WHEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HITS THE BUFFERS

 

05. Feb. 2010. – 11:35:46

"It`s just a domestic". Not so long ago that was the response in many cases when a woman [usually] complained to police of having been assaulted by her husband, boyfriend, partner. It was a scandalous misnomer which covered incidents of varying degrees of violence from being pushed around to broken bones and worse.

Being driven in part by increasing assertion of womens` rights, perceived inequality and the 1997 Labour government`s realisation that the womens` vote was theirs for the persuading, pressure was put upon police to "take no prisoners" when reacting to calls for help from "battered women".

"Domestic Violence"........it exists in the English language but not in law. There is no such offence! The term covers offences within a domestic context; acts of violence or abuse against a person living in one's household, especially a member of one's immediate family. In Magistrates Courts the charges are Common Assault or Assault by Beating and as per the definition can include violence towards any family member by another. It is generally accepted after extensive studies here and abroad that a complaint is made to police only after as many twenty or more such incidents have occurred. Often these offences are committed behind closed doors and the alleged victim is the main or usually only witness. It is therefore common for the alleged perpetrator to intimidate the alleged victims, 90% of whom are female, in order to avoid evidence being given against him. It became the practice a few years ago for the Metropolitan Police to declare that in conjunction with the Crown Prosecution Service all such cases would be pursued even when the complainant refused to testify. And thus was born the current policy of "Domestic Violence".

But the Crown Prosecution Service also has its own criteria on when to prosecute. In short these are that the matter must be in the public interest, be cost effective and that there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. If the complainant for whatever reason withdraws in writing the allegation and makes it known that she will not come to court and even if she were to be forced to come to court will not repeat the original allegations in the witness box the last criterion is in tatters. Although there are legal get outs, particularly hearsay evidence, it is very difficult to convict without the alleged victim`s co-operation. From my personal experience of such matters I have an impression, and it is only an impression, that the CPS is reluctant to withdraw from cases where there is very little likelihood of conviction. That is in direct opposition to its own policy.

Obtaining figures to confirm or refute this impression is very difficult. It is obvious that if it were widely known that a violent man would not be prosecuted if his partner refused to give evidence against him it would increase the likelihood of further intimidation and more serious violence.........the very actions the policy is designed to avoid. What is certain is that some serious consideration must be given to putting this subject on the agenda for thorough overhaul if and when the incoming government enacts legislation for serious purpose as opposed to gesture politics or reacting to current events with the consequent kneejerk reaction that was apparent when The Dangerous Dogs Act was drafted.

END OF DAYS FOR MAGISTRATES?

 

02. Feb. 2010. – 12:41:38

In February 2005 Magistrates' Courts lost the power to deal with liquor licenses ie pubs, clubs, restaurants opening hours, suitability of licensees etc. The power was given to local authorities with Magistrates' Courts acting as Courts of Appeal.

Since then this government against most of the advice it received proceeded to implement its plan to turn England & Wales into the "cafe society" common on the continent where most people including teenagers can drink in bars and restaurants almost around the clock without the displays of drunken anarchy found on our streets from Andover to Yarmouth and including most towns in between.

Since then all the disease trends amongst heavy drinkers have escalated. Binge drinking, liver disease, drunkenness associated with criminality have appeared to be on the increase.

The Magistrates' Court, a local institution for 650 years, is being eroded. The result of removing its powers as described above and allowing a single District Judge to officiate at trials and high profile cases eg Pete Doherty last week, is a signal that our days might be numbered.

Think about it.....if you were on trial would you prefer three local people to decide your case and if proved to sentence you or that a single Judge performing as judge and jury took over both these functions?

WHO RUNS PRISONS? INMATES, EMPLOYEES OR THE GOVERNMENT

 
31. Jan. 2010. – 15:10:02
There are three constituent parts of any criminal justice system, the process of catching suspected offenders, charging and convicting them in the courts and incarcerating them in prisons. The first two components consist of many people with corresponding checks and balances to ensure justice is done with fairness to all and is seen to be thus done. However when it comes to the running of prisons in general the governor is "king" and almost but not quite an absolute monarch. Controversy erupted last year when it was revealed that governors had power and were using that power to release prisoners far sooner than anybody had authorised.

