years unless the gods on high will it otherwise. The Ministry of Justice certainly wills it otherwise. Retirement for Justices of the Peace at 70 is compulsory. The Magistrates Association takes a not unsympathetic view to the possibility of this age being extended provided the individual has retained all the competences necessary to do the job. Its Council is meeting on 25th March and will be discussing this mandatory retirement age. If and when I meet the biblical three score years and ten I hope that health, demographics, economics and wise counsel will prevail with the Ministry and I will be able to extend my time on the Bench. 

MAGISTRATES & ANOTHER LABOUR INITIATIVE

 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" 

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS & NOW VICTIM SENTENCING

 26. Feb. 2010. – 10:51:47

A system of criminal justice whether in Biblical times or England in the 17th or 21st century arises and develops when the squire, lord of the manor, earl or laterally the state dispenses justice with a dispassionate hand to maintain order and to remove the likelihood of vigilantism, victims` revenge, vendetta or however one would describe taking the law into one`s own hands.
Victim Impact Statements were introduced into our legal system by that arch-meddler Harriet Harman, when she was minister for constitutional affairs. It is intended to explain the effects upon the victim[s] of the offender`s actions. It was trumpeted as not being intended to affect sentencing. If sentencing were by mathematical calculation on a grid chart that might just be credible but it is flesh and blood judges who sentence. To assert that they are immune from emotional influence is a gross untruth.

It seems that comments on Greater Manchester Police have been a source of a few topics on this blog. Today is another when that force`s initiatives for good or evil have informed this effort.
In May, Tameside and Salford divisions will pilot schemes in which victims of low level criminal activity influence in how these miscreants should be punished. The scheme will see officers working with victims of shoplifting, criminal damage and anti-social behaviour to find alternative punishments to arrest and charge. So here we have more offenders not only being tried, convicted and sentenced by police without recourse to a court of law but with the added input of victim retribution albeit tempered and not allowed to develop into a full scale eye for an eye sharia type retribution.

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? 

 

POLICE CHIEF GONE MISSING

 

26. Feb. 2010. – 10:18:18

There are sometimes when one wonders how sub editors earn their pay. In today`s Leicester Mercury there is the headline:

"Search is on for new Leicestershire police chief"

Perhaps he got lost on the way to his new office.......

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHOULD BE A STAND ALONE OFFENCE

 

25. Feb. 2010. – 16:25:54

Once again I want to mention statistics. The subject is now so vital to government and myriad organisations it deserves a place in year 6 school classes because so few people are able to make reasoned judgements when presented with even the simplest form of statistical analysis. Government by Forums on this that and everything is nothing more than trying to please some/all of the people some/all of the time or any combination that suits. Nowhere is this more apparent or important than in criminology. From the effects of Magistrates` Courts being able to impose suspended sentences with an unforeseen requirement subsequently for more prison spaces owing to the unexpected need to activate such sentences for those who committed further offences during the period of suspension to the increased use of PNDs [Penalty Notices for Disorder] by police being counted as crimes cleared up statistics rears its [ugly?] head.

This is nowhere more important than on the subject of Domestic Violence; a term frequently used to describe a crime which officially doesn`t exist per se except as a particular type of assault where DV is an aggravating factor. All judges and magistrates have undergone specialised training before being allowed to sit on such matters. Much of the training focuses on statistical analyses of the subject many obtained from foreign studies. Since, we are told, so much such violence goes unrecorded it is not heretical to question some aspects of some studies.

In the last decade much more has been done to arrest, charge, convict and punish perpetrators of such violence which causes the death of hundreds of women annually. But even so, numbers are sometimes flung about like confetti.

In Asian News it is reported that during 2008/9, there were more than 70,000 incidents of domestic abuse recorded by Greater Manchester Police. On the web site of Greater Manchester Police it can be found that there were 49,678 DV victims {my italics}in 2006/7. I`m sure that other varied statistics could be found which one would find difficult to fix to a common base and therefore worthy of comparison. The sooner the incoming government instead of legislating for the sake of "doing something" or "setting an example" introduced as a Bill or part thereof an offence of Domestic Violence clearly defined and well drafted the better for us all.....victims especially but also magistrates and judges.

POLICE PRAYERS REDUCE CRIME!?!? WHAT NEXT? GARLIC

 

23. Feb. 2010. – 11:42:31

When religion, its adherents, its trappings, its rituals and anything else similarly associated hits the headlines as has been increasingly the case I begin to fear for my sanity. The rational thought that has guided humanity for two hundred years seems to be fast disappearing. Even the Inquisition under a more user friendly title is once more stirring.

