10. May. 2010. – 18:19:19
I retired from the magistracy in 2015 after 17 years mainly as a presiding justice
- A MAGISTRATE`S DIARIES
- United Kingdom
- My current blog can be accessed at https://thejusticeofthepeaceblog.blogspot.com/
A MAGISTRATE`S ILL JUDGED RANTS?
LITTER LOUTS
10. May. 2010. – 12:57:50
Street tidiness was a job for local authorities and street cleaners were a common sight keeping the environment clean and tidy and also providing low level employment for those who would otherwise be unemployed or unemployable. A clean and tidy neighbourhood has been shown to reduce disorder especially low level disorder which can blight many lives. The "zero tolerance" concept pioneered in New York City is a direct result of this thinking.
The Keep Britain Tidy Campaign began in 1954 as an initiative of the National Federation of Womens` Institutes. Some might remember the iconic posed picture of Margaret Thatcher tidying up in Trafalgar Square. The Litter Act of 1983 consolidated all previous legislation. Prosecutions for littering are brought under section 87 - Offence of Leaving Litter - of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The offence is: "A person is guilty of an offence if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which this section applies and leaves it.”
And that was why two women who dropped cigarette ends in the street ended up at Magistrates` Courts. Lyndsay Moore, 32, of Firleigh Road, Kingsteignton, who pleaded guilty, was ordered to pay a total of £115 in a case brought by Teignbridge Council, while Charlotte Sleep, 35, of Silver Street, Ipplepen, was ordered to pay a total of £265 in fines and costs in a case which was brought by Torbay Council and heard in her absence. It is indeed a sad reflection on our conduct when the criminal law must be applied to such basic anti social behaviour. Singapore has the reputation of being the world`s cleanest city. In 1992 Corrective Work Orders were introduced as an alternative to fines up to S$1,000 [£500] for littering and offenders were required to wear distinctive clothing whilst cleaning streets for a specified number of hours. It is open to discussion whether or not the forthcoming change of government will lead us closer or not to the highly regimented regime of Singapore and whether or not that would or would not be desirable.
Without entering into any religious context whatsoever the original precept for the individual and society to rub along with minimal friction is to do to others what one would ask them to do to oneself. And that includes taking one`s rubbish home to dispose of carefully [including cigarette ends].
THE ASBO: A MONSTER OUT OF CONTROL ?
08. May. 2010. – 12:56:20
ELECTION DAY BUT NOT FOR MAGISTRATES
06. May. 2010. – 12:23:58
The whole process of voting set me thinking about the procedures under which judges and magistrates arrive in their positions. It is well known that many judicial positions in the United States are elective. My colleagues and I are appointed until the age of seventy when we are put out to grass. Being an enthusiastic carnivore I can`t say I`m looking forward to that day.
REFUSAL TO SUPPLY DNA SAMPLE, PROBABILITY AND THE LAW
05. May. 2010. – 16:32:17
For many years previously various scientists and others had noted the basic structure of the human fingerprint; some had even mooted the possibility of its being used as an identifier. And as is well known a full fingerprint with all reference points matching is now considered to be literally foolproof evidence in a court of law.
Police National DNA Database..........With the advent of DNA sequencing there is an increased acceptance of DNA matching as evidence in important legal cases. Mathematics has been used as a tool for all manner of human understanding and use in the courtroom is frequent. The Sally Clark case is an illustration of how maths can go wrong in the wrong hands. The mathematics of matching various DNA samples in a legal context is based on explaining to a jury the chances of two samples of DNA; one from a crime scene and another from a suspect/defendant not belonging to the same individual. The art of making such explanations without compromising the statistical validity is akin to economists explaining to laymen the variations and resulting different conclusions between eg Keynsian and Monetrist Theories. And as we all know statistics and economics can mean what the speaker, whether lawyer or politician, wants it to mean. Reading various analyses of probability/DNA/Courts can be interesting for those with a clear head. This is an interesting case which came before the Court of Appeal in 2006.
The retention for six years in England & Wales [three years in Scotland] of DNA obtained from those arrested but never charged for an offence is a major issue for those concerned with civil liberties. It is a criminal offence to refuse to provide a DNA sample when requested by a police officer.
According to the Home Office, the powers which give police the authorisation to take DNA samples can only be used on the ground that they have reasonable basis for suspecting that the individual committed the crime. It was reported today that a man of previous good character who refused to give such a sample and admitted the offence was sentenced to a six month conditional discharge and £85.00 costs at North Lincolnshire Magistrates` Court. Now he has a criminal record and the consequences of such a record can be dire indeed. It is a moot point whether another disposal would have been more likely before another bench. In any event how many of us with "a libertarian bent" would refuse if placed in a similar situation?