If prison governors are "kings" then prison warders are the "nobles" and as we learn in history kings and nobles were often in conflict as to where the power would lie. In prison it is forbidden for inmates to possess or use mobile phones, drugs, or to use networking sites. So there is no drug problem in jails.....? no criminal activity involving mobile phone contact between convicts and the outside world.....? And today in the Sunday Times it is revealed that one of the country`s most notorious gangsters was using his Facebook account to threaten his enemies.

It has been said by many with knowledge that the Prison Officers Union is the last bastion of left wing union extremism where union power and not the management is in control of the work place . Similarly it has been said that whilst drugs are illegal if they were totally excluded from jails there would be serious riots with the result that to a certain extent a blind eye is turned to the illegal supply in prisons. If using Facebook is contrary to prison rules how does a dangerous inmate access it without the knowledge of those paid to keep him secure and out of contact with the public at large?

If prisons are being run for the benefit of a quiet life for their employees as a first consideration and the protection of the public as a second somebody should explain.

P.DOHERTY,13 WRAPS of HEROIN & £750 FINE

 

30. Jan. 2010. – 14:53:07

There`s an old well used phrase, "everyone`s equal but some are more equal than others". Where this application should apply is within the criminal justice system. There are often media reports from places as diverse as Russia and Rwanda or Cambodia and Cameroon where, when justice meets the individual, it`s not what you are [a free citizen] but who you are. In my opinion there is a similar trait occasionally appearing in this country.

On Wednesday January 20th the singer Pete Doherty appeared at Gloucester Magistrates` Court in front of a District Judge....why the good judge and not a bench of three magistrates, but that`s another story.....charged with possession of thirteen wraps of heroin. Apparently when he was at Gloucester Crown Court in December the drugs had fallen out of his coat pocket. Seems he has an unusual desire for publicity or he`s just plain stupid. The guideline punishment for such an offender with a clean record ranges from a "medium level" community order; eg 180 hours unpaid work plus perhaps other orders to sentencing at Crown Court which could indicate more than six months in prison and that`s for somebody who hasn`t any previous drugs conviction. Doherty, 30, was charged with possession of heroin and fined £750 with £85 costs. The judge explained that he was not putting him on a drugs rehabilitation order because he was able to afford that for himself. It is unknown whether the judge explained why he was given such a lenient sentence.

It is high profile cases like this that in my humble opinion lead to questions regarding my opening sentence. Because they are in the public eye should those such as Doherty be treated any differently from Joe Public? Do we expect higher standards from them? Why was the fine so low even considering that most other offenders in similar circumstances would be disposed of with a higher band having gone beyond the point at which a fine was suitable punishment.

So if you`re of previously good character, have a six figure income and you accidentally drop thirteen wraps of heroin in court ask the judge or bench of magistrates why you should not be treated like Mr P.Doherty was?

AN UNUSUAL DAY IN COURT

 

29. Jan. 2010. – 16:53:46

It`s bit like waiting for a bus on a rainy night; none comes for ages and then three at once. I suppose many jobs are routine.....even a heart surgeon or a rocket scientist has a pathway to follow in order to perform his task effectively and then there`s the one situation when the format has to be radically changed for successful completion.

Looking through my 2009 diary before consigning it in a drawer in case I might need an alibi sometime to prove my innocence....can`t be too careful.......I was reminded of a day last April when three matters came on one after the other.

The first was a drink driver having pleaded guilty........not guilty is extremely rare.... had his counsel tell us in confirmation after we had read reports from probation prior to sentence that he would be unable to do unpaid work because he worked eight hours a day seven days a week . Although this young chap stated that he earned £2,750 a month after tax working in retail sales we thought this highly unusual and difficult for us because his conviction fell right into the unpaid work category for punishment. On questioning it was admitted he worked in the family business and earned £3000 after tax. Needless to add his family business had to do without his overtime services for the next six months.

The next chap, also drink driving, had an alcohol level in breath of 191 ug in breath.....so high it`s off the scale. He was told he was lucky to be alive and his prison sentence was suspended so he could have treatment for alcoholism provided through the probation service. Considering he was only 24 years old if he doesn`t stop now that level of drinking will probably kill him sooner rather than later. I hope he`s not been tempted to break his driving ban drunk or sober.

And finally a professional beggar with previous who was disabled and had an alcohol problem arrested at a nearby railway station where he had been frequently observed by colleagues on their way to and from court and now charged with begging and harassing two women late at night by threatening words. He couldn`t be imprisoned to protect the public...law doesn`t allow it....couldn`t be fined......what would he do?....beg for the fine money........so he was sent away with the "punishment" known as a conditional discharge for six months. If he is convicted at any court in the six months he`ll be back again for the original matter to be re considered.

