DANGEROUS DOGS ;TIME FOR THE LAW TO BITE BACK

 

04. Jun. 2010. – 12:58:07

Thankfully most people do not come into contact with the legal process with the possible exception of when they are encased in a metal and glass box containing combustible liquid and are travelling in an inappropriate manner but that`s for another time.

There are eight million dogs in the U.K. and of course each has at least a single owner. They are all descended from wolves; that is the dogs are.....although some might say they are higher up the tree of civilisation than some of the owners. The ancient Persians were the first to domesticate dogs and they and later civilisations in Egypt used them as hunting animals, guard dogs and pets. At times domestic dogs were buried as sacred animals in the Anubieion catacombs at Saqqara. Anubis (Inpew, Yinepu, Anpu) was an ancient Egyptian god of the underworld who guided and protected the spirits of the dead.
For many hundreds of years kings and queens of England have employed dogs for hunting and canine association with royalty is very much with us today. Dogs have been bred also for virtues other than the strength of their jaws which is solely related to their head size. Dogs in fiction are known to most of us; Bull`s Eye in Oliver Twist, Rin Tin Tin, Lassie. Alpine dogs and swimming dogs have saved many people in peril; police dogs and dogs for the blind are essential helpers to their human owners. And there perhaps is the nub of the point of this post.....dogs of whatever breed will, generally, behave according to the manner in which they have or have not been trained.

Until 1871 there was no legislation regarding dogs behaving badly. If you were a man of substance you took your gun and shot the offending creature and perhaps also its owner if he resisted. If you were poor it ate the same scraps as its owner and perhaps provided some protection as well as companionship. The Dogs Act of 1871 allowed a complaint to be made to a magistrate under civil law. Such a complaint occurs if a dog is not kept under proper control and is dangerous. Generally a dog is regarded as not being under proper control if it is neither on a lead nor muzzled. Without a complaint the Act cannot be enforced.

After a series of serious dog bite attacks in the 1980s parliamentary knee jerk reaction was to enact the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which allowed for the destruction or neutering of certain breeds. Most dog behaviourists and dog trainers agree that it is the dog owners that are the problem with dangerous dogs not the breed. This Act is, to coin a phrase, a dogsbody of law. There is a lack of protection against attacks on private property. This means that postmen and women, or any worker visiting the dog's home, can be attacked without criminal charges being brought against the owner.. I blogged on this and an actual case which demonstrated some anomalies earlier this year on 21st February. But dogs still bite people and people are still seriously injured by dogs. In 2008 4,699 people were admitted to hospital and kept in at least one night with injuries from dog bites. Children under nine were by far the most likely victims.

I have written previously that Scotland in many areas of legislation from car clamping to age of criminal responsibility has shown a lead where common sense and clearly drafted regulation has benefited its people. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill passed its third stage in the Scottish Parliament at the end of April and now looks set to become law north of the border. This new Act importantly places the onus on the owners, not the dogs, to ensure they are properly controlled.

Dog bite incidents which happen dozens of times every day rarely make news unless a child is killed or the people involved can sometimes dubiously be described as “personalities”. Such was the case reported today when Ozzy Osbourne's old boss was fined £2,500 after his dog attacked a cyclist near 

Edenbridge. Patrick Meehan the former manager of Black Sabbath and former chairman of Handmade Films, the financially troubled film company founded by Beetle George Harrison, is an extremely wealthy individual. And paying less than £3,000 including costs for the actions of his dog is not only a puny amount it does not reflect the seriousness of the crime. The punishment under the Dangerous Dogs Act is currently a maximum fine of £5,000 or up to six months` imprisonment. A person convicted of carrying a knife in a public place faces a minimum punishment of imprisonment even for a first offence according to “Povey”. Irresponsible dog owners even if they are multi millionaire media personalities are equally culpable if their “pets” are running free and/or not muzzled and attack innocent bystanders. 

HOW MANY POLICE DOES IT TAKE TO ???

 

02. Jun. 2010. – 16:03:59

Are the following statistics for 2009 concerning the numbers of police officers in England and Wales worthy of comment from somebody who knows more than I about staffing structures?

There is 1 sergeant for every 4.8 constables
There is 1 inspector for every 3.04 sergeants
There is 1 chief inspector for every 3.85 inspectors
There is 1 superintendent for every 1.89 chief inspectors
There is 1 chief superintendent for every 2.1 superintendents

NO MORE ROGUE CAR CLAMPERS IN 2011

 02. Jun. 2010. – 15:36:39 

Every car owner knows about it, tries to avoid it and feels like spitting blood when unfortunately comes face to face with a wheel clamped car and the often large, tattooed men who have locked the monstrosity in place on his/her car. The resulting aggravation many times reaches the courts when aggrieved motorists` outpouring of venom reaches the ears of a patrolling Police Community Support Officer or very very occasionally a real live "You`ll be arrested if you don`t stop swearing" police officer. I sat on such a case a couple of weeks ago and however much provocation has been endured it is usually considered only in mitigation for a guilty plea to low level public order offences.