LAW LESS WITH TORIES
Like others involved in the "law" we are more aware than most of the cascade of legislation that has poured from 10 Downing Street since 1997. By the latest estimates 4,300 new offences have been created in that period; 50 criminal justice bills have been enacted. By contrast between 1988 - 1996 494 new offences were created. D.Cameron has been quoted yesterday as saying that were the Tories to form the next government his first Queen`s Speech would include a "great repeal Bill" of Labour red tape and rarely enforced criminal offences. It is unlikely that those intentions were they to become reality would find objections from right minded folk.
DRESS FOR DISCIPLINE
01. May. 2010. – 11:08:22
Over the past few months interesting correspondence has been published re the increased informality of some courts` design and the suggestion that the courts` authority might be increased by JPs` wearing of gowns. These are two subjects with a common link; the trend commonly known as “dumbing down”. Secondary school teachers were wearing black gowns a generation and a half ago; some still do; court ushers wear gowns, Crown Court barristers wear gowns and of course the legally qualified judiciary have gowns carefully graded to seniority. Lawyers in Magistrates` Courts appear in ”civvies”. Personally I don`t need a gown to exert authority but I accept that for some defendants appearing before gown wearing magistrates might help them to recognise the seriousness of the occasion and the court`s authority. On the subject of attire I would say that the declining formality of the female JP`s dress code is of more concern. Virtually all males wear suits usually dark in colour. Rarely does a female lawyer in court wear anything but the standard form of attire; dark suit and white blouse as do our female clerks. Not so some of my female colleagues. Coloured jumpers and tweed skirts and occasionally clothes more suitable on the golf course than on the bench are seen especially in the summer months. Quite clearly the large hat combined with twin set and pearls are as suitable today as is gas lighting but sometimes informality is taken a little too far…..in my humble opinion of course.
Designs of courtrooms vary considerably. The standard dais two or three feet off floor level allows members of the bench clear views and injects a certain psychological authority to the pronouncements. I have sat in courts where the bench is a simple table at floor level the JPs using typists` chairs. There are those who would approve and commend such informalities; I am not one of them.
I recollect last year being shouted at by an offender,” Who do you think you are? What right have you to doubt what I`ve told you?” I replied pointing above me to the Royal Crest, ”The right that that coat of arms bestows on this court and this bench”. When physical trappings are not superfluous but have meaning they are a useful adjunct.
So Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow`s dispensing of his predecessors` predilection for fancy dress met with my approval. Similarly when the next parliament is opened let Black Rod keep her rod but throw away the velvet and get the black two piece out the wardrobe.
GANGMASTERS, COURTS AND THE LIB DEMS
@ 30. Apr. 2010. – 10:46:15
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY??????
25. Apr. 2010. – 15:45:53
MAGISTRATES AND BAIL ON MURDER CHARGE
22. Apr. 2010. – 11:42:58
AN ODD WAY TO GET ON THE SEX OFFENDERS` REGISTER
21. Apr. 2010. – 11:56:06
DRINKING BANNING ORDERS
16. Apr. 2010. – 14:32:28
In the last thirteen years we
have had introduced over three thousand new laws, Police Community Support
Officers, revamped traffic wardens with powers to issue penalty notices in
addition to parking tickets, ASBOs which are civil orders the breach of which
can lead to lengthy custodial sentences. I referred recently to controlled
drinking zones and their associated corollary; the drunks just move next door
where there is no control.
Since 21/08/2009 Magistrates` and County Courts have had the power to make Drinking Banning Orders. DBOs on conviction came into force on 1st April 2010 in 25 Local Justice Areas. Recently Kidderminster Magistrates` Court issued a two year DBO against Laura Hall, 20, of Bromsgrove banning her from consuming alcohol or purchasing alcohol in pubs, nightclubs, membership clubs or hotels, and from purchasing alcohol in shops and off licences. It also bans her from having alcohol in any unsealed container or consuming alcohol in any public place. The conditions apply throughout England and Wales.
