26. Aug. 2010. – 17:00:24
They used to be called [learned]“justices` clerk” but are now known as [learned] legal advisers. They were once known as Magistrates` Courts and still are. “J.P.s rule O.K.”
Advisers advise and magistrates decide or so is the theory. In my time on the bench as winger and chairman I have noted bench chairmen thankfully abrogating everything possible to their legal adviser. As much of the work in open court that could be done by either the chairman or the L.A. was seconded to the L.A. It even extended to the retiring room where many colleagues retiring to consider a verdict would invite the L.A. to join them almost immediately. Most would keep at some physical distance but there were occasions when advice would be offered, in my opinion, inappropriately whether in timing or content. Legal advice of course should always be proffered in court before the bench retires.
I would not echo their honours who usually refer to it as my court but I have always considered that with few exceptions a bench chairman should in a judicial fashion be in command of the court. It follows that a chairman and a L.A. who are confident in each`s ability and authority usually can be seen by a fly on the wall to conduct an efficient flowing courtroom be it remands where there is never enough time to complete a list, a trial or one of the many variations of justice being seen to be done over which we preside. So it is unusual for a bench to overrule its L.A.
Re-reading my post earlier this week on Judge Shorrock`s verbal bollocking from their Lordships for speaking out of turn reminded me of an incident which required this writer also to speak out of turn with the total agreement of his colleagues.
The defendant had been charged with criminal damage the week previously, been remanded in custody and was before us for another bail application. He was unrepresented. His English was poor but adequate. He was Moslem. He was asked by the L.A. to identify himself ……….silence; the request was repeated with the same result. Our L.A. turned to the bench and whispered that according to the file the previous appearance had had the same result. In the circumstances I asked for identity using a closed question…..are you?…..let`s call him Mr. Ali…… He nodded and repeated the gesture with regard to the other identifying questions. Since he was on remand to be tried about three months later I asked if he had spoken to the duty solicitor; no reply….. at which point our L.A. stated that he had refused to see the duty on the previous occasion and also had refused the opportunity to talk to the consultant psychiatrist whose duty day this was. He again did not answer when he was offered the duty solicitor. He was told that if he continued in the same manner he would be in prison until his trial, a longer period than he was likely to be sentenced to if he were found guilty. No response……our L.A. gave us the date and the pronouncement was made of his being remanded in custody until…..but that he would be before us again in twenty eight days. Down he goes to the cells and a moment later our L.A. tells us the trial date must be changed because CPS had just noticed the complainant in the case was on holiday. Notice of trial dates must be made with the defendant present so the call was made to bring him up again. Two minutes later the jailer emerges alone to tell us that it is time for his prayers, he will not come up and that Allah will provide. And this is where we parted company with our L.A. for she told us that we had no option but to go to the cells to pronounce the amended date. After three pairs of eyes, one pair Moslem, one pair Roman Catholic and one pair indeterminate blinked in astonishment we dismissed the suggestion. We told the L.A. to write a notice duly signed by herself to be handed to the defendant. She did not for a minute demur. At the conclusion of the sitting we informed the Deputy Justices` Clerk of our actions and she agreed that our pragmatic approach was perfectly acceptable in the unusual circumstances.
Justices of the Peace are appraised for their competencies every three years or so but an appraisal in my opinion is akin to deconstructing the act of running into its various sections and expecting the resultant description to resemble an active Lynford Christie. It doesn`t. There are some situations for which preparation is useless and where life is the only teacher. Thankfully in the public arena that is a Magistrates` Court they are few and far between.
Advisers advise and magistrates decide or so is the theory. In my time on the bench as winger and chairman I have noted bench chairmen thankfully abrogating everything possible to their legal adviser. As much of the work in open court that could be done by either the chairman or the L.A. was seconded to the L.A. It even extended to the retiring room where many colleagues retiring to consider a verdict would invite the L.A. to join them almost immediately. Most would keep at some physical distance but there were occasions when advice would be offered, in my opinion, inappropriately whether in timing or content. Legal advice of course should always be proffered in court before the bench retires.
I would not echo their honours who usually refer to it as my court but I have always considered that with few exceptions a bench chairman should in a judicial fashion be in command of the court. It follows that a chairman and a L.A. who are confident in each`s ability and authority usually can be seen by a fly on the wall to conduct an efficient flowing courtroom be it remands where there is never enough time to complete a list, a trial or one of the many variations of justice being seen to be done over which we preside. So it is unusual for a bench to overrule its L.A.
Re-reading my post earlier this week on Judge Shorrock`s verbal bollocking from their Lordships for speaking out of turn reminded me of an incident which required this writer also to speak out of turn with the total agreement of his colleagues.
The defendant had been charged with criminal damage the week previously, been remanded in custody and was before us for another bail application. He was unrepresented. His English was poor but adequate. He was Moslem. He was asked by the L.A. to identify himself ……….silence; the request was repeated with the same result. Our L.A. turned to the bench and whispered that according to the file the previous appearance had had the same result. In the circumstances I asked for identity using a closed question…..are you?…..let`s call him Mr. Ali…… He nodded and repeated the gesture with regard to the other identifying questions. Since he was on remand to be tried about three months later I asked if he had spoken to the duty solicitor; no reply….. at which point our L.A. stated that he had refused to see the duty on the previous occasion and also had refused the opportunity to talk to the consultant psychiatrist whose duty day this was. He again did not answer when he was offered the duty solicitor. He was told that if he continued in the same manner he would be in prison until his trial, a longer period than he was likely to be sentenced to if he were found guilty. No response……our L.A. gave us the date and the pronouncement was made of his being remanded in custody until…..but that he would be before us again in twenty eight days. Down he goes to the cells and a moment later our L.A. tells us the trial date must be changed because CPS had just noticed the complainant in the case was on holiday. Notice of trial dates must be made with the defendant present so the call was made to bring him up again. Two minutes later the jailer emerges alone to tell us that it is time for his prayers, he will not come up and that Allah will provide. And this is where we parted company with our L.A. for she told us that we had no option but to go to the cells to pronounce the amended date. After three pairs of eyes, one pair Moslem, one pair Roman Catholic and one pair indeterminate blinked in astonishment we dismissed the suggestion. We told the L.A. to write a notice duly signed by herself to be handed to the defendant. She did not for a minute demur. At the conclusion of the sitting we informed the Deputy Justices` Clerk of our actions and she agreed that our pragmatic approach was perfectly acceptable in the unusual circumstances.
Justices of the Peace are appraised for their competencies every three years or so but an appraisal in my opinion is akin to deconstructing the act of running into its various sections and expecting the resultant description to resemble an active Lynford Christie. It doesn`t. There are some situations for which preparation is useless and where life is the only teacher. Thankfully in the public arena that is a Magistrates` Court they are few and far between.