The outrageous actions of some? many? car clampers and the lack of effective control on their activities at local or national level has been a scandal. The recent conviction of one such gang and the jailing of its leader at Birmingham Crown Court will bring a smile to all who have had the misfortune to have been similarly fleeced of large amounts of hard earned cash.

It is heartening to know that in the Crime and Security Bill which received Royal Assent on 8 April there is provision to deal much more efficiently with rogue car clampers. There will be maximum limits set to fines possibly in line with those imposed by local authorities, signage will have to have parking conditions clearly set out, independent appeal processes will be established and effective licensing for clamping companies will be introduced. The Scots, so often more sensible than their English cousins in matters legal, outlawed clamping on private land in 1992. 

NO USHER; NO COURT; NO JUSTICE

 29. May. 2010. – 13:45:14 

Imagine an athletics meeting where the athletes did not have a schedule of events; chaos would not adequately describe the scene. Competitors would mill around and try to make some sense of the disorder around them. Given time and some common sense they might actually sort themselves out and appear on the starting line. When complaints are subsequently made to the organisers of the event they reply that there wasn`t sufficient money to provide enough back up staff and then sign a contract to have the seats repainted red white and blue in time for the next meeing.

Earlier this month I was assigned to the non CPS court where prosecutions by bodies such as the local council, Dept. of Health and Social Security, Child Support Agency etc etc take place. As such there are more lawyers for both prosecution and defence than is usually the case waiting for their cases to be called on, defendants and witnesses of all kinds many of whom are not familiar with court procedures unlike those appearing in CPS prosecuted criminal matters when familiarity breeds more than contempt. 

Morning courts run from 10.00am - 1.00pm. It is essential that as little time as possible is lost owing to inefficiencies especially those which are predictable. Although not directly related to this topic one small example will give an indication of top down instructions which are as sensible as a three legged camel race. Courts` daily lists which can run into dozens of names are presented to the bench in alphabetical order and numbered as such. Until recently the sometimes bulky corresponding court files would be presented to the legal adviser in the same order so when a case was called on by name and number everyone is literally reading off the same page. But recently owing to some court manager taking the view that for c£18K p/a office staff to sort the files before 10.00am was too time consuming that process was stopped. The result is that the c£40K p/a adviser has a bundle of files on his/her desk and spends court time sorting out the appropriate one when the case is called. Yes; it does appear that the monkeys are running the zoo.

Now back to the non CPS court....we enter at 10.00am on the dot with the legal adviser and unexpectedly find the courtroom empty. Our L/A tries the main entrance to the courtroom and finds it is locked! It appears we have not been assigned a court usher. The L/A phones security to unlock the door, a job usually done in conjunction with the usher or by the usher alone. Our bench quickly decides that we cannot efficiently conduct our court without an usher to regulate properly the comings and goings of the dozens of people we expect to appear. It is a task which occasionally a L/A would undertake if pressed; perhaps in a short trial with only one or two civilian witnesses but not on the scale envisaged for that morning. We retired from the court telling the L/A matters would proceed only when the court was properly staffed with an usher. At 10.30am we were informed that the court manager had re-arranged the ushers available and we were well served but half an hour of precious time had been needlessly lost. 

I have no reason to think that other Magistrates` Courts are not undergoing similar results from reduced recruitment. Because financial cuts at our courts are like the iceberg which sunk the Titanic having only 10% visible above the waterline it will take a Daily Mail headline of an unforeseen major criminal event resulting from such inefficiencies to bring Her Majesty`s Court Services` attention to this attrition within the criminal justice system. 

REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT 2000

 28. May. 2010. – 16:58:43 

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act [2000] is a perfidious and odious part of the all enveloping snooping legislation enacted by the, in my opinion, unlamented authoritarian war mongering swiftly back peddling right honourable and some dishonourable members of the BBM gang and its three leaders. It was under this legislation that there was a wheelie bin watch and charges against parents who were thought to be cheating about how close they lived to a desirable school. I`m quite sure that in most parts of this country there were enough cases to keep the local newspapers in business.

Two cheers for our new coalition of CamerClegg. In its Agreement a ban is proposed on the use of powers in this Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by local authorities unless a magistrate authorises their use and it is required for stopping serious crime. I am unclear whether this indicates that a magistrates` bench in court will have to approve the action or a JP on his/her own. I am sure we will know soon enough. From a libertarian viewpoint this is a good start.

IDENTITY CARDS BURIED WITH LABOUR!

 27. May. 2010. – 14:06:37 

Libertarians and perhaps many others not so single minded about retaining their privacy in an increasingly big brother state will be extremely pleased at today`s announcement that Identity Cards for all, a policy so fervently espoused by successive Labour Home Secretaries, are now history. If this government offers nothing else to those who are resistant to being obliged to identify themselves to petty bureaucrats and worse it will be enough. But it didn`t begin in this century.

