Over the years the utterings of those in court, officers as well as defendants, can stretch one`s tolerance but also the smile muscles. An example of the former was when a defendant appeared for sentencing on two quite separate charges of theft from a shop. The pre sentence report from the Probation Service referred throughout to the offence committed on a particular date. When the probation officer present in court was asked about the omission of any reference to the second offence [committed while on bail for the first] she replied, "We were given only one file on one offence." In response the Crown prosecutor when asked to comment confirmed 100% that two files had been handed over. I am sad to say that inefficiencies by both agencies are on the increase. This could be a combination of reduced funding leading to staff being asked to cope with far too many cases and/or simply ineffective management and too many people still at work who should be sacked were it not for some aspects of employment legislation.
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/
UNFORGETTABLE COURT MOMENTS
Over the years the utterings of those in court, officers as well as defendants, can stretch one`s tolerance but also the smile muscles. An example of the former was when a defendant appeared for sentencing on two quite separate charges of theft from a shop. The pre sentence report from the Probation Service referred throughout to the offence committed on a particular date. When the probation officer present in court was asked about the omission of any reference to the second offence [committed while on bail for the first] she replied, "We were given only one file on one offence." In response the Crown prosecutor when asked to comment confirmed 100% that two files had been handed over. I am sad to say that inefficiencies by both agencies are on the increase. This could be a combination of reduced funding leading to staff being asked to cope with far too many cases and/or simply ineffective management and too many people still at work who should be sacked were it not for some aspects of employment legislation.
NOT JUDGE & JURY BUT JUDGE OR JURY
In 1973 in Northern Ireland at the height of "the troubles" Diplock courts were established. In these court proceedings a trial judge sat alone without a jury. Their establishment was due to the increasing risks of terrorist attacks on jurors. Until their abolition in 2006 about 10,000 passed through the system.
LOCAL COURT REPORTS ARE A THING OF THE PAST
11. Jan. 2010. – 13:21:49
"Not only must Justice be done; it
must also be seen to be done." This well known comment was made by Lord
Chief Justice Hewart in the first half of the last century. And with high
profile cases it seems that newspaper headlines, 24 hour TV news channels and
of course web sites eg Sky and BBC ensure that we know all about multiple
murderers sentenced to a whole life in prison, middle aged rapists incarcerated
until their testosterone levels are so low they cannot raise a smile let alone
anything else and of course the monsters prowling our streets whose diet
consists of children made of sugar and spice and all things nice. But what
about common or garden offending where it is estimated eg that one third of men
in this country will have appeared on the Police National Computer by the age
of thirty?
Fifty years ago crime reports from the
local Magistrates` Court accounted for a relatively high percentage of the
pages in local papers from Cumberland to Cornwall. Whether it was a five
shilling fine for spitting in the street or a bind over for being drunk and
disorderly a "minor" offender would know that his name and offence
would be known to his local community within a maximum of seven days. In a
period long before the prosperity and insularity of today "shame" in
the eyes of one`s friends and neighbours was a punishment in itself unlike 2010
when, especially amongst the young, offending is sometimes considered a
"badge of honour". Older folk, perhaps those over thirty with clean
records, are not so sanguine about their misdemeanours being made public. Would
that it were so.
A colleague who sits in an outer London
borough commented recently that in over ten years on the bench she had seen
reporters taking notes in her courtroom once only and that was a high profile
first appearance of a man facing a murder charge. It is still possible to find
local papers outside London reporting the every day goings on at the local
Magistrates` Court with names, addresses, conviction details etc published in
full in print and on line. This failure in general for offenders to be named
and shamed in their own communities devalues the ideals expressed so succinctly
by the late Lord Chief Justice and diminishes one of the three purposes of a
criminal justice system ie deterrence because if the conviction is known only
to the CJS and the offender there is nobody else in particular who will be
deterred in a similar way to that of the effects of cigarette smoking.......all
the advertisements and government and medical advice pales into insignificance
if somebody close to you, a smoker, dies from the disease.
Perhaps young unemployed aspiring
journalists might find it worthwhile to send in court reports "on
spec" to the editor of their local newspaper if this local news source is
currently being ignored.
ENGLISH LEGAL PRACTICE OR THE TALIBAN`S VERSION OF LAW?