Just an unusual April day in court.

TAKE "GOOD" BABIES FROM EVIL PARENTS?

 26. Jan. 2010. – 14:31:54

Generally it has been considered in the balance between "nature" and "nurture" that a baby even with the most dreadful genetic origins if cared for by and within a loving family can develop into  an upright citizen. This position has been reinforced by studies which show that a baby`s brain and the nervous connections within it grow and take form for some years and even to the late teens the adult brain is still approaching its final configuration. The Society of Jesus commonly known as the Jesuits knew this centuries ago..."Give me the children until they are seven and anyone may have them afterwards." St.Francis Xavier.

With the current case of the two children in Edlington the option of removing the children from their home environment has been and gone. But can this be the event which finally removes the social services from the mantra that where possible it is preferred not to remove children from their parent[s]. Perhaps the question should in future be changed to "why should this child not be removed from a parent and placed with family well vetted and approved for adoption".

As a family man and self admitted libertarian it is difficult to accept that a child and society could? would? benefit from such an authoritarian action but the disfunctionality in our society, even if we don`t all agree with a certain Mr Cameron, has reached such a level that the choice is now upon us.

SOUTH AFRICA, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, FARENHEIT 451?

 25. Jan. 2010. – 14:47:25

Many thousands of pages have been written about the situation when the "rock" of the freedom of publication of news meets the "irresistible force" of the state`s duty of public protection. Indeed the First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.A. guarantees this freedom. It is a matter of perennial debate in this country and every so often a case arises which hits the headlines.

This won`t hit the headlines but for those who can remember South Africa before Nelson Mandela, when an apartheid government governed often by decree, to read of a case where two journalists have rejected demands to reveal full details of two people they interviewed suspected of planning attacks against visitors to the World Cup a breath of fresh air wafts through cyber space. The case against them at Johannesburg Magistrate's Court was postponed today. The Police Minister said, "we have a constitutional obligation, we think that freedom of expression in itself is not absolute and it can't be absolute at the expense of safety and security in the country."

Thirty years ago there were few non white journalists working in South African TV. Thirty years ago any journalist daring to criticise or refuse the government was a hero risking all. Would that government here was moving along a path of improving openness. The Freedom of Information Act is certainly of benefit to we ordinary citizens but only when the temperature of enquiry doesn`t get heated.

Recently The Independent won a three year battle to publish secret correspondence between Buckingham Palace and the government concerning the cost of the monarchy. The Information Commissioner gave the government 35 days to release letters sent during negotiations for an increase in the civil list. It was reported a few weeks ago in the Daily Mail that Gordon Brown plans to use his veto to block publication. Obviously the temperature is getting too hot....Fahrenheit 451?

"STOP AND SEARCH" or SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND

 

25 Jan. 2010. – 12:11:15

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. This phrase of uncertain lineage has been around for over a century. It is even more apposite now in the age of the spin doctor. Nowhere are spurious so called facts and figures thrown at us more often than in the analysis of all that is associated with criminal behaviour.

The latest figure to enter this debate is Professor Marian Fitzgerald visiting professor of criminology at Kent Crime and Justice Centre, University of Kent who states that There is little connection between the use of stop and search powers by the ­Metropolitan police and reductions in knife crime.

It is not my intention to dispute here what the professor is assessing from the figures she has used but the effect isolated analyses such as these have upon a largely innumerate population.

Conclusions such are reported mean absolutely nothing without knowledge of the professor`s remit and sponsor, without detailed information of those actually stopped and searched, their previous criminal history, the consequences of the stop and search eg the arrest rate, the number of cautions issued as a result, the charges [if any] brought and the conviction rate and final sentence of those brought to court. Perhaps some or all of these numbers missing are in the professor`s paper and perhaps not. But the net result is purely political and will be another misleading avenue down which our political parties will travel in the coming four months in their attempts to convince us they are or are not doing all they can in the matter of protecting the citizen and punishing the guilty.

IT`S NOT WHAT YOU SAY; IT`S WHAT YOU MEAN. SOME PERSONAL HUMOUR

 

22. Jan. 2010. – 16:27:20

How often in general discussion do we ask for a remark to be repeated because although we heard what was being said we hadn`t actually been listening. Sitting in court one trains oneself to listen to everything that is said. As I was listening to a Weather Forecast on TV last night the forecaster began by saying, "Most of us will have a wet and windy night". Speaking to my wife for both our sakes "Not me I hope."