In late December 2008 I was sitting on a case where a driver had refused to give his details when required by a police officer. For a reason now forgotten during this hearing we had some "downtime" and were in the retiring room where on impulse I looked at the bound annual copies of "The Justice of the Peace" on the bookshelf. I chose to look at the edition of 1908 and found the page for the same December date of that year. And there it was in black and white Edwardian prose; the case law where a driver on the request of a police constable was required to give his name and address. Licenses to drive were for the future. A gentleman had been motoring through Hyde Park and for whatever reason refused to give his details to the constable when asked. The case duly reached a higher level where it was decided that a constable had the right to demand a driver`s name and address.

Was that a coincidence? Do we have free will? Will the world end in 2012? Will England win the World Cup? 

NOT ALL THE FUN OF THE FAIR

27. May. 2010. – 12:13:52 

Those of us who are literate enough to read and/or write assimilate so much information on a daily basis that our mind is programmed to act as a very efficient filter retaining in either our long term or short term memory areas only the information which sub consciously or consciously we would wish to retrieve at some future time. Events, in the widest possible use of that word, will tend to be retained if they are so outwith our normal experiences they provide a form of template against which others could be judged. Such was the experience I had when I noticed the following headline in the on line Register; "Statistics prof nails Blackpool hoopla scam".

Who hasn`t played hoopla? Throw a ring around a peg and bag a prize. Along with "roll the penny" hoopla was the most widely played stall at local carnivals and fun fairs when I was allowed out with friends and no parents to bother us......I was about 11 at the time. Anybody eg who accepts the challenge to "find the lady" from an East European on the pavement in London`s Oxford Street deserves no sympathy for his/her loss but a hoopla stall in Blackpool??????

On a few occasions I have queried the veracity and purpose of the statistics produced by those who are interested in propagating their opinions on whether crime and everything associated with it is going up, down or sideways. It would appear that Lancaster University statistics lecturer Dr David Lucy showed it would take a player over 2,622 attempts to “stand a 99 per cent probability of success” to throw a hoop over the peg at a stall run by Darren Casey. Without having the academic expertise to comment on the maths of the statement of likelihood of success but believing that there is rarely 100% probability of anything apart from death and taxes he seems to be saying that the punters were being ripped off. Blackpool magistrates agreed. Casey was sentenced to 14 weeks custody, suspended for one year, ordered to complete 270 hours of community service and pay £2,000 in court costs. He also pleaded guilty to "allowing a child to gamble", and was handed 135 hours of community service and ordered to cough £575 in costs. 

Perhaps Dr Lucy should be invited to study crime statistics produced by Uncle Tom Cobley and all and find out if any cheating has been going on? 

POLICE, HUMANISM AND DIVERSITY

 

26. May. 2010. – 12:05:52

It never ceases to amaze me that police forces have moved in a couple of generations from what could loosely be termed amongst the most reactionary of organisations to arguably the most politically correct in this country. In fact we no longer have police forces; we have the police service. Whether the pendulum has swung too far is for individuals to judge for themselves. But there is no denying that it has swung. And nothing typifies that more than the pre occupation with "diversity". We have associations for police officers of all shades [literally], creeds and opinions.....black, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and even pagans are throwing their rights of association into the fractured systems of representation within policing. And with groupings where membership is based on rank it is a wonder there is any cohesion at all. Perhaps the glue that holds all police officers together is one of the oldest such compounds discovered.....the "them against us" adhesive which has been shown in times past to be a force as much against the administration of honest policing as for it.

It seems that notwithstanding the above Hertfordshire police have recruited two humanist advisers. In the full report there is this paragraph;
“Humanism is a religion based on reason not faith, which does not depend on a god or gods, and believes science provides the only reliable source of knowledge in the universe.”

The British Humanist Association defines humanists as follows;
“are atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values. We take responsibility for our actions and base our ethics on the goals of human welfare, happiness and fulfilment. We seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves, individually and together.”

There is no mention that Hertfordshire Constabulary is paying for the services of the aforementioned advisers. However this example of supposedly trying to please all the people all the time must cost the organisation in time and materials. Whilst some might find all this uplifting this sorry tale in my humble opinion demonstrates clearly that our society is now based more on drifting sand than solid bedrock.

DRUGS IN PRISONS

 

24. May. 2010. – 11:20:38

To argue in the negative is always a difficult task. To remember negative thoughts or activities or perhaps the repression of such provides food and drink for those in the business of "therapy". For those even with elephantine memories the lack of memories of continual media exposure of prisons seems somewhat surreal. Perhaps as a society we are more pre-occupied with crime and criminals than we were in the past. Certainly prisons and all aspects of their place in the criminal justice system fill more media columns and TV hours than was the case twenty years ago.

There are annual reports, overcrowding, suicides, and of course drugs. I remember about the late 1980s listening to a report by a New York health officer on the Today programme on Radio 4 telling the audience that his city`s overwhelming crack problem would also be Britain`s in ten years such is the commonality of this modern plague. And so it has come to pass.

On 12th April I posted "CAN DRUGS BE EXCLUDED FROM PRISONS?". There have always been unsubstantiated reports that prison officers prefer their charges to be semi docile having had their regular fix than to be faced with 1000 offenders on cold turkey. Whatever the truth my impression is that if there were a will to control drugs entering prisons and money were available then the way would be found."