09. Jan. 2010. – 12:12:24
ONE FINE FOR HARIET HARMAN {THEM} AND ONE FOR US
08. Jan. 2010. – 14:30:02
REDUCE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR OFFENDERS
06. Jan. 2010. – 14:49:22
Some years ago sitting in a court room of a
small town in America`s Deep South I witnessed two chained up miscreants
wearing County Jail overalls each making what appeared to be a desperate phone
call. With a look of disbelief on their faces after a few words from the judge
which didn`t reach the back of the courtroom where I was seated they were led
away by a Sheriff`s Deputy complete with Stetson and six gun. Dressed as I was
in a Brit`s uniform for a hot climate, tee shirt and shorts and carrying a bag
of recently purchased goodies, the judge beckoned me to approach the bench and
identify myself. His manner did not allow for any delay in responding to his
command. After explaining who and what I was we had an interesting discussion
on the similarities and differences between a state county court and an English
magistrates` court. When I enquired about the two jailbirds and their phone
calls he explained that for the past year the court had been trying to get them
to pay fines for minor traffic offences but without success. Since even their
final phone calls were of no avail he had sentenced them to serve a day for
every dollar unpaid in the county jail.
What a breath of fresh air when compared to
this country where even for the index crime defendants serve half only of the
custodial term given by the courts. And when it comes to unpaid fines it is
very very rarely that custody is the outcome.
Fines are levied according to means within
the limits laid down by parliament. Before a fine is imposed in any English
court the defendant must declare honestly his income and outgoings on Form
MC100. Virtually never is any proof required of what are generally IMHO
inaccurate figures. Now when it comes to statistics and conclusions there are
as many answers as questions but two figures will suffice for now. At the end
of March 2007 there were outstanding fines of £486,597,240 and a year later the
figure was £500,630,569. It would be churlish to suggest that everyone fined
can afford to pay the full amount on the spot as the law states but half a
billion £ owed......!
Many criminologists agree that high level
offenders don`t appear from nowhere. They usually begin their careers with low
level offending which results in fines. If they play with the system at that
stage their respect for law and order is diminished by "getting away with
it". By its very nature minor criminality is associated with people on
benefits. And of course I am not suggesting that those on benefits are likely
to commit crime. But for those that do I believe that it is iniquitous that
they continue to receive their benefits in full. There is provision in law for
fines to be deducted from earnings or benefits but that is a different issue. I
would suggest that after due calculation of seriousness there should be
reduction in benefit per se after eg three categorised offences. Those on
benefits should not bite the hand that feeds them.
VICTIM SURCHARGE
03. Jan. 2010. – 15:53:15
It seems to this observer that the
government with grand owl Gordon on the top branch has made himself more of a
twit than a toowitt tawooooo. He has decided to raise a few million measly quid
by increasing the numbers of non criminals who will now be subject to the
Victim Surcharge of £15 previously applied only to those fined after conviction
at court. These "criminals" will be eg those given Fixed Penalty Notices
for parking violations, speeding, having a tyre in poor condition etc.
Certainly these offences are against the law and sometimes cause danger to
other road users but in general terms the offenders cannot be labelled
"criminals". The name Victim Surcharge itself is a deceit. Money
raised does not go directly to "victims" as some would have us
believe. It funds "services for victims". The money raised £3.8
million in 2007-08, the year of introduction, and £8 million in 2008-09
was much less than 50% of expected receipts. In EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 (SURCHARGE) ORDER 2007 No. 707 it is written,
"7.13 Once fully operational, it is estimated that levying the surcharge
on fines or a combination of a fine and compensation order (in either case with
or without costs) in this way will generate some £16m a year (net of the
costs of collection). If the number of fines increases or decreases, the
surcharge raised will be correspondingly more or less. Similarly, if the
success of enforcement increases or decreases, the surcharge raised will be
more or less. The surcharge income will be allocated to the Home Office, the
Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General to
fund more and better services for victims of crime and witnesses.
So this government once again couldn't`t get
its sums right for the simple reason that the great civil service brains who
did the arithmetic did not realise that more than half of all fines imposed do
not get paid and many others are remitted ie written off. But that`s just a
sideshow when considering the principle. Motorists are being taxed on their
mistake; pure and simple.
