DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHOULD BE A STAND ALONE OFFENCE

 

25. Feb. 2010. – 16:25:54

Once again I want to mention statistics. The subject is now so vital to government and myriad organisations it deserves a place in year 6 school classes because so few people are able to make reasoned judgements when presented with even the simplest form of statistical analysis. Government by Forums on this that and everything is nothing more than trying to please some/all of the people some/all of the time or any combination that suits. Nowhere is this more apparent or important than in criminology. From the effects of Magistrates` Courts being able to impose suspended sentences with an unforeseen requirement subsequently for more prison spaces owing to the unexpected need to activate such sentences for those who committed further offences during the period of suspension to the increased use of PNDs [Penalty Notices for Disorder] by police being counted as crimes cleared up statistics rears its [ugly?] head.

This is nowhere more important than on the subject of Domestic Violence; a term frequently used to describe a crime which officially doesn`t exist per se except as a particular type of assault where DV is an aggravating factor. All judges and magistrates have undergone specialised training before being allowed to sit on such matters. Much of the training focuses on statistical analyses of the subject many obtained from foreign studies. Since, we are told, so much such violence goes unrecorded it is not heretical to question some aspects of some studies.

In the last decade much more has been done to arrest, charge, convict and punish perpetrators of such violence which causes the death of hundreds of women annually. But even so, numbers are sometimes flung about like confetti.

In Asian News it is reported that during 2008/9, there were more than 70,000 incidents of domestic abuse recorded by Greater Manchester Police. On the web site of Greater Manchester Police it can be found that there were 49,678 DV victims {my italics}in 2006/7. I`m sure that other varied statistics could be found which one would find difficult to fix to a common base and therefore worthy of comparison. The sooner the incoming government instead of legislating for the sake of "doing something" or "setting an example" introduced as a Bill or part thereof an offence of Domestic Violence clearly defined and well drafted the better for us all.....victims especially but also magistrates and judges.

POLICE PRAYERS REDUCE CRIME!?!? WHAT NEXT? GARLIC

 

23. Feb. 2010. – 11:42:31

When religion, its adherents, its trappings, its rituals and anything else similarly associated hits the headlines as has been increasingly the case I begin to fear for my sanity. The rational thought that has guided humanity for two hundred years seems to be fast disappearing. Even the Inquisition under a more user friendly title is once more stirring.

Last year a community nurse was criticised for praying for a patient. The nurse Caroline Petrie, said she asked an elderly woman patient during a home visit if she wanted her to say a prayer for her. The patient complained to the health trust about Mrs Petrie who follows the Baptist faith. Now we have a senior policeman Inspector Roger Bartlett who says that in Barnstaple Devon the power of prayer has helped catch criminals, boosted crime detection rates and even reduced the number of ­people killed on the roads. With such unscientific medieval nonsense in our midst what hope is there or does the Inspector think that his mumbo jumbo has a place in modern crime reduction? Perhaps it should be a pre requisite for new recruits to be skilled in prayer? How about compasses for Jewish and Moslem recruits so that they can face East two or three time a day when they do their devotions? Are officers` arrest figures to be weighted if they are atheists? After all, without a god to help out surely they`re at a disadvantage?

As a refreshing contrast Chief Constable Peter Fahy has shone some much needed light on some of the daft goings on of a few of his officers who logged six incidents of snowball throwing during last month’s cold snap. All were classed as ‘serious violent crime’ even though no one was injured and no arrests were made. The Chief criticised his own officers for failing to show 'common sense.' I say three cheers.

FOR FINE DEFAULTERS WOULD ONE DAY IN CUSTODY FOR EVERY £ OWED REDUCE THE DEBT?

22. Feb. 2010. – 16:04:40

Her Majesty`s Court Service should not be organised to make a profit. It is part of the justice system and without it the law of the jungle would be upon us. It is a fundamental part of a government`s responsibility to its citizens as important as ensuring the armed forces have sufficient resources to protect us from invasion. It is arguably more important than the NHS. This was a democratic country before 1948.

But notwithstanding the above it is the duty of government to ensure that all monies owed to any of its branches is collected as efficiently as possible. Hence the frequent advertising of the dire repercussions for those not buying a TV license or taxing their car.

However when it comes to the collection of unpaid fines perhaps there is room for improvement. In the financial year 2007/8 there was £500.6 million unpaid. In 2008/9 that figure had risen to £545 million. It seems that in Swansea enough is enough.Swansea magistrates court will stay open after hours this month as part of a blitz on fine defaulters and offenders who have failed to attend court dates. Operation Crackdown will see court enforcement officers and South Wales Police taking part in a series of blitzes on offenders' homes as part of the two-day operation. They will chase up warrants for non-payment of outstanding fines and warrants issued for failure to attend court.Extra vans have been drafted in from outside the area to take offenders to the magistrates court which will remain open until 8pm on both nights of the operation.