A couple of weeks ago a two part reality TV documentary of life in Wormwood Scrubs was screened. I`ve visited two large jails but not the Scrubs. They are not surprisingly depressing places for the visitor....three to a cell about the size of a garden shed where the inmates eat and defecate with only a curtain to separate the two bodily functions. In both establishments the senior prison officer who was our escort.....we were a group of JPs, lawyers and a judge.........was at pains to explain the strenuous efforts to curb drugs entering the buildings and their consequent circulation through the prison. The TV programme relayed the same sentiments from prison officers at the Scrubs....sniffer dogs, strip searching and sanctions available to offenders caught. But then we were shown the visiting hall[s] where despite CCTV and roaming warders with dogs physical transfer of drugs was not the most difficult task because there was no physical barrier between convict and visitor. I can understand the argument that to allow such contact can keep prisoners mentally stable and looking forward to re-joining their families when their stretch is completed. But in my opinion it is a bit like having the car`s air conditioning on full blast in the desert with the window open.

In the Sunday Times yesterday David Leppard in a thoughtful article provided some interesting information from an as yet unpublished report from the Policy Exchange think tank. It says jail prices of heroin, cocaine and cannabis are ten times street value and consequently a great temptation to prison staff to smuggle in and sell on. Of the 90,000 inmates of Britain`s prisons at any one time 14,000 were using drugs at least once a week. The Met police in 2006 found at least 1000 of the ten thousand prison officers were receiving income from corrupt practices including smuggling drugs.

Certainly if one third of prisoners is high or looking forward to their next fix it must make life easier for the staff who are without doubt very poorly paid for the job they do.

There are those and I am one who advocate the decriminalisation of currently class A- class C drugs and concerted efforts to treat drug addiction as a medical problem as opposed to a criminal problem. The consequences of such addiction are often ruinous to those close to in addition to the addict him/herself and in prisons drug addiction and suicide are not wholly dissociated bedfellows.

Dame Anne Owers the Chief Inspector of Prisons told an audience last week that British prisons have too many inmates suffering with mental health problems. She told her audience that when mental hospitals were closed down in the 1980s and 90s Care in the Community was promised. “In practice that has translated into Care in Custody. A large percentage of prisoners are mentally ill and prison officers are not trained to deal with them.” I think there is not one magistrate or judge who would disagree with those remarks.

I posted yesterday that short sentences are necessary. They are. But so are places of refuge and treatment for those who cannot cope with their lives. They are called asylums and every town or county used to have one. Now these buildings are often blocks of flats. Another example of misguided thinking and planning by those playing Monopoly with real money and real populations and who walk away from the very mess they created. Will it be any different this time?

SHORT PRISON SENTENCES ARE A NECESSITY

 23. May. 2010. – 13:35:08 

Being a long serving member of an urban bench, meeting and sitting with newly appointed colleagues is usually a refreshing experience. Owing to the age profile where I sit we have had around two dozen new faces in the retiring room in the last eighteen months. They range in age and profile from thirty something hedge fund managers and high flying civil servants, forty something housewives, fifty something ex police officers, one rabbi, one well known in her field female entrepreneur, and two sixty something retired lawyers. Some are black, some are Asian, most are white. At least one is severely physically disabled. I am pleased that none is younger than in his/her thirties and that contrary to some colleagues` opinions I am not unhappy that we have no deaf or blind appointees. 

When sitting with recently appointed Justices who by this stage have had extensive and expensive training there is one factor which no amount of preparation can equip them with and that is a backlog of experience in sentencing. Six months` custody is the courts` maximum. Faced eg with a defendant with no criminal record convicted after trial of punching, kicking and pushing to the floor his pregnant wife where on the ladder of punishment do you place this man? With experience one thinks back to previous similar assaults and compares the situation with aggravating and mitigating features of other assaults. In other words a template in the mind is added to the official guidelines. When that process is explained to a new colleague his or her reluctance to consider the maximum sentence as a possibility is overcome in a logical structured fashion.

On one aspect of sentencing all colleagues are in agreement. We do not take any pleasure in imposing jail sentences. Contrary to the outbursts of some ignorant politicians there are sometimes occasions when there is no other option. 

Such was the case earlier this year when Graham was in the dock. He was thirty nine going on sixty. His face was custard coloured, his hair....what he had....hadn`t been combed or washed for months, his sweat shirt was more sweat than shirt and his jeans were about two sizes too big for somebody approaching six foot and only about nine stone. He appeared for sentencing for breaching the punishment for theft of a few items from a supermarket imposed two months previously; a 7.00pm - 7.00am three month curfew. It wasn`t that he`d got home a little late on one occasion or left a little early one morning; he had been away from his address for at least five of the curfew hours on seven times in a month.