CRIMINAL JUSTICE NORFOLK STYLE

 

22. Jan. 2010. – 15:52:24

Every part of government expenditure is being closely examined in order to determine where savings can be made........or so we are told. Within the Criminal Justice System and Her Majesty`s Court Service in particular there is currently a shortage of Legal Advisers and support staff at all levels. Judging by hearsay evidence from individual prosecutors and the apparently increasing inefficiencies at the Crown Prosecution Service that service is in need of all the money it can beg, steal or borrow. At the very least one would expect it to use its limited resources as effectively as possible.....not so in Norfolk....see my previous blog "TRULY THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE CIVIL SERVICE ASYLUM" [also in Norfolk]....where the CPS charged Chantelle Amies, 19, with criminal damage insofar as she was alleged to have poisoned her neighbour’s fish, worth £7, by putting bleach in their bowl during the course of a disagreement. She appeared before magistrates at Norwich on Thursday January 21st. Unfortunately the water in the fish bowl was not sent for testing by the Police so the case was not proceeded with owing to there being not enough evidence likely to have secured a conviction. Witnesses present at court were not needed and all the costs associated with bringing the matter to court were a true waste of tax payers` money. Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers Alliance, said: “The CPS is meant to filter out cases that are too weak to secure a conviction, so it is bizarre that this case got so far."

A year or so ago a case involving theft of a banana worth 25p heard before a jury at Crown Court was thrown out after the jury took all of 15 minutes to acquit the defendant. At that time it was said the CPS would add what I describe as the "is it worthwhile" test to the various thresholds the CPS has in place to determine whether or not to prosecute in any individual case; ie would it be worth the cost to the public purse?

Norfolk as a county has been and is the butt of many a comedian`s joke about its inhabitants being inbred and therefore with limited intellectual capacity. Recent events might indicate to some but of course not this observer that the level of awareness of certain organs of the body known as the Criminal Justice System need a hefty dose of castor oil to clear out their blockages.

MAGISTRATES & OPERATION BLACK VOTE

 

22. Jan. 2010. – 13:41:24

In our country there are some who say that all appointed officials whether they are school governors, members of the various health service committees or indeed any advisory body or similar should be representative of the society in which they live. For the rabble rouser that is indeed a worthy slogan but it had most significance when it became the rallying cry of the colonials in Boston in 1773..."no taxation without representation". However in a truly free society it would be beyond the ridiculous if representative became the major watchword in such appointments minimising ability. Such reactions are currently fuelling debates on whether or not eg universities should reduce entry standards for pupils from schools with relatively low academic standards or higher than average numbers of children entitled to free school dinners. With a limited number of places available every offer to such a "deprived" pupil reduces the availability of a place to a "non deprived" pupil with higher levels of achievement. Positive discrimination in America has been criticised by many independently high achieving black people but that is a controversial area where I will not go further.

But it is one of those proponents of Afro American advancement, Al Sharpton, who officiated at a recent reception to celebrate the appointment of 50 black magistrates. In this instance the term "black" embraced various shades of brown as many of the new appointees were of Asian origin. This was a final scene from an Operation Black Vote shadowing scheme. A government minister told them they had successfully changed the face of the magistracy. OBV director Simon Woolley said that the unique partnership had radically changed the magistracy. He commented: ‘Martin Luther King had a dream – and you are part of that dream. But he had more than a dream; he had a plan".

It would seem that ideas and actions from America are being imported and accepted into this country which has such a different history with regard to race relations. Contact with foreigners of whatever race has been endemic for a trading nation. Unlike America whose black population was originally imported as slaves for the plantations of the southern states and whose freedom was as a result of a civil war which killed more Americans than WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam combined our citizens of Asian and Afro Caribbean origin were either invited here to work or were welcomed as refugees from the sub continent or East Africa. The truly racial hatred which existed and to a degree still lurks under the surface in the USA existed here only in the hearts of a small percentage of bigots. They are of course unfortunately still around often to be discovered under a stone labelled BNP.

The National Black Police Association states on its website:-

“The NBPA will work in the interests of the UK police services and be an integral partner to ensure equitable service for all and for the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) staff who we represent.