So this offender who was also required to undertake an approved course to tackle her alcohol-misuse issues will be breaking the order if she buys a bottle of cider to take home for her friends. This is what is termed being set up to fail. And if she fancies a pint in the highest pub in England after an exhausting walk up hill and down dale the local bobby can arrest her on the spot and she would then face a criminal charge and possible custody. Unfortunately there are many young people with severe drink problems which ruin their health and often lead to unlawful behaviour the result of which can be personal disintegration and enormous cost to the public purse. But surely legislation of this format cannot be the best way to deal with problem?
DON`T DRINK IN MY HIGH STREET; TRY THE ONE NEXT DOOR
In a small town with a single high street a CDZ might offer a significant improvement to residents but in a large city the likely displacement of the drinking to a nearby area should have shown the impracticality of such measures.
RELIGION AND THE LAW
15. Apr. 2010. – 11:09:45
OLDHAM GETS MORE NON POLICE POLICE TO ADD TO THOSE ALREADY ON THE STREETS
13. Apr. 2010. – 18:03:18
If those responsible admitted
that all this delegation of powers is primarily because of the cost saved by
employing at low wages those who are not capable of being police officers and
therefore benefits the public purse we could have an honest discussion but when
we are treated to bland statements that it is all for the public`s benefit it
just adds another layer to general disillusion about the type of society that
we are becoming; a society where there is uniformed authority with little or no
discretion which is empowered to issue various penalty notices acting as
police, judge and jury.
THROWING SHOES IN PUBLIC IS NOT JUST A "SYMBOLIC" POLITICAL GESTURE;IT IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE
11. Apr. 2010. – 17:01:38
We, the law abiding private
citizens of this country, require an immediate statement from the Director of
Public Prosecutions after this trial is over.
DO ALL LAWYERS STILL PUT THEIR CLIENTS` INTERESTS FIRST?
11. Apr. 2010. – 12:56:09
NO CASH FOR COURTS BUT MONEY FOR NEW CARPETS
11. Apr. 2010. – 12:03:37
TV LICENSE AND THE CRIMINAL LAW
09. Apr. 2010. – 11:46:37
Most prosecutions in UK are
carried out by authorised government controlled authorities such as the Crown
Prosecution Service in England and Wales and the Procurator Fiscal`s Office in
Scotland. Individuals can bring private prosecutions under certain
circumstances. And there are, however, organisations such as the R.S.P.C.A.,
London Buses or virtually any local authority which also prosecute often in
Magistrates` Courts where they pay a fee to the court to "hire" a
bench to sit in judgement similar to what happens in the criminal cases usually
adjudicated.
The C.P.S. is a public service,
part of the Ministry of Justice, open to inspection with policies, performance etc
available for public scrutiny and monitored by various parliamentary overlords.
The C.P.S. does not send mail outs to magistrates on a regular basis.
One prosecuting body which
sends mail outs two or three times a year to every member of the Justices of
the Peace professional representative organisation, the Magistrates`
Association, is TV Licensing. This four page publication "In Brief"
more or less extols this quango`s right to operate and the manner in which it
"tries its hardest" not to prosecute non license payers. Tosh!!!!!
Anybody moving to a new address or who does not use a TV set at their current address knows well enough of the bombardment of requests, which soon become demands, to pay the license fee. Their so called inspectors have no right whatsoever to enter premises without the permission of the occupier but of course many occupiers do not know this.
Watching a live TV programme on a TV set or on the internet requires a TV
license. Failure to have one is a criminal matter and it is criminal
prosecutions which take place as mentioned above. Sometimes the results are
iniquitous to say the least. A case which has stayed clearly in my mind was
that of a Harvard law graduate attending an English university for a term as a
post graduate student. He was staying with friends for a few days watching a
football match on TV when there was a knock on the door. He was the person
least interested in "soccer" and answered the door. To the question
from the official with an ID badge whether the TV was on he innocently answered
in the affirmative. That young American was in front of us for having no TV
license because that is the current situation; s/he who answers the door to the
TV license Gestapo is the one responsible in law. There was no doubt that he was
guilty but he was given the second lowest disposal available....a conditional
discharge. Although his name would not appear on the Police National Computer
he now has a criminal record in England.
It is a question for the next
government whether or not the BBC should continue to be funded by a license
fee. It is a question of justice that non payment of such a fee should be
constituted as a civil matter and judged as such and the anachronism of
criminal proceedings be consigned to history.
SAD TALE OF MAGISTRATE WHO THREW HER WEIGHT AROUND
08. Apr. 2010. – 11:40:54
The lesson is simple; if
somebody offers him/herself for public office it behoves him/her to behave with
the highest standards in all aspects of life or face the consequences.