This is not something hastily brought in to
add to depleted Treasury funds. It was clearly set out in the original
discussion papers. Only then G.Brown and Co did not think they would be
fighting for their ministerial lives. What chance of their re-election when
this totally outrageous tax is sneaked in disguised as help for victims.?
To answer the question posed in my previous
post the lowest age to be a magistrate is 18.
LONDON BUSES AND FARE DODGERS
24. Dec. 2009. – 12:48:23
But wrongful convictions are happening all the time albeit at a lower level of criminality or supposed criminality. Thousands are walking about London unaware that by having been fined at a Magistrates` Court for non payment of their fare on a London bus they have acquired a criminal record; not necessarily one that appears on the Police National Computer but one that in some circumstances should be declared eg for application to the higher professions. Sometimes this can be the result of a fares Inspector not offering the suspected "fare dodger" the opportunity of paying a penalty fare or following up a perfectly genuine reason for not having a valid oyster card when boarding a bus. A perfect example of the latter is when a passenger with no previous history of fare dodging has boarded a bus, for some reason has not "pinged" his/her oyster card and when asked to produce it by an inspector discovers that it has been forgotten. By offering the explanation that a valid oyster card has been mistakenly eg left at home, in another jacket or one of many reasons we forget things etc an inspector should note the explanation and after taking a name and address offer 21 days for the valid card to be sent to Transport for London as proof of legal right to have travelled that day. That offer should be followed up by a letter from TFL again offering the non payer the opportunity to explain the reasons and provide proof of a genuine error. Often that procedure is not properly followed.
So if you are an honest person never having been involved in fare dodging on London buses and you are threatened with court action despite offering your explanation that you were at the time of ticket inspection under the impression that your valid card was on your person stand your ground and request that you be given the opportunity to produce said card and/or be offered a penalty notice. Make your voice heard within the time limits or you might be sorry later.
DECRIMINALISATION OF HARD DRUGS
21. Dec. 2009. – 10:12:02
THEY ARE STILL THREATENING TO CUT OFF YOUR ELECTRICITY!
19. Dec. 2009. – 11:40:29
Seems quite straightforward. The householder can`t or won`t pay the bill and the supply company can`t cut off the supply unless there is a health risk. But you`d be quite wrong. Many organisations rely on their superior knowledge and menace the individual citizen into compliance when these empty threats have no basis in law and are just the tactics of a bully. It happened last week to an acquaintance of mine. He had had his place refurbished before renting it to a friend. After receiving estimated bills for part of the period he informed Southern Electric by phone and letter of the dates for which he was responsible and informed them again when his friend moved in. Meter readings were sent at the changeover date. A couple of days ago he received another bill of the same estimated unit usage and across the bill was written, "NOTICE OF ELECTRICITY DISCONNECTION"...."unless we receive full payment immediately we will have no alternative than to disconnect the supply of electricity to...."
Advised by me my friend knew it was an empty threat. But consider a harassed single mother or father without the ability to ascertain her remedies in such a situation. Stress and worry piled on increasing hardship and other tensions. Or an elderly person on her/his own in poor health and with loneliness an only companion or somebody new both to this country and the terror tactics used by some businesses to intimidate customers. Hang your head in shame SOUTHERN ELECTRIC.
VIGILANTE JUSTICE OR FAILURE OF POLICE PRIORITIES? DO WE NEED LOCAL POLICE FORCES TO BE LOCAL?
17. Dec. 2009. – 10:50:32
As recently as two days ago Britain`s most senior policeman Sir Paul Stephenson Commissioner of the Met. Police echoed the words of the spokesman of the Association of Chief Police Officers a couple of weeks ago and referred to in a previous entry here that a fundamental re-structuring of police authorities ie a reduction...was needed to combat terrorism and cross border crime. But although the hand of the former is in the background of most drug related crimes the average law abiding citizen is much more concerned with criminal activity which could affect his or his family`s personal safety. Whether or not any particular area of criminality in any part of the country has increased or decreased or is tending to increase or decrease or whether the increasing trend is now decreasing or the decreasing trend is now increasing the perception is that danger lurks out there. This paranoid undercurrent has been encouraged by this government since 9/11 and is evident eg in the establishment of the Independant Safeguarding Authority to eradicate every paedophile lurking under every child`s bed. Until the police establishment is geared to the role the citizen requires them to undertake the shadow of the vigilante will darken our society. If ACPO is so concerned with its priorities and make no mistake international crime and terrorism is a reality, then some form of local policing on the lines of the French, and not PCSOs in a different uniform, must be considered. Even a financially and occasionally intellectually bankrupt country like ours must not allow its population to believe that they must look after themselves on the streets because the state has given up on its prime purpose; to protect its citizens from threats both internal and external.