Last year a community nurse was criticised for praying for a patient. The nurse Caroline Petrie, said she asked an elderly woman patient during a home visit if she wanted her to say a prayer for her. The patient complained to the health trust about Mrs Petrie who follows the Baptist faith. Now we have a senior policeman Inspector Roger Bartlett who says that in Barnstaple Devon the power of prayer has helped catch criminals, boosted crime detection rates and even reduced the number of ­people killed on the roads. With such unscientific medieval nonsense in our midst what hope is there or does the Inspector think that his mumbo jumbo has a place in modern crime reduction? Perhaps it should be a pre requisite for new recruits to be skilled in prayer? How about compasses for Jewish and Moslem recruits so that they can face East two or three time a day when they do their devotions? Are officers` arrest figures to be weighted if they are atheists? After all, without a god to help out surely they`re at a disadvantage?

As a refreshing contrast Chief Constable Peter Fahy has shone some much needed light on some of the daft goings on of a few of his officers who logged six incidents of snowball throwing during last month’s cold snap. All were classed as ‘serious violent crime’ even though no one was injured and no arrests were made. The Chief criticised his own officers for failing to show 'common sense.' I say three cheers.

FOR FINE DEFAULTERS WOULD ONE DAY IN CUSTODY FOR EVERY £ OWED REDUCE THE DEBT?

22. Feb. 2010. – 16:04:40

Her Majesty`s Court Service should not be organised to make a profit. It is part of the justice system and without it the law of the jungle would be upon us. It is a fundamental part of a government`s responsibility to its citizens as important as ensuring the armed forces have sufficient resources to protect us from invasion. It is arguably more important than the NHS. This was a democratic country before 1948.

But notwithstanding the above it is the duty of government to ensure that all monies owed to any of its branches is collected as efficiently as possible. Hence the frequent advertising of the dire repercussions for those not buying a TV license or taxing their car.

However when it comes to the collection of unpaid fines perhaps there is room for improvement. In the financial year 2007/8 there was £500.6 million unpaid. In 2008/9 that figure had risen to £545 million. It seems that in Swansea enough is enough.Swansea magistrates court will stay open after hours this month as part of a blitz on fine defaulters and offenders who have failed to attend court dates. Operation Crackdown will see court enforcement officers and South Wales Police taking part in a series of blitzes on offenders' homes as part of the two-day operation. They will chase up warrants for non-payment of outstanding fines and warrants issued for failure to attend court.Extra vans have been drafted in from outside the area to take offenders to the magistrates court which will remain open until 8pm on both nights of the operation.

Accurate figures for the number of people imprisoned as fine defaulters are hard to come by. At the third reading of the Criminal Justice Bill on 27th February 2003 David Heath MP for Somerton and Frome stated that; "Things have changed over recent years and far fewer fine defaulters are imprisoned now. I hope that my figures are accurate: in 1994 22,469 males were imprisoned for an average of seven days and 1,454 women for an average of five days; by 2001 those figures were greatly reduced to 1,382 males for an average of six days and 73 females for an average of two days."

On 31/10/1995 414 fine defaulters were in custody. On 30/06/2004 there were 52 fine defaulters in custody. It would appear to the untrained eye that amounts of fines outstanding increase as the number imprisoned for non payment reduces. In other words deterrence just doesn`t exist for those who don`t pay. Perhaps we should not be too quick to disavow ourselves of the methods used in some southern United States. I can vouch for the rate of $1 per day in a County Prison for every dollar owed after all other methods have been exhausted in attempts by the court to get its money. 

DANGEROUS DOGS ACTS 1991 & 1871

 21. Feb. 2010. – 12:22:58

Owning a dog is a major responsibility although we can all recall incidents where such responsibility was apparent by its absence.

A couple of months ago a young man appeared charged under that cobbled together in a hurry knee jerk legislation known as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. His or rather an absent relative`s  Alsation had escaped through a hole in the garden fence and run amok in a nearby park. No harm physical was caused but a concerned dog walker called police and the dog was restrained and later returned to the proxy owner who was charged essentially with having a dog out of control. He pleaded guilty and during his mitigation....he was unrepresented.........questions were put to him about the status of the animal which it turned out had been trained and used by its owner as a guard dog at an industrial site. My colleagues and I rejected the CPS`s application to order destruction of the dog but wished to impose controls particularly an order that it be on a lead and muzzled when in a public place. However after consultation with all the law books on her desk our legal adviser told us that since there had been no complaint under the DOGS ACT OF 1871 such action was unlawful. The case could have been adjourned for consideration for such a "complaint" to be lodged. We decided on a pragmatic approach to end the matter then and there. He was fined £100, costs of £85 and the iniquitous £15 "victim surcharge". He also gave what was clearly explained to him by the chairman a non legally binding undertaking to muzzle the animal and have it on a lead in public places. He was advised that that undertaking we considered as substantial mitigation, noted by the legal adviser, the breaking of which in itself would not be illegal but would be a factor for consideration if he appeared on a similar matter in the future.