We will also advocate the needs and expectations of BME
communities by delivering and supporting strategies and
initiatives which have a positive impact on all”

How long will it be before what could be described as a divisive action will be undertaken by those at the ceremony and the hundreds if not thousands of current JPs who have performed and are performing their duties as Magistrates, not black magistrates, not Asian magistrates, not Muslim magistrates, not Hindu magistrates but simply magistrates.

It is unknown whether the various Appointments Committees were in any way "directed" however obtusely in this "Operation Black Vote". It is unknown whether any of the successful candidates was appointed purely on merit or would have applied without OBV. In my opinion the doubts raised by this process should be answered.

During the celebrations Justice Minister Bridget Prentice noted that a survey of magistrates found that 97% of JPs would recommend it to a friend. Aside from the fact that the Magistracy cannot be considered as one would consider a brand of margarine I would state that neither I nor my local colleagues nor JP contributors to the Magistrates Association private Forum seems to have heard of such a survey. Perhaps a colleague with knowledge will comment.

Some would say " Appearance is all". To that extent OBV has been a resounding success but at what cost?

PERJURY AND THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE

 

21. Jan. 2010. – 12:01:21

It`s not very often that a charge of Perjury follows from proceedings at a Magistrates` court. But for a Mr Plews of Middlesbrough the game was up yesterday at Teesside Crown Court where he pleaded guilty to having made a false statement trying to avoid a driving ban because of “exceptional hardship” at Teesside Magistrates’ Court last year. He had been charged with using a mobile phone while driving and using a vehicle without insurance. He had originally presented in his evidence a letter supposedly written by Mr Belal Aslam Khan. He told the Judge at Crown Court that he wrote the letter on headed notepaper provided by Mr Khan. He was remanded in custody for reports prior to being sentenced.

It is unfortunately the case that many offenders believe that they can lie at a Magistrates` Court especially in cases concerned with driving whether eg excess alcohol, insurance or identity of driver. There should be no sympathy for Mr Plews who is likely to be imprisoned for his efforts to cheat the law. When the law can be sidestepped by lying or bribery or threats we are but one step from the original legal system; The Law of the Jungle.

TRULY THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE CIVIL SERVICE ASYLUM

 

21. Jan. 2010. – 11:17:54

The security of magistrates across Norfolk has been compromised after their personal contact details were mistakenly sent to a prison. The BBC has learned the magistrates' year book, containing names and phone numbers, was accidentally sent for printing to HMP Standford Hill in Kent.
Her Majesty's Courts Service's area director has written to all magistrates to say he is "desperately sorry". Hard copies of the document at the prison have now been destroyed.
Security procedures have been tightened to ensure the mistake did not happen again, a spokesman for HMCS said.
The above was published earlier today on the BBC website.

It seems that government departments and of course some of their employees are operating in a different universe from the rest of us. After all the high profile cases of missing documents, DVDs with legs, laptops left everywhere but where they should be left one would have thought that right down to the shredding department in a basement in Whitehall the possibly illegal immigrant doing the shredding would have been warned to exercise extra care. Custody is designed partly to attempt the rehabilitation of prisoners. Teaching them to read [one third are illiterate] is surely preferable to having them print any sort of confidential material.

This is a serious disciplinary matter and in in some quarters would justify immediate dismissal of those directly responsible. Will that happen in Norfolk? Bet your very last bottom dollar it will not. Employment legislation makes it difficult enough in the private sector to sack employees without risking a fortune on legal fees but in the Civil Service.....it`s about time that term was changed....any offers???........it`s damn near impossible.

ARNDALE CENTRE CRIME; ARNDALE CENTRE COURT

 20. Jan. 2010. – 14:35:42 

At various times in the 650 year old history of the institution of local Magistrates the post itself has been brought nearer to "the people". A century ago especially outside London the local "bigwig"...an interesting term in itself meaning important person.....was the Magistrate. It was only after the Great War of 1914-18 that women were able to acquire the initials J.P. Since the 1960s great efforts have been made to open up the magistracy to ordinary folk doing ordinary jobs but who have the extraordinary skills required to sit in judgement over their fellow citizens. The underlying ethos is that justice should be brought right into the community so that it is carried out simply and speedily to punish wrong doers and satisfy those who have suffered from the wrong doing. 