FOOTBALL BANNING ORDER; AN OWN GOAL?
08. Apr. 2010. – 11:03:36
SECT V PUBLIC ORDER ACT & CATCH 22
06. Apr. 2010. – 17:24:19
THE LETTER OF THE LAW OR ITS SPIRIT?
05. Apr. 2010. – 11:10:44
Since the G20 riots a year ago
and the subsequent acquittal of Sergeant Smellie [usually pronounced
"smiley" in Scotland] much media coverage has been given to the fact
that he had no visible number on his uniform by which he could and should have
been identifiable. Controversy of this type has been going on for a long
time and it was following a riotous situation many years ago that police
vehicles were required to have similar indentifying characters on their roofs
and/or sides.
It therefore makes for
interesting reading of a Freedom of Information request on the website of Surrey Police.
This observer would opine that as with other public organisations perhaps the
letter of the act is being observed but the spirit appears distinctly
lacking. And often in legal arguments of one sort or another the question
arises as to which route to take to resolve an issue; the letter of the law or
its spirit. I`m a spirits man myself when it comes to alcohol and
similarly with the law that it is the intent of the draftsman whether it is the
Constitution of the United States or the Freedom of Information Act under
discussion. If the draftsman has erred in not making the intent clear enough he
should be given the doubt and doubtless many "letter" lawyers might
disagree.
THIS IS WHAT WE`VE COME TO: DO A "BASIL FAWLTY" GOOSE STEP AND YOU COULD BE IN COURT
04. Apr. 2010. – 12:57:57
Like millions of others I can enjoy watching John Cleese in Basil Fawlty persona almost as much as his silly walking etc at Messers M. Python. Indeed one phrase from the sixth episode has stood the test of time and is well remembered today thirty years later, "Don`t mention the war". His goose stepping scene with a finger across his upper lip will be shown in TV clips a hundred years from now as an example of the last throw of the intellectual freedom of the late 20th century because it is extremely doubtful that the inhibited grey suits with their political correctness, who control many visual media diluting writers` and performers` talents, would today sanction such a sketch. If it is thought I am, to coin a phrase, going over the top on this..........going back to that episode of Fawlty Towers I was watching recently, it reminded me of a case two or three years ago.
The defendant of previous good character was a veteran of World War 2. He had been charged with using threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress contrary to Section V[1] and [6] of the Public Order Act 1986........a "catch all offence". Those whom he had been charged with receiving his "words or behaviour" were two Police Community Support Officers. He had been arguing with a car driver who, he asserted, had almost hit him on a zebra crossing. The PCSOs had told the pair of them to desist; the driver drove away and our 80+ year old defendant had then performed a Basil Fawlty Hitler goosestep around the PCSOs to demonstrate in his words their bloody interference. One member of the bench dissented with the verdict of guilty but guilty he was found. He was sentenced to a Conditional Discharge for six months and to pay £50 of the £350 costs asked for by the prosecution.
The only conclusion I can draw from this tale and from others of a similar nature is that whilst police officers have discretion, and long might it continue, these ill educated poorly paid apologies for Chinese neighbourhood wardens [spies], now defunct traffic wardens or park rangers of my childhood are little better at replacing police officers than repairing a damaged Rolls Royce with filler and expecting it to be as good as new. It might be cheaper at the time but in the long run the value of the Rolls can never be recovered. And thus the ship of state sails on its being only a matter of time before all the holes below the waterline coalesce and the deluge begins.
NO JURY BUT THREE TRIAL JUDGES
03. Apr. 2010. – 12:43:21
Recent legislation allowed for
a single judge to sit without jury on certain trials under certain
circumstances. Recently the verdicts were handed down in the first major
criminal trial in 400 years to be conducted in this fashion by a judge
sitting without a jury. The important word is major. Sections of the press best
described as appealing to those who are impressed by the images rather
than the news or editorials failed to make much mention if any that judge only
trials have been conducted in this country for centuries and that defendants
have no right to choose any other form.
Those charged with summary only
offences can be judged and sentenced by a District Judge sitting alone in a
Magistrates` Court. Defendants pleading not guilty to these same summary
offences can also face a bench of usually three magistrates who will rule on
facts and when appropriate determine the sentence. Appeals at Crown Court from
sentence or verdict at Magistrates` Courts are heard at Crown Court in front of
a judge sitting with two magistrates. The Supreme Court must have at
least three judges sitting on an appeal. Tribunals of three or five
judges are common in Europe.