Section 2 Dogs Act 1871
"Any court of summary jurisdiction may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous, and not kept under proper control, and if it appears to the court having cognizance of such complaint that such dog is dangerous, the court may make an order in a summary way directing the dog to be kept by the owner under proper control or destroyed."
This extract from the Dogs Act 1871 is reproduced under the terms of Crown Copyright Policy Guidance issued by HMSO.

THREE FAILED TRIALS BUT HE CAN STILL WALK OUT THE DOOR

 . 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. 

JUST A WHIM BUT GOOD LUCK BARRY MAGISTRATES

 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.

News has been released that administration work from the Vale Magistrates Court in Barry will be transferred to Bridgend. This type of thinking leads me to ask would government or this one in particular only be satisfied if every form of administration were transferred to a huge new "administrative capital city" somewhere between Milton Keynes and Newcastle on Tyne where a million civil servants could all live together in a bomb proof concrete underground place called Britannica and run the country as they do now except they would have nobody to blame for the trouble they`d cause except their own blind mistaken confidence in centralisation. 

ARE JURIES AS FAIR AS THEY COULD BE?

17. Feb. 2010. – 12:49:26 
The Document recently published  "Are Juries Fair?" has quite correctly had massive exposure in the media. A justice system in which everyone has confidence is  essential to maintain our current liberties reduced as they have been in the last thirteen years.

A purpose of any justice system is to punish the guilty and acquit those against whom the evidence cannot sustain a guilty verdict. That definition in itself does not constitute a guarantee of a free and just society or a society governed by law as we in this country would have it. According to their legal systems at the time the USSR and nazi Germany punished the guilty and occasionally acquitted others.

By the Juries Act 1974 the only requirement to serve on a jury is to be listed in the electoral roll. And laterally the exclusion of those involved in various professions has been lifted so that even legally qualified professionals no longer have exemption.
The document runs to 87 pages so my comments here are necessarily compressed.

As the title implies the main concern is with outcomes and especially with consideration for the effect of ethnic minority groups both as jurers and defendants. There is little consideration apart from race and religion on the composition of juries or alternatives to the jury. Presumably these factors were not in the authors` remit but in my opinion when considering the title of the paper it is self restricting insofar as the concept of "fair" is being examined with a macro lens instead of a wide angle.

There are conclusions which prompt considerable disquiet. Non fatal offences against the person have a 52% conviction rate. And in offences where understanding the state of mind of the defendant is crucial the conviction rate is less than 50%. These examples require a juror to have a certain level of insight, to be able to reason, to be able to draw conclusions in addition to being satisfied "on the facts". In efforts to be representative no investigations are possible into a juror`s understanding of English language whether oral or written. Is this faculty not worthy of being a pre-requisite for sitting in judgement over one`s fellow man? Twelve is not a magic number for a jury panel. If two juries of seven each were to sit on a case with both having to bring in the same majority verdict would that not ensure "fairness" if a split between the two would indicate a re-trial or acquittal? Since the removal of the either way category of offences is not on the horizon is there not a case on the same basis for a defendant to elect Judge or Judges only trial for very limited range of offences? The jury system is far from infallible as can be demonstrated by very high profile cases in the last decade of verdicts successfully appealed.

Our criminal justice system allows District Judges to sit as both judge and jury at Magistrates` Courts trials. Magistrates sit as three person judge and juries on the vast majority of trials in England. They would not be appointed with poor language or reasoning skills. In addition both JPs and DJs must give reasons for trial verdicts; juries do not.
This study certainly provides food for thought but in my opinion cannot deliver a verdict because so much was excluded. Without more information and input I am not convinced that we are doing as much as we can to ensure the prime directive; to punish the guilty and acquit those against whom the evidence cannot sustain a guilty verdict.

BECOME A J.P. WE DON`T NEED TO KNOW IF YOU`RE A FREEMASON

 

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.

EAST ENDERS MORE VIOLENT THAN THE WILD WEST

 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".