Accurate figures for the number of people imprisoned as fine defaulters are hard to come by. At the third reading of the Criminal Justice Bill on 27th February 2003 David Heath MP for Somerton and Frome stated that; "Things have changed over recent years and far fewer fine defaulters are imprisoned now. I hope that my figures are accurate: in 1994 22,469 males were imprisoned for an average of seven days and 1,454 women for an average of five days; by 2001 those figures were greatly reduced to 1,382 males for an average of six days and 73 females for an average of two days."

On 31/10/1995 414 fine defaulters were in custody. On 30/06/2004 there were 52 fine defaulters in custody. It would appear to the untrained eye that amounts of fines outstanding increase as the number imprisoned for non payment reduces. In other words deterrence just doesn`t exist for those who don`t pay. Perhaps we should not be too quick to disavow ourselves of the methods used in some southern United States. I can vouch for the rate of $1 per day in a County Prison for every dollar owed after all other methods have been exhausted in attempts by the court to get its money. 

DANGEROUS DOGS ACTS 1991 & 1871

 21. Feb. 2010. – 12:22:58

Owning a dog is a major responsibility although we can all recall incidents where such responsibility was apparent by its absence.

A couple of months ago a young man appeared charged under that cobbled together in a hurry knee jerk legislation known as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. His or rather an absent relative`s  Alsation had escaped through a hole in the garden fence and run amok in a nearby park. No harm physical was caused but a concerned dog walker called police and the dog was restrained and later returned to the proxy owner who was charged essentially with having a dog out of control. He pleaded guilty and during his mitigation....he was unrepresented.........questions were put to him about the status of the animal which it turned out had been trained and used by its owner as a guard dog at an industrial site. My colleagues and I rejected the CPS`s application to order destruction of the dog but wished to impose controls particularly an order that it be on a lead and muzzled when in a public place. However after consultation with all the law books on her desk our legal adviser told us that since there had been no complaint under the DOGS ACT OF 1871 such action was unlawful. The case could have been adjourned for consideration for such a "complaint" to be lodged. We decided on a pragmatic approach to end the matter then and there. He was fined £100, costs of £85 and the iniquitous £15 "victim surcharge". He also gave what was clearly explained to him by the chairman a non legally binding undertaking to muzzle the animal and have it on a lead in public places. He was advised that that undertaking we considered as substantial mitigation, noted by the legal adviser, the breaking of which in itself would not be illegal but would be a factor for consideration if he appeared on a similar matter in the future.

Section 2 Dogs Act 1871
"Any court of summary jurisdiction may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous, and not kept under proper control, and if it appears to the court having cognizance of such complaint that such dog is dangerous, the court may make an order in a summary way directing the dog to be kept by the owner under proper control or destroyed."
This extract from the Dogs Act 1871 is reproduced under the terms of Crown Copyright Policy Guidance issued by HMSO.

THREE FAILED TRIALS BUT HE CAN STILL WALK OUT THE DOOR

 . Feb. 2010. – 16:25:07 

There are many reasons put forward why Peter Blake at his fourth history making trial by a judge without jury was allowed to leave the court and subsequently abscond. The background is that three previous attempts to try this man failed owing to a suspicion of jury tampering. This current trial where verdict as well as sentence will be that of the single judge will continue without him. It is argued that since he had not failed any previous court hearings remand on bail for this trial was not inappropriate. His bail was not surprise surprise unconditional. Apparently somebody had put up £250K surety and at 2.15pm Feb. 17th there was an indication that a large part of that surety was to be withdrawn the result of which would have been a remand in custody for the duration of the trial unless a substitute were found. He was allowed to speak to his lawyers. There is nothing known about why he was not escorted by officers for that promenade. It was not contrary to his bail conditions. The man was considered so dangerous to three juries that his trial made history. It`s made history again for a totally absurd waywardness on somebody`s part. 

JUST A WHIM BUT GOOD LUCK BARRY MAGISTRATES

 19. Feb. 2010. – 16:07:37

The mantra of so many organisations especially within the civil service is "centralise" or "bigger is better". In any event it often means removing input of whatever description from a local area at point of contact or taking the button a long way from the buttonhole but putting an extra long chord on it. When this happens efficiency is as likely to be reduced as improved. My own experience with Her Majesty`s Court Service bears this out.