IS THIS LABOUR`S THIRD WAY? GUILTY,NOT GUILTY OR NOT YET PROVEN
14. Dec. 2009. – 14:48:05
Taking a very broad view it could be argued
that the Scots have shown an enlightenment legally and otherwise compared to
the English as a candle illuminates the shadows. There was a united Scottish
kingdom before William the C made England his home. It can be fairly argued
that Scottish writers of stature, inventors, philosophers, economists,
scientists have been produced in numbers relative to population in excess of
any other country. Hanging for what we now describe as minor criminality was
virtually abolished in Scotland in the early 1800s decades before such social
progress was observed south of the border.
Until the early 1700s Scottish law
considered a felon`s guilt proven or not proven on the facts of the case. But
as a result of a case in 1728 a jury was allowed to bring in a verdict of not
guilty when the facts in isolation indicated guilt. And so it developed that
juries would bring in verdicts of not proven when the jury was unconvinced that
the defendant was not guilty. This is the current situation which led in common
parlance to the admonishment, "Not proven but don`t do it again". A
defendant could be considered fortunate to have "gotten away with it"
or an innocent person would have a permanent stain on his character and doubt
of innocence would be everlasting.
And so to Labour`s "Third Way". A
notion dreamt up by Tony Blair and his acolytes to persuade the British public
that socialist Labour of the past was dead and buried. Now in a perverse manner
Labour`s idea of not guilty has been split into not guilty but not quite
innocent ie not proven. I refer to my previous observations of assault in a
"domestic setting" otherwise referred to as Domestic Violence which
doesn`t figure on the statute book but as an early symbol of Labour`s unspoken
deference to the not proven concept. Prior to sitting on such cases magistrates
are required to attend "training" where they are presented with
spurious statistics concerning various international analyses of what assaulted
women [usually] have undergone from their partner prior to the charge being
brought the conclusion being that the Crown Prosecution Service wishes matters
other than the evidence presented at trial to be considered. For magistrates
with more than about four years experience this is a novel instruction which
thankfully is given much less consideration than the powers that be would wish.
Two months ago restraining orders became
available for the protection of victims of domestic violence; but not only for
those whose partners had pleaded or had been found guilty but also for those
aquitted of such charges. This was a matter for the courts` discretion
depending on the circumstances. Another example of a not guilty being
interpreted as a not proven.
And now we find out that the daddy of all
snoopers the newly formed quango The Independant Safeguarding Authority has or
will have the power to decide if those seeking registration and with no
criminal record nevertheless are a "risk to children". Its 200
workers whose qualifications are to say the least questionable will have the
authority to interview all manner of people ranging from those from wherever
who choose to comment on the lifestyle of the particular individual to
employers, neighbours and literally anybody the caseworkers wish to contact.
This scandal is not just an over zealous government seeking to protect children
and vulnerable adults but the most authoritarian peace time government in
modern times inducing a weary populous into a state of paranoia where an adult
is guilty until proved innocent. The German film "Lives of Others"
won the Oscar a couple of years ago for "Best Foreign Language" film.
It told of the Stasi`s {the former Communist East Germany`s Secret police}
intrusion into all aspects of peoples` lives by cajoling, threatening and
blackmailing ordinary people to spy on their families, workmates, friends and
neighbours and report their activities to the authorities. Sprechen sie Deutch?