Currently the Ministry of Justice is experimenting with "virtual" courts; effectively mini courts within police stations linked to "proper" courts by CCTV. This is highly controversial and has been criticised by many lawyers and magistrates although generally welcomed by police.
Now the chief constable of Greater Manchester Police has suggested that shopping centres – and he wants Manchester's Arndale to be the first – should contain mini magistrates courts which would try shoplifters on the spot and maybe even a mini-police station with holding cells. We are told this instant "try and fine" regime would be preferable to taking suspects to a police station to be charged and then waiting a week for them to appear at court, plead guilty and be fined according to national sentencing guidelines. John Thornhill, chairman of the Magistrates Association, was quoted as saying: "We need to be taking justice to communities and it seems to me having a court in the Arndale Centre would be one way of doing it. In principle, if we can deal with things speedily and pragmatically we are happy to do that." Not all agree. This observer is of the opinion that at a time when the Ministry of Justice is considering closing one third of existing courts to save money it makes no sense whatsoever to attempt to establish what could only become an ineffectual minimum apology for a court with or without a Costa Coffee and a Subway nearby for lunch. 

Also sceptical was Mike Mackey, ex president of the Manchester Law Society who was quoted as saying, "Are the magistrates going to have a shop window in Boots? This is the chief constable shooting from the hip. It all sounds very wonderful but there are a couple of problems with it. First, if police arrest someone it doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty. Before they get to charging anyone they have to be interviewed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and require access to a lawyer. Are they going to be in the Arndale Centre too? My worry is these will be kangaroo courts."
So with apologies to the kangaroos I would opine that this is another attempt by a government trying to pull back from properly funding our Criminal Justice System because our current Prime Minister wilfully and arrogantly enjoyed ten years spending our taxes in a manner which was not just imprudent but almost criminally deceitful, a government trying to obtain short term headlines that "it is acting on crime and the causes of crime" in conjunction with a police service which with some honourable exceptions does not understand the term "police state" and thinks it begins with jackboots and dungeons when in reality it begins when the rights of ordinary innocent law abiding citizens are made subservient to the "efficiency" of an all mighty state and ends with jackboots and dungeons. 

BLOWING A TRUMPET FOR MAGISTRATES

 

19. Jan. 2010. – 12:42:26

The higher the public profile and the greater the responsibility the more an individual has to jump the hurdles of appropriate and honest behaviour. Indeed in an open society under the rule of law many if not most people can reach those standards whatever their level of wealth or education. When the scandal of M.P.`s allowances became public last May most of us were more than just angry; we were dismayed that those in whom we put our trust had betrayed us and that trust. That is why the penalties in many professions eg teaching, law, medicine...up to and including prohibitions on ever working in one`s profession ever again are in place.

In 2008 1,899 new magistrates were appointed after a ruthless investigation into each applicant`s abilities and background. In the last twelve months 17 magistrates were relieved of their positions for behaviour including theft, misrepresentation, perjury, use of racist language amongst other reasons. These raw figures seem to indicate that considering the total number of JPs is around 30,000 the public can have reasonable confidence that the people on the bench are an honest respectable lot doing their best for society and taking no salary only real valid audited expenses for their efforts

TO CAUTION OR NOT TO CAUTION? THAT IS THE CHOICE

 

17. Jan. 2010. – 17:05:37

Much has been made of the supposed caution given to "TV personality" Myleene Klass. Whether or not this was a great big bit of tabloid journalism combined with Ms Klass`s PR company is another matter. However in the case of police cautions it is not obligatory for an individual to accept being cautioned. Having a caution against one`s name is still a matter of public record and will be recorded on the Police National Computer. For those in occupations where declaration of convictions is required, and with the current increase in the numbers being vetted, such an entry is almost equal to a lost job opportunity or worse still; a sacking.

My advice to those who consider a caution is unjust is that it should be refused. Then it is up to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether or not to prosecute. If that is decided the individual will be required to attend court, plead not guilty and take his/her chances at trial before a bench of three magistrates. You pays your money and takes your choice!

A STRANGE APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT

 17. Jan. 2010. – 17:05:37

Quoted below is a report published today in the Huddersfield Examiner
Cans of beer seized from a Huddersfield shop are set be donated to charity. The landmark decision by Huddersfield magistrates yesterday came after licensing officers and police discovered Gohar Superstores in Paddock was selling alcohol without the necessary licenses.Now magistrates have ordered that the £300 worth of booze seized from the Church Street shop goes to Kirkwood Hospice.
It is thought to be the first time Huddersfield magistrates have written the name of a charity into a judgement for seized goods.Shop owner Allah Ditta Gohar was fined £605 for the offence at Huddersfield Magistrates Court yesterday.
Mr Gohar claimed he thought a former business partner had obtained the licences but council officers said no applications had ever been made.
Kirklees Council’s prosecutor Carol English said it was the first time she had used seizure powers to benefit a particular charity and said it was the idea of licensing manager Cath Walter.