News has been released that administration work from the Vale Magistrates Court in Barry will be transferred to Bridgend. This type of thinking leads me to ask would government or this one in particular only be satisfied if every form of administration were transferred to a huge new "administrative capital city" somewhere between Milton Keynes and Newcastle on Tyne where a million civil servants could all live together in a bomb proof concrete underground place called Britannica and run the country as they do now except they would have nobody to blame for the trouble they`d cause except their own blind mistaken confidence in centralisation. 

ARE JURIES AS FAIR AS THEY COULD BE?

17. Feb. 2010. – 12:49:26 
The Document recently published  "Are Juries Fair?" has quite correctly had massive exposure in the media. A justice system in which everyone has confidence is  essential to maintain our current liberties reduced as they have been in the last thirteen years.

A purpose of any justice system is to punish the guilty and acquit those against whom the evidence cannot sustain a guilty verdict. That definition in itself does not constitute a guarantee of a free and just society or a society governed by law as we in this country would have it. According to their legal systems at the time the USSR and nazi Germany punished the guilty and occasionally acquitted others.

By the Juries Act 1974 the only requirement to serve on a jury is to be listed in the electoral roll. And laterally the exclusion of those involved in various professions has been lifted so that even legally qualified professionals no longer have exemption.
The document runs to 87 pages so my comments here are necessarily compressed.

As the title implies the main concern is with outcomes and especially with consideration for the effect of ethnic minority groups both as jurers and defendants. There is little consideration apart from race and religion on the composition of juries or alternatives to the jury. Presumably these factors were not in the authors` remit but in my opinion when considering the title of the paper it is self restricting insofar as the concept of "fair" is being examined with a macro lens instead of a wide angle.

There are conclusions which prompt considerable disquiet. Non fatal offences against the person have a 52% conviction rate. And in offences where understanding the state of mind of the defendant is crucial the conviction rate is less than 50%. These examples require a juror to have a certain level of insight, to be able to reason, to be able to draw conclusions in addition to being satisfied "on the facts". In efforts to be representative no investigations are possible into a juror`s understanding of English language whether oral or written. Is this faculty not worthy of being a pre-requisite for sitting in judgement over one`s fellow man? Twelve is not a magic number for a jury panel. If two juries of seven each were to sit on a case with both having to bring in the same majority verdict would that not ensure "fairness" if a split between the two would indicate a re-trial or acquittal? Since the removal of the either way category of offences is not on the horizon is there not a case on the same basis for a defendant to elect Judge or Judges only trial for very limited range of offences? The jury system is far from infallible as can be demonstrated by very high profile cases in the last decade of verdicts successfully appealed.

Our criminal justice system allows District Judges to sit as both judge and jury at Magistrates` Courts trials. Magistrates sit as three person judge and juries on the vast majority of trials in England. They would not be appointed with poor language or reasoning skills. In addition both JPs and DJs must give reasons for trial verdicts; juries do not.
This study certainly provides food for thought but in my opinion cannot deliver a verdict because so much was excluded. Without more information and input I am not convinced that we are doing as much as we can to ensure the prime directive; to punish the guilty and acquit those against whom the evidence cannot sustain a guilty verdict.

BECOME A J.P. WE DON`T NEED TO KNOW IF YOU`RE A FREEMASON

 

15. Feb. 2010. – 16:55:52

A few years ago........about ten or so...........when applying to be appointed as a Justice of the Peace a candidate had to declare which political party had been the recipient of his/her last general election vote, had to demonstrate that "common sense" was a faculty s/he had and could be demonstrated and that he was or was not a Freemason.

With the current new advice from the Ministry of Justice the last of those three declarations has been lifted; the others were removed some years ago.

So now those who objected to having to demonstrate common sense, owning up to which party they voted for or confirming or denying they were on the square can apply in good conscience to my boss Jack Straw via the Appointments Committee.

I wonder what changes in the Ministry`s estimate of what makes a good magistrate will be mandatory in 2020.

EAST ENDERS MORE VIOLENT THAN THE WILD WEST

 14. Feb. 2010. – 17:11:25

Since its availability to the whole population there has been a continuing discussion whether watching violence on TV has any effect on children. Most caring parents of under eights would certainly take note of the 9.00pm "watershed" even just to ensure their little darling gets enough sleep. Advertisers who pay millions to advertise products that appeal to children insist that there is no danger to children in some of the programmes paid for by that advertising insofar as children are able to discriminate real life from fantasy. Many who are "expert" and many who are not so "expert" disagree.