SENSE AND SENTENCE ABILITY
GET REAL ABOUT CO-HABITATION;IT`S NOT LIKE MARRIAGE
10. Dec. 2009. – 16:44:22
Lord Justice Munby, chairman of the Law
Commission, was reported in The Times this week [link below] as wishing to have
new legislation to protect the rights of co-habiting couples when they
separate. He comments on the changing nature of society with regard to the
institution of marriage as if this legal union of a man and a woman has somehow
metamorphosed like frogspawn to frog by the wonder of nature and the science
of natural selection. Changes in marriage statistics ie fewer marriages per
1000 of population than 100 years ago have been brought about by equal
educational opportunities for women, the need for increased women in the
workforce owing to the Great War and World War 2, efficient contraception and
the removal of tax advantages for married couples vis a vis unmarried couples.
These changes particularly the government induced changes in taxation have been
the major contributors to this seismic social upheaval. Regardless of any
moral, religious, financial obligations or reservations every couple has a
choice; to marry or not. Strictly speaking marriage is a contractual
arrangement. Indeed in Jewish, Hindu and Muslim tradition it still is. To this
day Jews marrying in a synagogue sign an actual contract in which the union is
spelled out. If a couple makes an informed choice not to marry and therefore
forfeits the legal rights contained and guaranteed within that institution that
is their business. There has been enough unnecessary legislation in the last
twelve years without adding another layer on matrimonial law. If a society can
be educated on the dangers of smoking or internet scams it can be educated on
legal protections gained by marriage and forfeited by merely co-habiting.
HAVE THE LAST 12 YEARS BEEN BENEFICIAL TO LIBERTY?
Since 1997 although many good people disagree we have been subject to a "nanny knows best" basis of much legislation. Several Lord Chancellors and Secretaries of State and three thousand new laws later a supposedly left of centre parliament has allowed the salami approach to reducing freedoms to gather pace. From increased CCTV cameras to restricting the photographing of innocent scenes in central London by amateurs and professionals alike there seems no end to the state`s actions to treat us all as guilty of something until proved otherwise. There is no specific offence of "Domestic Violence"; it is often prosecuted as "Assault by beating" or a more serious charge and the victim`s relationship with the defendant is an aggravating factor. However all magistrates in the last three or four years must have specialist training before sitting on such cases. Training is usually beneficial to the trainee or should be. But much of this training is to acquaint the JP with various statistical analyses that appear to indicate that over thirty assaults would have been likely to have occurred prior to the charge being brought. This, in my opinion, is an attempt to condition the JP to be predisposed to sympathise with the victim and perhaps not to rely purely on the evidence brought to court where of course the standard of proof of guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt". There is no study to my knowledge, although I stand to be corrected, of conviction rates in such cases relative to others of a similar nature previously. Recently made available to the courts to impose are restraining orders even after a " not guilty" outcome in a case of Assault [domestic violence]. It is an abuse of power to keep DNA samples of innocent people. This subject has now reached levels outside the U.K.`s domestic Criminal Justice System. A driver of a four wheeled vehicle in collision with a cyclist riding as though intent on suicide must now prove his innocence. The scandal of "control orders" where the accused is unaware of the charges is still current at the highest levels of the law. There was a recent case of two friends who were police officers in the same force who can`t look after each others children to the mutual advantage of all without breaking recent legislative guidelines. Would it have been conceivable in your wildest dreams twenty years ago that such a descent into authoritarianism would happen here? Anybody who values the liberty of the individual must give thought to whom their vote will go next year.
DOES DARWINISM APPLY TO A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM?
DOES THIS GOVERNMENT REALLY WANT TO RETAIN THE OFFICE OF MAGISTRATE?
27. Nov. 2009. – 13:06:39
However with the creation of a unified courts system; Her Majesty`s Court Service, there is a suspicion that the days of the Justice of the Peace might be numbered. Magistrates` Courts are closing in ever increasing numbers and many more are mooted. A recently published document by career civil servant Kevin Pogson "Planning for the future of the magistrates` courts service in London" in conjunction with similar documents containing spurious statistics, "targets" etc seeks to justify the closure within ten years of perhaps a quarter or more of the current court buildings, "Over the next ten years.......should be reduced to a much smaller core estate." "Re-organisation" in cloud cuckoo civil servant land where the volume of verbiage is inversely proportional to the veracity of thought means that in all probability fewer JPs will be needed. After all fewer defendants are being brought before magistrates and more are appearing at Crown Court. Perhaps the ever increasing activities of Police acting, in addition to their primary role, as judge and jury in the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices have something to do with it? Then we have Jack Straw complaining at the recent AGM of the Magistrates` Association that far too many defendants are being sent to Crown Court for trial..[see previous blog on E/W offences]. Anther anomaly in this Criminal Justice System is the complaint that since the introduction of suspended sentences became available to Magistrates` Courts too many miscreants are being sent to prison. Forget that they end up behind bars because the deterrent effect has failed. And of course we are familiar now with the scandal of prison governors releasing prisoners at their discretion without any notification to anybody.
