10. Jun. 2010. – 13:29:27
10. Jun. 2010. – 13:29:27
08. Jun. 2010. – 16:00:45
07. Jun. 2010. – 10:41:51
When Robert Louis Stevenson
published "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" in 1886 little
did he realise that the name[s] of the central character would become synonymous
with behaviour that can only be described as schizophrenic either literally or
metaphorically.
And a Jekyll and Hyde
performance was the only way to describe the local council`s prosecuting
performance a couple of months ago when various cases were before us. The
afternoon began with two matters of estate agents having erected boards and in
the first instance also an advertising hording apparently without the correct
authority. The prosecutor told us the facts and the first agent pleaded guilty but
after listening carefully to his mitigation which involved many years` history
and pages of documents [he was unrepresented] and revolved around
"grandfather rights" we concluded it was an equivocal plea and
ordered a trial. This provoked concerned looks all round and in order to ensure
justice was seen to be done we stayed our decision and put the matter back so
that the parties could have further discussions. Eventually on the parties`
return and the defendant`s final plea of guilty we fined his firm £500 plus a
similar sum for costs. The prosecutor had had a clearly documented file and the
defendant had only himself to blame for being in contravention of the planning
laws.
The very next case of a broadly
similar nature with another guilty plea from an unrepresented defendant whose
mitigation prompted so many questions from the bench to the prosecutor that he
admitted that the quality of preparation was such that the matter should and
could have been settled weeks previously. There was a history of many
unanswered e-mails from the defendant, telephone calls to the council not
returned and letters sent to wrong addresses. This estate agent was however
guilty. He was given a conditional discharge for six months and no costs were
ordered.
The third and final case that
afternoon had the prosecutor presenting a clearly documented file of over ten
pages with umpteen e-mails, phone calls and letters to and from the defendant
over seven years laid out in meticulous fashion. A garage owner had purchased a
freehold comprising a garage, two retail outlets and flat. He had let the flat
and shops and carried out a car repair business from that area of the premises
making, he told us later, about £10,000 p/a profit from the garage. The only
problem for him was that he had not received planning permissions for the car
repair business and alterations to the building. The brief history was that
after hoping that his ignoring the council`s letters would make the problem go
away and belatedly not taking professional advice when he eventually responded
this defendant had virtually no mitigation to offer after he had pleaded guilty
except to apologise for his inaction as above and a litany of feeble excuses.
When it came to his completing
a "means form" prior to sentencing it took a lengthy question and
answer session to prise from him the profit figures over the years of illegal
trading. His defiance of council planning requirements was expensive. He was
ordered to pay around £11,000 in fine and costs.
When councils set their minds
to it their prosecutions can be a model of efficiency but when they go wrong
they go badly wrong and that costs us all.
06. Jun. 2010. – 13:57:25
"Pleading guilty to the
police should be rewarded with a lighter sentence", said Lord Leveson Court
of Appeal Judge and chairman of the new Sentencing Council.
John Thornhill, Chairman of the
Magistrates` Association, is quoted saying, “If a defendant holds up his
hand at the earliest opportunity then I have no problem with credit being
given. Whether a guilty plea could be taken at the police station was another
matter, but if the court is presented with a defendant who has already admitted
guilt, then why not have a more structured scale of discounts to reflect that?”
Lord Justice Leveson wants to
review the discounts for guilty pleas to award bigger credit to defendants who
admit their crimes even before the first hearing – the idea has potential for
saving money in police and court time and helps victims and witnesses. However
lawyers share John Thornhill’s caution by warning that unless carefully managed
it could put suspects under pressure to plead guilty at crimes that they had
not committee and would lead to miscarriages of justice.
Defendants who plead guilty
"at the earliest opportunity" are usually allowed one third reduction
in their sentence be it financial, unpaid work or custody. If an additional
reduction is given for a guilty plea at the police station it could lead to
dissimilar sentences for guilty pleas to similar offences by similar defendants
where one offender wishes to hedge his options under legal advice. All this is
based on the old story of persuading the donkey to get a move on by waving a
carrot under its nose. But discussing carrots as incentives for donkeys is akin
to rocket engineers discussing propulsion as action; the rocket cannot exist
without also including reaction. So with regard to incentivising a donkey`s
forward locomotion we need to discuss the corollary and that is a stick to the
donkey`s rump if it refuses to move. I would opine that many? most? defendants
cannot comprehend reductions in future sentences as they could understand
"more". I would suggest we cease reducing sentences for early pleas,
good behaviour etc. etc. and make it very clear that sentences will increase if
found guilty after a trial vis a vis a guilty plea made early. The sentences
themselves could theoretically be tailored to fit as now but the psychological addition
of time or money has more significance than the corresponding reduction.
There are traditional “hangers
and floggers” and there are so called prison reformers who find difficulty in
accepting incarceration for all but the most heinous crimes and offenders. The
central majority is following the penal pendulum as it makes its arc swinging
from left to right to left to right……………..jumping on and off as opinions
change. Who is to say eg that the use of Class A,B and C drugs will not be
decriminalised within the next twenty years or that jury trials will be abolished
for all indictable only crimes. Sentencing is as much a fashion product as
womens` hemlines.
05. Jun. 2010. – 14:04:49
04. Jun. 2010. – 12:58:07
02. Jun. 2010. – 16:03:59
02. Jun. 2010. – 15:36:39
29. May. 2010. – 13:45:14
28. May. 2010. – 16:58:43
27. May. 2010. – 14:06:37
26. May. 2010. – 12:05:52
24. May. 2010. – 11:20:38
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.
18. May. 2010. – 13:17:45
@ 17. May. 2010. – 11:18:41
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]
15. May. 2010. – 13:41:50
14. May. 2010. – 11:05:20
13. May. 2010. – 17:53:00
10. May. 2010. – 18:19:19
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].
08. May. 2010. – 12:56:20
06. May. 2010. – 12:23:58