He had four pages of "previous". He had had every sentence in the book for drug possession, three courses of drug rehabilitation, umpteen thefts and robberies and had been inside many times. Indeed he had been released from prison for a previous low value theft only two weeks prior to having committed the offence for which he was given a curfew with that bench`s remarks noted on the court file," We are imposing a curfew and not custody. We are giving you a final opportunity to try to sort yourself out." His solicitor mitigated for him with obvious great difficulty. One of the factors that sentencers have to consider is the protection of the public. After conversations with my new colleague based on comments and sentiments above and agreement with our third member we sentenced him to fifteen weeks custody. 

Those who would alter the system to eliminate short sentences altogether should visit their local Magistrates` Court from time to time and acquaint themselves with what real people do and real people suffer and that those of us privileged to sit on the bench whilst not living with the Book of Leviticus under our pillows do our jobs as justly as we can on behalf of a society which doesn`t always know whether it wants hanging or harmony for miscreants. 

MAGISTRATES AND COMMON SENSE

 18. May. 2010. – 13:17:45 

In order to be appointed as Justices of the Peace applicants have to jump through a fair number of hoops and that is as it should be. In order to sit in judgement of fellow citizens which is a great privilege and responsibility it would be a strange system which did not wish to appoint the best people for the job regardless of ethnic origins, position in society, marital status, social status, political affiliation. All that is required is good health, good character, the required referees and if there is a disability this will be considered on the individual merits of the applicant. The personal qualities necessary are in addition understanding and communication, social awareness, maturity & sound temperament, sound judgement, commitment & reliability.

As happens regularly in towns all over the country new magistrates were recently sworn in at York. At the ceremony Judge Ashurst said: “Every single case is different. Our communities require people with knowledge of the world and bags of common sense to do the justice which has traditionally been done in these courts.” [my italics]

When I was sworn in during the 1990s the appointee had to possess as a requirement "common sense". As the good Judge said above and as many would agree "common sense" as a necessary requirement seems to be....you guessed right.........common sense. But it`s not. Sometime in the last ten years that requirement was withdrawn. As I understand the reasons that were issued at the time it was asserted that what would be common sense to one person might not be common to another especially somebody whose origin was not of the UK where the word common [belonging to all] would not necessarily be applicable. 

Perhaps the Judge was unaware of this. Perhaps he was well aware and chose his words deliberately. In any event in my opinion he did us all a favour and especially the new JPs in emphasising that whether or not it`s official or unofficial common sense is more than a worthy attribute of a magistrate; it is a necessity. 

WHEN A WIFE GIVES EVIDENCE IN HER HUSBAND`S DEFENCE

 @ 17. May. 2010. – 11:18:41 

Most people are aware that, generally speaking, a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband. Consistent with that understanding, magistrates when listening to a wife who gives evidence on her husband`s behalf, will decide how much weight to give to her evidence.

And so to the tale of Fred and the lovely Maureen. He was a 45 year old self employed builder and she was a hairdresser. It was earlier this year and he had been charged with racially aggravated assault insofar as he had punched the complainant, a youth called Jerry, outside the pub calling him a "lazy gypsy bastard". We had heard evidence from Jerry and the officers who arrived at the scene after the incident and had arrested Fred. In due course Fred gave his account of the incident in which he asserted that he had acted in self defence when Jerry tried to hit him. Under cross examination he was forced to admit that he had used the words ascribed to him but vehemently denied the assault. His only defence witness was Maureen. She obviously had taken time to prepare for her appearance in the witness stand. Not surprisingly her hair was immaculately back combed in a style that my female colleague to my left whispered would have done justice to the late great Dusty Springfield. As she was the only other witness to the incident defence counsel took her slowly through the events of the evening. For those perhaps unfamiliar with the process, witnesses in this country and certainly not in Magistrates` Courts when being questioned by a defence lawyer who is being funded by Legal Aid, are not rehearsed prior to giving evidence unlike the process in eg "Law and Order" or for an older generation "Perry Mason". All was going well for Fred who was listening intently to Maureen describing her husband`s acting to protect himself until when asked whether she had heard her husband use the fateful words stated categorically that he had not uttered them. A brief glance at the dock and it was obvious that Fred had realised the game was up. In her eagerness to please she had let him down and the truth prevailed. We found beyond reasonable doubt that Fred had acted in the manner told to us by Jerry.

Sentencing was adjourned for reports. One can only speculate on the subsequent conversation between defendant and his wife........ 

KENNETH CLARKE and TRULY a C.J.S.S.S.

 16. May. 2010. – 13:33:17 

It`s not often that a government, especially one in the midst of a financial crisis it has been elected to alleviate, can cut costs by imposing a measure which is long overdue and which is unlikely to receive any major opposition other than from die hard professionals struggling to preserve their own interests. That opportunity is available to the most canny member of this new cabinet Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke M.P. Q.C.

On 21/11/2009 I argued that "Either Way " offences are an anachronism. Another example of the abuse of such choice is illustrated by a case last week at Preston Crown Court.