What is not in dispute is that many young children watch Eastenders. I have to admit that I have never seen the programme but have been aware of its transmission from the shouting and screaming from the room where others in my house have been watching it. So it was no surprise to read that in it’s 25 year history, which will be marked with a special live episode on February 19, there have been 70 deaths – 16 of which were violent. That represents a 22.8 per cent murder rate, way over the national average of 0.032 per cent.

If children in families where incoherent argument and violence are perhaps just below the surface are exposed to this "in your face, like it is" material three or four times a week is it not likely that their bases for normal behaviour will be altered? It`s possible to argue that violent video games are seen to be fantasy and have limited effects on juvenile behaviour but "family" programmes with content as described above are not the same thing. I say bring back "Wagon Train" and "Gunsmoke".

 

 

A SCOTTISH "ALCATRAZ"

 13. Feb. 2010. – 14:56:02

There is increasing confusion of whether or not the Ministry of Justice has persuaded or succeeded in that persuasion to the judiciary that it reduce the numbers being imprisoned. There has also been disquiet that magistrates are making too many suspended sentence disposals. Whether that is to imply that the sentences should not have been suspended and incarceration should have been immediate or that they  should have not been imposed at all is a moot point. What is not in doubt is that this government has not provided enough prison places.
The Belgians have had similar problems and in an attempt to alleviate the situation have paid their cousins in Holland to take 500 prisoners for £26 million per annum. What a sensible idea!

Dartmoor Prison is perhaps the best known gaol in England. Opened in 1812 in its hayday it was a fearful place where it could arguably be said that the cure was as bad as the disease. It no longer has the cache of holding the country`s worst offenders. It is a category C institution. Dangerous convicts are distributed throughout the country.

Taking the Belgium/Holland example a stage further there are dozens if not hundreds of uninhabited Scottish islands in the Atlantic. Is there any good reason cost excepted why a Scottish "Alcatraz" could not be built and its space rented to England? The weather`s conducive to being active to keep warm and the water`s very cold and deep in places. True there are no sharks but then many islands are tens of miles from shore unlike Alcatraz which was about one mile off shore from San Francisco.
It`s not often Belgium sets an example to the rest of Europe but in this matter I give their authorities five gold stars.

DO CRIMINALS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO COMMIT CRIME?

  12. Feb. 2010. – 12:27:04

The debate about whether "nature or nurture" has the most effect upon our personality and behaviour has been around in its current form for over a century. Whilst the Freuds and Jungs of this world relied upon dreams, memories and ephemeral considerations of family life, behaviourists, physiologists, bio-chemists, biologists, anthropologists and geneticists amongst others are increasingly opening up opinions of what makes us what we are. The upshot of their researches is that we are the product of the electrical and bio-chemical reactions within our brains. If this research continues to discover evidence of what could be termed pre-determination then what lessons does it have for our current thinking on an individual`s innocence until proved guilty in court of law?

The first Intellectual Disabilities and Criminal Justice Conference, organised by the University of Chester Faculty of Health and Social Care will take place on July 8, 2010. It will analyse the relationship between intellectual disability and the criminal justice system.

For "intellectual disabilities" it is easy to substitute "low IQ" and to progress to a situation where in the name of "crime prevention" action is taken against those whose "likely criminal behaviour" is considered to have breached a threshold. The film "Minority Report" starring Tom Cruise explored this subject with some critical success. What the academics conclude at Chester will make for interesting reading.

WHEN DETERRENT SENTENCES ARE A WASTE OF TIME

 12. Feb. 2010. – 14:15:33 

On 11th January I commented on the reduction in local court reporting; LOCAL COURT REPORTS ARE A THING OF THE PAST

An erudite legal blogger has posted interesting facts on deterrence as applied in the justice system. However he misses one crucial fact and that whatever is in the mind of the law maker or sentencer the "deterrent sentence" must be promulgated to the others with a propensity to commit similar crimes. For high profile crimes national news programmes and newspapers take an almost ghoulish interest but for low level crime local TV news and newspapers hard copied or on line are the obvious places where such reports would be aired. But with reduced viewing of local TV and court reporting per se increasingly a rare event this just doesn`t happen. Of course there is the word of mouth network in pubs and other places where people of like interests congregate but can deterrence work at a low level. My opinion is that it cannot. 

DEVON & CORNWALL POLICE ARE AN EXAMPLE TO THE MET.

 

11. Feb. 2010. – 11:18:41

On 6th February I commented on the police chief in Hounslow blaming magistrates` courts for the high rate of burglaries in the town. It was his contention that if burglars were remanded in custody between court appearances the problem would be almost solved. His colleagues in Devon and Exeter Police are more realistic and are getting on with their job of protecting us, the public, instead of trying to shift the blame to others.