The cost differences between using about 29000 unpaid JPs [expenses only] and a much much smaller number of £100K p/a District Judges is perhaps beginning to attract the attention of the cost cutters in this Labour inspired economic meltdown. The price for justice would be that a British citizen who currently has a right to be tried by his peers in the form of a Bench of three magistrates would face trial before a single professional judge. JPs who can resign at any time over a point of principle without financial sacrifice would be replaced for ever by professional judges who would forfeit their living if they had to rule on laws over which they profoundly disagreed and consequently resigned. A sad day for justice; a sadder one for democracy!
ACPO AND PROPOSED POLICE RESTRUCTURING
23. Nov. 2009. – 12:13:02
Sir Hugh Orde, president of ACPO wrote recently in The Times with his recommendations for a restructuring of policing. He appears to be taking not unnaturally a top down approach as opposed to giving consideration to the requirements at a local level where the vast majority of the population is not a victim or terrorism or cross border organised crime. He criticises, "people who are claiming to represent communities" who suggest that more police on the beat is what is required by offering ridiculous statistics about a patrolling officer rarely coming across a burglary being committed. In this statement he reveals his apparent indifference to the concern of local communities that above all they want assurances that their properties will not be burgled per se and that officers seen to be patrolling are a deterrent to criminal activity which might impinge upon their desire for a quiet peaceful life. He continues in the same manner when he says that control of police and democratic policies cannot co-exist. This subject is surely worthy of debate rather than an authoritarian denial of its practicability .
The original principles of Robert Peel were that police patrol to prevent crime and disorder and that they must have the public`s approval and willing co-operation.
If Sir Hugh cannot persuade us that he and his colleagues can succeed with prevention as the prime objective they are unlikely to continue to carry the public with them on the other two requirements as is becoming apparent almost weekly.
• IS IT TIME TO SAY GOODBYE TO EITHER WAY OFFENCES?
21. Nov. 2009. – 14:18:34
Long before the recent financial debacle
which the citizenry of this country will be paying for twenty years from now
the government was looking for cost savings wherever it could primarily as a
political stick to beat the Tories in a Dutch auction to demonstrate that
"Prudence" was the watchword. Of late this belt tightening has more
in common with a financial famine where the survival of this country in the
political premier league is uncertain.
The Ministry of Justice is certainly more
than a bit player in this race to the bottom. Unlike the NHS where most of us
have personal experience HMCS impinges upon a minority and a minority by its
very being that has little influence the professionals running it the
exception. It is only in England Wales.....the Scots and the Irish have more
sense.......that within a certain catagory of offences the alleged offender can
choose to be tried at the Magistrates` Court or the Crown Court. At the former
the bench comprises three highly trained personnel generally representative of
the community they serve who give their time for no payment except minimal
expenses. The maximum sentence that bench can impose is six months`
imprisonment which can be appealed before a judge in the Crown Court where a
life term can be the disposal. Thus generally although over 90% of cases are
completed at Magistrates` Courts and the most serious at the Crown Court there
is an intermediate level of offences; either way offences, in which the
defendant can elect to be tried at either venue. At Crown Court the trial will
be in front of a jury of twelve.
Recently the Crown prosecution Service has
launched a consultation paper on proposed changes in policy with regard to the
initiation of a prosecution amongst which is the following, "The changes
extend this test to include a requirement asking them to consider whether a
prosecution is proportionate (balancing time and cost of prosecution with the
seriousness of the offence)". What this means in simple terms is whether
prosecuting a case is worth the cost the inference being in my opinion that the
costs of a trial are not worth the low level of offending. A recent case
demonstrates this. A man was taken to court for stealing a banana worth 25p. It
was an either way offence of Theft from a shop. He elected trial by jury at the
Crown Court where it took a jury about ten minutes to acquit him. Latest
figures show 59,000 people were sentenced at Crown Court for either way
offences. Depending on one`s viewpoint many of these offences could be
considered as suitable for one court or the other with perhaps the majority at
Magistrates` Court especially if the maximum sentence available there were
increased to twelve or even twenty four months imprisonment.