The state should be the sole arbiter of mode of trial; offences being heard at either Magistrates` or Crown Courts. In the recent past former Justice Secretary Jack Straw argued that too many cases are being sent to the latter from the former for sentencing. Mr Clarke has the opportunity and the ability to power through Parliament a bill to abolish either way offences and to increase the sentencing powers of Magistrates` Courts to twelve months` custody. In one well aimed fell swoop £millions would be saved and the efficiency of Her Majesty`s Court Service increased. And then one of its favoured initialisms CJSSS would be more likely to be meaningful. [Criminal Justice: Simple, Speedy, Summary] 

EMPLOYERS -V - EMPLOYEES

 15. May. 2010. – 13:41:50 

Once upon a time in a far off land there was a boss and there were his workers. And for reasons unknown and not required the boss sacked a worker and the worker and his family were starving such that his children were taken into the workhouse, his wife died from the gin and the worker was hanged for stealing a leg of lamb. And lo! Unto this land came a man with a thick beard speaking a strange tongue and he preached against money lenders in the City temple and those who believed took his name and spread the word. Those words spread east and in time revolution took place in one country. But in the west where the preacher had expected the workers to rise in his name the majority rejected his teaching.

And today the ability of an employer to sack staff has reached such labyrinthine difficulties that the Court of Appeal has been involved in the case of Roldan -v- Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust. 

I make no comment on the case itself. However as employment lawyers are only too well aware there are pots of gold in this area but the true cost is against a natural entrepreneurial spirit in this country epitomised by Napoleon`s reference to "A nation of shopkeepers". Increasingly restrictive employment laws make life extremely difficult for the small independent employer. Perhaps there might in the new government be somebody who can rekindle the spark of ambition for those wishing to "go it alone" but with the saintly Doctor Cable in charge of the medicine I have my doubts. 

WARNINGS FROM THE BENCH ON FUTURE SENTENCING

 14. May. 2010. – 11:05:20 

Within the Magistrates` Courts system, at least as far as Justices of the Peace are advised by their legal advisers, one bench cannot "tie" another; ie any sentencing decision made must allow a subsequent bench freedom to act as it so wishes. For that reason when a matter is adjourned prior to sentencing, for probation reports to be presented on a convicted defendant, such reports being laid before a sentencing bench at the adjournment date, a requirement of the report will often have the addendum, "all options open including sending to the Crown Court". This makes lawful the possibility that the defendant might be sentenced by a Crown Court judge whose sentencing powers exceed the maximum of six months at a Magistrates` Court

It was therefore surprising that yesterday at Bootle Magistrates` Court where a milkman who was a recidivist user of cannabis was told by a District Judge who sentenced him to pay a total of £185 in fine, costs and surcharge,

I can disqualify you from driving and disqualifying you from driving would stop you from doing your job, and you would then lose your job, wouldn’t you? Next time I see you in this court I will ban you from driving.

It is entirely possible that a further appearance by that individual could be before the same District Judge but not necessarily. Another D.J. or a bench might take a different view so the original "threat" would have been an empty one. Whilst I and others I`m sure have suggested to offenders that if they are here next time they are likely to....or......it is not unlikely that next time...etc...etc

Magistrates and District Judges operate under the same guidelines and apply the same laws. If I and my colleagues were to make such a statement it is highly likely we would be reprimanded. 

A NEW BEGINNING WITH A NEW SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE?

 13. May. 2010. – 17:53:00 

It seems a trojan had invaded my cyber fortress when I was last posting on Pagan Police despite the efforts of SpyBot and McAfee. My faith in internet security has now been entrusted to Mr Kaspersky. 

With regard to faith it seems our Crown Prosecution Service wishes to push the wedge in the door of jury trials a little bit wider..........surprise surprise. The old story of offering the devil a finger and he`ll take your whole arm could not be more appropriate. I commented on the first such trial on 19th February and now it seems that last week a Crown Prosecution Service spokeswoman said: “I can confirm that there are two cases going through the process.” Gagging orders prevent the disclosure of further information. Many actions in our jurisdiction are based on precedent. I would hazard a comment that despite vehement opposition from many involved in our justice system we are going to have many more such applications and that the bar will be lowered.....to what level one can only speculate but within the tenure of our new Secretary of State for Justice Ken Clarke I predict it will be almost commonplace; so much for Magna Carta. 

And mentioning Rt Hon K.Clarke MP QC it was when he was Secretary for Health in 1988 that he "privatised" eye examinations causing a major blip in that market, infuriated opticians and encouraged heated criticism that the nation would go blind as a result. He is the perfect personality to pursue unpopular policies the professionals involved abhor but can be sold to the public as a wonderful benefit. 

My colleagues in the Magistrates` Association have just got round to mentioning Drink Banning Orders". They should keep up with this blogger who posted on 16th April the details of this example of knee jerk legislation. I hope that our new government will adhere to D.Cameron`s pledge to repeal some of the unnecessary legislation of the last thirteen years. This could be a good place to begin. 

A MAGISTRATE`S ILL JUDGED RANTS?