In 2008, 610 house burglaries were reported compared with 402 in 2009 — a reduction of more than 34 per cent. Detective Sergeant Tim Thornton, of Exeter’s burglary team said the city’s burglary squad continually monitor the movements of known offenders. He continued, "The process is quite simple — find out who is responsible by gathering evidence from a number of sources, ensure prompt arrests and secure convictions. It’s then about keeping track of known offenders, monitoring their movements and habits and working on intelligence. If they re-offend or are not rehabilitated the process is repeated.”

It could be argued that comparing crime in Wild West London and crime in rural Exeter is not comparing like with like. It cannot be argued that by attacking the courts Chief Superintendent Bilsen in Hounslow has revealed a mind set which if typical in the Metropolitan Police Service is disgraceful. I hope that by now the Commissioner of the Met has reminded his senior officers of where their job begins and ends; certainly not by slagging off magistrates.

BREACH OR NO BREACH? YOU COUDN`T MAKE IT UP

 

09. Feb. 2010. – 11:54:33

 

If ever there was a situation where accurate up to date information must be readily available it is on the desk of the Legal Adviser to a Bench of Magistrates. When papers are missing or inaccurate the consequences can vary from hilarious to horrendous. When a court is still sitting at 5.00pm which is not uncommon office staff have usually left and those in court must resolve any difficulties on the spot. Such a recent late sitting involved a woman arrested earlier in the day for breaching bail conditions in that she was seen entering the street where her lover lived although it appeared to be a condition of bail not to do so. It seemed on the surface clear enough. However the Police National Computer indicated that she was on conditional bail for two alleged assaults a month apart two trials having been set for March and April. One set of conditions forbade her from going to the complainant`s address and the other from entering the street where she lived. The Legal Adviser had papers in front of her only for one of the incidents. The Crown prosecutor had no papers for the first charge and defence lawyer had knowledge only of the other matter his client having another firm of solicitors for the first case. A sentence including the words brewery and organise came to mind. The defendant faced a night in the cells. With pragmatism borne from necessity the CPS was persuaded to drop the bail charge and the two sets of bail conditions were harmonised preventing entry to the complainant`s street. The defendant was given a very strict warning as to the restrictions on which she was released.

What would Rumpole of the Bailey have made of it? No doubt another tale of woe to be washed down with a bottle of Claret in his favourite Fleet Street watering hole.

---

A PRAYER MAT or a FLYING CARPET to GET OUT of JAIL

 05. Feb. 2010. – 12:47:04

It seems that the wife of our former dear leader has opened her mouth once again a little too wide. A few years ago she was criticised for understanding the motivation of Palestinian suicide bombers. And it is recorded that she made efforts to explain why she boarded a train to Luton without a ticket in contradiction of unambiguous regulations.

Cherie Blair is a judge. She has been appointed to this onerous position because the Secretary of State for Justice and his predecessor The Lord Chancellor considered that she had the competencies to do the job. When I was appointed to the position of Justice of the Peace some years ago one of the requirements was to indicate that one possessed "common sense". Interestingly that requirement is now not investigated but that`s a tale for another time.
Below is a report from the BBC Website.

A secularist group has lodged an official complaint against Cherie Booth QC after she spared a man from prison because he was religious. Shamso Miah, 25, of Redbridge, east London, broke a man's jaw following a row in a bank queue. Sitting as a judge, Ms Booth - wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair - said she would suspend his sentence on the basis of his religious belief.

The argument of whether or not she was judicially correct in her decision that being religious was enough mitigation to avoid immediate imprisonment for the thuggish behaviour is being investigated.
But what interests me is the term "religious"....... "having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity; "a religious man"; "religious attitude"
So if a mistletoe waving druid was in court in front of Ms Blair and confirmed his devotions to the wind would his being "religious" allow him the same lenient treatment? Would a member of the cult known as scientology but whose members consider themselves privileged followers of the one and only way to Paradise be given the same status when the term scientology has even been banned from Wikipedia?

This is a monumental decision by the Arbitration Committee. Individual people have been banned before from editing on Wikipedia pages, but never before has such a large organization been banned completely from editing Wikipedia pages. The case has been running for a while now, but the evidence presented was convincing enough: members of the organization that calls itself a church, but many consider to be a dangerous cult, have systematically edited relevant pages on Wikipedia in an organised fashion.

There is no doubt that when religious matters begin impinging on the general columns of our newspapers rather than in articles by religious correspondents trouble lies ahead. Will the good lady be criticised by her superiors? There is more chance of snow falling on May Day! 

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.