This is a very strange application of Section 58 Power to sell seized personal property {obtained by criminality} my parenthesis: England and Wales. As far as I can see there is no authority in the Act for donations to charity of seized goods. On the contrary the powers are to sell the goods so that the proceeds go into the big tin box under his bed where the Chancellor or the Exchequer keeps all the nation`s loose change. Who knows where this could end? I`ll say it again....a very strange disposal of assets.

UNFORGETTABLE COURT MOMENTS

 14. Jan. 2010. – 12:21:44 
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.

The smile muscles were somewhat strained a couple of months ago when an 82 year old woman of previous good character was before us for breach of a non molestation order against her husband of similar age. She had harassed him by swearing at him with the most abusive language imaginable. Since she had been arrested and been in the cells for a couple of hours no further punishment was considered necessary and after a stern warning and a request that she didn`t repeat the offence the security officer helped her to walk to the exit door where a relative was waiting..............

Most of us know that if you drive into a tunnel under a river whether in Wales or Hull or Liverpool or Glasgow or London or virtually anywhere you are likely to find a single exit at the other end [with perhaps directions to various destinations]. Not so the teenager who appeared last year facing a charge of breaching the terms of his probation by not turning up to do his unpaid work in the community. He told us that he was going through the .....Tunnel from..... to..... and he coudn`t find the exit. Needless to say after the ripple of not so silent mirth had passed through the courtroom he was punished by a hefty increase in his hours to be worked.

I would suppose that long before my time on the Bench when the witness oath and laterally the affirmation was taken even the miscreants of what was then a God fearing population could be reckoned to be generally truthful at least some of the time. Nowadays it is occasionally necessary to remind witnesses of the seriousness of this act. A Muslim student in 2008 appeared to answer enquiries as to why he had not paid outstanding fines of around £300 from the year before. He put his hand on the Koran and read the oath whilst smiling at his friends in the public gallery and with his other hand in his pocket. He was told that if he appeared insincere or was thought to be lying, and that was the impression he was giving, he could be jailed for non payment. Sometimes the donkey needs a carrot in front of him to persuade him to walk on but often he needs a stick to his arse to make him.

Video technology for good or bad is well established within Her Majesty`s Court Service and will become much more common place over the next few years. Bail applications from prison are commonplace. The prisoner in a special area can see the court officials and magistrates depending on which cameras are "live". He cannot see the public gallery but he can be heard there. Last summer during a video link from the local prison the wife of the inmate was in the gallery whilst her husband on remand had made a bail application his face peering out from monitors around the courtroom and his Irish brogue emanating from those same monitors. When his application was refused and his view was of the chairman of the Bench telling him so he shouted out, "Tell my wife I love her, tell her I love her." The chairman replied, "You`ve shouted so loud I`m sure she heard you in Dublin never mind the public gallery where she`s listening". A tearful lady left the gallery and a "thank you sir" sounded from the monitors before the link was cut. 

There is still humanity in the justice system. 

NOT JUDGE & JURY BUT JUDGE OR JURY

 12. Jan. 2010. – 15:04:26 
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.

In the last few days a regular feature of the English legal system rarely commented upon commanded headline reporting; the trial of seven Islamists accused of public order offences in Luton and the conviction and sentencing of five of them. What was not unique was that the accused were tried by a single District Judge and sentenced by that same judge.....trials of this nature are common place. Such trials as above could just as easily have been tried by a bench of three magistrates but to this observer it seems that "high profile" cases are invariably brought before a District Judge often on the dubious grounds that only a professional judge can sit for perhaps three or four days in a row. Many cases in the Family Court in front of magistrates can last for a few days. There is no logistical reason for this limitation of magistrates` jurisdiction. It would be interesting to know whether other JPs have a similar experience.

And the trial of the robbers just begun before a single judge a la Diplock raises the question as to whether this is the thin edge of a wedge to reduce the number of jury trials. At appeals at the Crown Court a judge sits with two JPs. It does not seem unreasonable to question why three judges were not engaged to sit as a mini jury as magistrates are when they conduct trials.