 10. May. 2010. – 18:19:19 

Having the luxury of a couple of hours for doing the garden or watching Sky News I chose the latter. Perhaps some digging would have been a better for my psyche. G Brown has just told the world that he will resign as leader of the Labour Party so that a new one can be unveiled at the party conference in September....the new improved variety no doubt. 

All this is in the public interest for stable government. Various acolytes came to the microphone to consider and comment on this magnanimous statement including John Mann MP who graced the TV screens a couple of days ago telling der fuehrer to get lost.

As magistrates my colleagues and I are used to hearing testimony under oath on many occasions. In my opinion to hear the weasel words of those in whom we trust to serve us through internal and international machinations, serves only the purpose of individual or party aspiration, is not just profoundly depressing; it continues the process of a public distrust in the integrity of our representatives and although thankfully the BNP lost its trousers in the election I am acutely aware that a more refined and appealing demagogue than is currently around can only be over the political horizon with carefully crafted sound bites and popular appeal. Truly the ground is being laid. 

LITTER LOUTS

 10. May. 2010. – 12:57:50 

People of a not so certain age when discussing current social mores will sometimes use the phrase, "in my day" to describe changes which in their opinion are for the worse for each of us as individuals and for us all as "society"; the entity for which Maggie T doubted the existence. 

Aged relatives who lived through the horrors of World War 2 on active service and the Blitz at home have described to me [and I presume others can claim similar discussions] that if not "law" but certainly "order" was encouraged if not enforced by individuals be they family, neighbours, bus conductors, train guards or park rangers to name a few. Unless there was direct violence or a risk of such, admonishment from such individuals was enough to oil the wheels of public civility and avoid confrontation with most people including rowdy teenagers most of the time. 

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.”

However, a person convicted of this offence could be liable to a maximum fine of £2,500 (a level 4 offence on the standard scale). Current criminal prosecutions are conducted by local councils under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2006. 

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 

Anti Social Behaviour Orders [ASBOs] have been around for eight years. They were and are designed in general to curb the type of behaviour which has a demonstrably disturbing effect on the quality of life for those citizens who are trying to lead normal law abiding lives eg graffiti, excessive loud noise especially at unsocial hours, swearing, drunken behaviour, drug dealing etc. The minimum period for which they can be applied is two years. The orders are not criminal penalties and are not intended to punish the offender. However breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of five years in custody.

Until December 2007 almost 15,000 ASBOs were made. An ASBO to prevent offender[s] from meeting in a certain street, area or town is in my opinion an obvious simple prohibition which the offender[s] can reasonably be hoped to observe and which will give respite to those affected by offensive behaviour in their neighbourhood. However like the proposed inter stellar sail space ship which from a velocity of virtually zero to an attainable velocity estimated at half a million MPH or the proverbial acorn to oak the ASBO has become a monster out of control and an example is the case of Robert Sansford 56 of East Sussex who in February attacked two women in the Setting Sun pub in Brighton leaving one unable to return to work. Sansford is currently in prison awaiting sentence for the Setting Sun attack.

A council application for an ASBO against Sansford was succesful yesterday at Brighton Magistrates` Court preventing him from entering all clubs, pubs, bars and off-licences in England and Wales for six years.

When he is released can any sane person believe that this order will be effective? Does it seem likely that a pub landlord in eg Penrith will call the local bobby to report this offender is having a drink in my snug. Of course he won`t but here`s the rub; if and when he is arrested after committing an offence in a prohibited environment his record will appear on the Police National Computer and he will be brought to court for breach of his ASBO. 

Is this form of retribution really beneficial for the social soul of this nation?

ELECTION DAY BUT NOT FOR MAGISTRATES

 06. May. 2010. – 12:23:58 

I have just cast my votes for the general and local election. Nothing unusual in that of course. At this late stage I must admit to voting at the age of eighteen when the voting age was set at twenty one. What was a politically aware teenager to do? I had received a voting card and when I presented it at the local polling station there it was written less on tablets of stone; more New Roman typescript, on the electoral role of a solid Tory seat populated 80% by solid working class people who valued their MP and his efforts for his constituency more than the political label around his neck. Anyway back to today`s crosses that we are marking and for the first time I can recollect and I`ve lived in the same house for over twenty years there was a queue at the polling station. It will be interesting to discover whether the turn out nationally is higher than expected.

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 

The Fingerprint Branch at New Scotland Yard was created in July 1901 using the Henry System of Classification. 

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

03. May. 2010. – 14:47:04 

As election day approaches those who decide to vote and those conscientiously deciding to abstain will base their decisions on many factors some founded upon the effects personally of their choice and/or what would be considered best in the interests of the country as a whole. The range of opinions of magistrates is as wide as the range of opinions of other intelligent life forms. 

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 

All organisations publish some sort of magazine or newsletter even if it consists only of a couple of stapled sheets of A4 or twenty lines on a home constructed web page. The Magistrates` Association with its 25,000 members is no exception and like many such publications its magazine’s “members` letters” pages are often the most interesting and thought provoking.