Recent statistics on the costs to
government of trials at Magistrates` Courts and Crown Court trials are hard to
come by but within the last ten years or so it has been guestimated that the
latter costs ten times the costs of the former. So by eliminating either way
offences we eliminate an enormous expense and in doing so remove an anomaly that
has had its day {in court?}
CAUTION GIVEN AFTER A CONVICTION FOR SIMILAR OFFENCE
19. Nov. 2009. – 17:48:33
Problems within the criminal justice system
generally make the headlines on the relatively limited occasions when a serious
mishap occurs. Unlike the NHS where most of us are "customers" the
majority of the population has still just managed not to be engaged within the
system although the numbers are gradually rising but that`s a tale for another
time.
Most caring parents would never dream of
giving a very naughty toddler even the mildest slap on the leg or arm for an
action which the child could not possibly know was dangerous or in some other
way to be avoided. When my own son was three years old and stuck the prongs of
a fork into an electric point I grabbed the fork from him and made it clear
that action could have been very dangerous and could have hurt him. A few
moments later, whilst my back was turned he did it again. I took the fork and
lightly slapped his leg whilst repeating the danger warning. I graduated the
punishment to suit the circumstance.
Recently when faced with a defendant
convicted of criminal damage and considering sentence the list of previous
convictions showed he had first been before the courts in 2007 for criminal
damage and had been sentenced to a community order. The next and final entry
was again for criminal damage less than a year after the first offence. On that
occasion he had been cautioned by police! Doesn`t seem right does it? Repeat
the offence and the punishment is reduced.
HOW I BEGAN
INTRODUCTION
My latent interest in the law was perhaps instigated by both a wife and brother who were solicitors and a father who felt overlooked in his application as a J.P. many years ago. Having been a professional all my working life by my mid-fifties I felt intellectually and financially able to devote myself to a second career albeit unpaid and part-time. I was appointed a Justice of the Peace in 1998. During my long career as a self employed eye-care professional I learned quickly to communicate with people of all ages and backgrounds. On reflection I`m convinced that facility proved essential to be able to follow to the letter the Judicial Oath: “I do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of Justice of the Peace and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” With much current criticism of the magistracy over so called diversity that oath alone should be enough to ensure that all those who come before the bench are treated not as black or white, rich or poor but as a subtle shade of grey. Unfortunately the perception at least does not bear out that ideal.
The first few years of this millennium were a time of great change for the magistracy insofar as its flimsy hold on independence was firmly trampled upon by a recently elected government seeking to incorporate under its umbrella the various strands loosely affiliated as our justice system. This culminated in the formation of a dedicated new department known as the Ministry of Justice. Further developments led to the magistrates courts and those working within them to be part of yet another amalgamation of departments; Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service.
Recent statistics showed that in 2020 there were 13,177 magistrates - though the Ministry of Justice announced that in September 2020 this number had been overestimated by around 1,000 which was an appalling error. Other statistics of note are that currently 56% of JPs are women, 13% are BAME and 82% are aged 50 or over. There are clearly various factors which contribute to these figures though they are too complex to discuss in this short introduction.
During my first decade as a JP when I became what is now termed a ‘presiding magistrate’ colleagues seemed to appreciate my independence of mind both on the bench and in the retiring room. Although I never aspired to the loftier heights of ‘Chairman of the Bench’ a couple of small achievements seem worth mentioning here. I reinvented my bench`s approach to the approving of warrants issued by utility companies and I amended the treatment of fare evaders by the local transport systems. Both areas had been in dire need of a more level playing field for defendants but for one reason or another no one had grappled with them until then. In November 2009 I put a colleague`s suggestions that I could offer my opinions on the workings of the magistrates` courts and a JP`s perspective of the justice system to a much wider audience through writing a diary. Some of these musings, on everything from sentencing procedures to the police and to other matters of legal interest are now reproduced for this diary