With this government`s history of limiting citizens` liberty and knowledge eg the Coroners` Bill one can never accept things at face value.

---

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

There is a simple question to be answered which is the basis of today`s observations. And that question is whether or not English Law and its peripheral requirements are supreme when in direct opposition to supposed religious practice. My comments are based not on my expert knowledge of law....magistrates are not legally qualified.......but more from a philosophical and logical understanding of the consequences of a District Judge`s decision recently at Luton Magistrates` Court where she accommodated the requirements of Islamic fundamentalists who have no respect for English jurisprudence and its traditions. In my opinion Islamists are as much to be compared to Muslims as are the Ku Klux Klan to Christians.

In the matter in question seven Islamic defendants when brought into court to face charges of using threatening, abusive, insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others refused to stand when the Judge entered the courtroom stating that it was a grave sin in their religion to stand to show respect for anybody except Allah. Reports do not make it clear but apparently although they were warned of the legal consequences of contempt of court they were removed from court, the Judge remained and they were then returned to court where they entered the dock and sat immediately. The case continued. That the defendants were following accepted Islamic practice has been rejected by many scholars including Mohammed Ali Musawa of the anti-terrorist think tank the Quilliam Foundation who stated that to stand to show respect for the institution of law in the person of a judge or magistrate is perfectly compatible with Muslim practice. I myself have used similar words to a defendant who refused to stand when requested.

Is this elevation of so called religious practice to supersede non denominational English legal practice? If Jedi Knights recorded in the last census as being the religion of thousands appeared wearing full face helmets are those to be tolerated? Would pagans waving various tree branches as part of their "religion" be tolerated doing so in defiance of a court`s request. There are many absurdities which could be quoted but the principle is clear. Luton is where there was a case in 2004 of a child insisting on wearing a headscarf to school against the wishes of her head teacher. A High Court judge said the school's uniform policy was aimed at the proper running of a multi-cultural, multi-faith secular school and headscarves were forbidden. The legal system is not an archaic form of control; it evolves over the years to accommodate requirements of a changing society but a fundamental basis of our system is equality before the law. Thus eg there is affirmation for those who do not want to swear on a holy book be it Bible,Koran or Ghita; religious Jews and Rastafarians can keep their heads covered in court but above all this is a democracy not a theocracy. Religious practice must be subservient to the law where the two coincide. A couple of weeks ago The Jewish Free School`s appeal against its entry requirements based on the "who is a Jew" religious concept failed. They were found to be illegal in English law.

Generally the happenings at the level of Magistrates` Courts do not set precedents. I do not have to be a betting man to say that it won`t be long before similar actions are attempted before a judge at a Crown Court. I would hope that when that happens the good judge will have more consideration for the underlying nature of our open and secular society than those in our midst who mouth equal/human rights and/or support for the Taliban and wish to import to this country the intolerance they espouse in Afghanistan.

ONE FINE FOR HARIET HARMAN {THEM} AND ONE FOR US

 

08. Jan. 2010. – 14:30:02

It is perhaps unwise to comment on particular cases in the public eye particularly when full knowledge is unavailable but then some would say it is unwise for a magistrate to comment.

When deciding sentence magistrates and judges have strict guidelines to ensure that "post code" justice does not exist now as it might have done thirty years ago. So it was interesting to read that earlier today Labour Party deputy leader Harriet Harman has been fined £350 after pleading guilty to driving without due care and attention. This was not her first motoring offence. On 7 April 2007, Harman was issued with a £60 Fixed Penalty Notice for speeding. On this recent matter apparently the lady pleaded guilty at the "earliest opportunity" thus earning a reduction of one third in the proposed fine. If it is assumed the offence itself was at the lowest level with no aggravating circumstances and perhaps some mitigating factors the level of fine is Band A. This is equal to half a week`s wages. So if the £350 is grossed up it was £525 before the reduction. So that`s wages of about £1000/week or £50,000 per annum. In 2007 she was earning £125,000 and there is no reason to think she is earning much less now. It does not seem unreasonable to conclude that the lady`s fine is very lenient.

When public figures appear to be treated outwith the recognised legal parameters it brings the whole process into disrepute and that is adding the drip upon drip of cynical acid to the body politic.

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

When a convicted murderer is released early from his/her sentence owing to doubts about his/her guilt we all read about the sorry story in the papers or see the newly freed haggard individual at a hastily assembled press conference making the first statements of what freedom is all about.
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.