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 

Like a few million others I watched the third leaders election broadcast last night. For those with a passing interest in politics I must admit there was little said or insinuated that was news to me except.....when clever clogs { I could`ve been a contender} Clegg stated for the third or was it the fourth time that his immigration policy of "send them to the colonies or was that regions" combined with tackling the gangmasters who place workers, legal and illegal, often in the agricultural industry made me sit up and take notice. The very term GANGMASTER evokes scenes of 19th century sugar plantations in the Americas. Having lived in an urban area all my life I know absolutely nothing about the employment of foreign workers except the ubiquitous Polish plumber who replaced my shower door, fitted some windows and did some simple electrical work a couple of years ago.

The Gangmasters Licensing Authority a late arrival to the list of Labour`s quangos was set up by the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. It became active on 1 October 2006 when it became an offence for labour providers in the agri-business industry to operate without a licence. In November 2006 it also became an offence for labour users to employ workers supplied by unlicensed labour providers. Furthermore, from 6 April 2007, the act was extended to cover the shellfish gathering industry – a sector reputed to be notoriously difficult to regulate, explaining why it was given slightly longer to implement licensing. In this industry, it is now also an offence to provide labour without holding a licence or for labour users to employ workers supplied by unlicensed gang masters. Its purpose is to regulate those who supply labour or use workers to provide services in agriculture, forestry, horticulture, shellfish gathering and food processing and packaging. It would appear to this amateur accountant that this quango is running a current deficit of £750,000 p/a.

Since its inception the GLA has revoked 39 licenses. In this organisation`s latest published minutes [meeting 13/01/10] no mention is made of prosecutions past, in progress or being considered. A flavour of the meeting can be obtained from this section quoted below:-

There has been an 80% increase in operational resource, with particular emphasis on working in hotspot local areas to generate intelligence and work with local agencies, businesses and worker representatives. Increases in back office staff have been kept to a minimum. LPs bemused that operational outputs continue to be compliance inspections, despite repeated announcements of a move from compliance to enforcement. More enforcement resource than envisaged is still required for compliance inspections due to the unexpectedly high volume of new applications. In addition, application inspections now often involve more complex investigations and therefore take significantly longer than in the past. While additional enforcement officers have been recruited in recent weeks, the process of fully training and incorporating these is ongoing, and their contribution is expected to show results over the coming months. Despite placing greater emphasis on enforcement, the GLA must continue to monitor compliance among licensed businesses and ensure that standards do not slip. Additional enforcement officers have been recruited on 12 months contracts purely because funding could not be guaranteed beyond 2011.

Earlier this year on January 29th the first prosecution took place when a Scottish fruit farmer became the first person to be convicted for using an unlicensed gangmaster based in Bulgaria to supply 250 workers to pick fruit. The gangmaster of course could not be prosecuted. But an important purpose of this legislation is that the end user must be deterred. He was fined £500. No information is available regarding prosecution costs. The maximum penalty for operating without a licence is 10 years in prison and a fine. The maximum penalty for using an unlicensed Gangmaster is 6 months in prison and a fine. So our Scottish farmer received in my opinion a rap over the knuckles from the Sheriff at Perth Sheriff Court but at this distance with limited knowledge intelligent further comment on the adequacy of the fine is impossible.

On 15 April at Peterborough Magistrates Court a Cambridgeshire based gangmaster was sentenced for operating as a gangmaster without a licence. He was fined £300.

Unless I am deaf, dumb and blind and play pinball all day long this is the organisation that the Lib Dems are relying upon to protect us from the "criminal gangs" profiting from the misery and political cancer of illegal immigration.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY??????

 25. Apr. 2010. – 15:45:53 

Innocent until proven guilty! Most people would acknowledge this is the "British way" of doing things. Punish the guilty when they`re proved guilty........in your dreams......DNA taken from innocent suspects during an investigation is currently held for six years; on the sexual offences register there is a very small number of people who have not been convicted whom the police and other agencies believe are potentially dangerous. This list will cover some people with mental health problems and suspects believed to be a public risk but about whom there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction. A domestic violence protection notice can be obtained against a partner who has not been convicted of any crime. 

Earlier this year an unnamed police force informed the General Optical Council, the long established quango charged with overseeing the optical profession, that an optometrist charged with possessing indecent images of children should be subject to an unspecified interim order but assumed to be suspension from the Opticians` Register. The unnamed optometrist had pleaded not guilty at a Magistrates` Court and will face jury trial at the Crown Court. The Fitness to Practise Committee of the G.O.C. turned down the application on the basis that there was very limited information on the alleged offence[s] and therefore no justification in making the order. Thus a professional man whose status is "innocent" is allowed to continue to earn his living a facility that would have been denied him had he been suspended. A point of concern is that the chairman of the committee said a further application for an interim suspension could be made if more evidence became available. 

Freedom of the individual in its widest form and safety and protection of those in society has been a balancing act for centuries. I would venture that the "health & safety" mentality we have experienced in the last two decades is moving the fulcrum of the "innocent until guilty" debate considerably in a direction which indicates that the culture of this country is considerably more authoritarian than is healthy in a democracy. I fear that nothing said before or after May 6th will alter that.