Juries

There seems to be some concern in the popular press about a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights which quashed the convictions of two men found guilty in a UK court of peddling Heroin.
The ECHR ruling was based on the admitted fact that one of the jurors was a serving police officer who had worked with, and known for ten years, a police officer witness.
I can’t say I’m at all surprised or shocked at the ruling, which seems to me to be absolutely correct. How could any fair-minded person be sure that the juror was completely impartial? He may well have been, and I don’t intend to impugn the juror in any way, but justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. It’s not whether his presence on this particular jury was fair, it’s whether it appeared to be fair, the ECHR thought it didn’t, and I for one agree.
In my particular court if, during any case, it becomes apparent that anyone before the Court is known to anyone on the bench, that Magistrate immediately excuses him or her self. It’s the only way the proceedings can be seen to be open, transparent and fair.

While on the subject of juries, I read that on the fifth day of a trial a 19 year old juror, Matthew Banks, lied about being ill so he could go see a West End musical with his mother.
The judge promptly jailed him for 14 days for contempt and his mother, Debbie Ennis, who was a party to the deception, is reported as being outraged at the sentence – but why?
She must have known full well that her son’s actions were dishonest and could very well have resulted in the trial collapsing at huge cost to the public purse, but it would seem she put her own selfish desire to see a show before her son’s public duty.
It’s not outraged that she should be, but ashamed.

The Big Man

So the ‘big man’ of You Tube fame has been charged with assault after ejecting from a train a yob who was attempting to travel without a valid ticket. Needless to say, the miscreant who kept the train waiting for 10 minutes while he abused the conductor hasn’t been charged with anything, despite the fact that using abusive language and attempting to travel without a valid ticket are both against the law – well no surprise there then!
And the police wonder why they’ve lost the confidence of the general public.
I’ve come to the conclusion that this eagerness of the police to charge those who stick up for themselves and others is down to spite – they can’t, or more likely won’t, do anything to protect the general public but they’ll be damned if they’ll let anyone else do it.

A Travesty of Justice

The report in the Daily Express of the gang of Somali women who beat and kicked a white woman, and escaped imprisonment because they were drunk, and their religion caused them to be un-used to drink, is amongst the greatest travesties of justice that I’ve come across in many a long year.

The fact that the CPS didn’t also prosecute them for racially aggravated assault, when they called their victim a white bitch and yelled “kill the white slag” is a further travesty, for if that isn’t racial aggravation I don’t know what is.

Had the boot, quite literally, been on the other foot and it had been a gang of white aggressors against a Muslim victim I have absolutely no doubt that it would have been charged as a racial assault and would have resulted in substantial jail sentences.

When Judge Robert Brown said that those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside and that those who do so while being motivated by racial hatred can expect to go for longer he did no more that reiterate the sentencing guidelines, which he then promptly ignored by suspending what was in any case an extremely lenient sentence of six months imprisonment.

The sentencing guidelines suggest that this is a category 1 offence, sustained assault constitutes greater harm, and the use of a shod foot indicates higher culpability.
Given the further aggravating factors, the ongoing effect upon the victim and the commission of the offence whilst under the influence of alcohol, the starting point of 18 months custody would have been more than justified.

I sincerely hope, although with little expectation, that the CPS appeals the decision as being unduly lenient, for otherwise we are in danger of developing a two-tier justice system where Muslims can beat and kick a white person with little chance of punishment while white people are subject to the full rigours of the law should they assault a Muslim.

Political correction can go too far.

Nothing Better to Do

The report
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066140/Bethany-Ogley-11-told-You-visit-sister's-grave-school-uniform.html#ixzz1exI001TS
of a certain PC Alan Dickens stopping a schoolgirl from visiting her sister's grave while in school uniform, and threantening her with detention if she did so, begs the question as to whether there is any real crime in Barnsley to concern the police.

Has this over-officious copper got nothing else better to do?

Once the report hit the press cue some frantic back-tracking from both the school and the South Yorkshire Police “Any suggestion that visiting the cemetery would lead to a detention for the student is untrue”

Hope somebody tells the copper!

Youth Crime and Punishment

If anyone had any doubts about the effectiveness or otherwise of ‘community punishments’, especially for young criminals, then the widely publicised report of the 16 year old thief who, as part of his ‘Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Program’, was ordered to write a letter to his victim supposedly in apology for his actions, should clarify matters.

His letter as it turned out was anything but, you can read the text here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8910227/Burglar-calls-victims-dumb-in-letter.html

Now according to the Ministry of Justice the program this habitual criminal was on is “the most rigorous non-custodial intervention available for young offenders”.
Well clearly it doesn’t work – it hasn’t rehabilitated him, made him sorry for his criminality or deterred him from offending in the future.
Youth crime, such as that reported in the media concerning a 14 year old boy involved in a street robbery which resulted in the death of a 79 year old woman, will not be curbed by ‘programs’ which young criminals have neither fear nor respect for.

It’s a sad truth however that we will not see any change in what has become an article of faith, that young criminals are victims of society, needing help not punishment, and that the concept of teaching children, from an early age, the difference between right and wrong, and enforcing that concept, is out-dated.

We have, as my grandmother would have said, made a rod for our own backs

Litter Dropping

I have little sympathy for Tracy John, fined a total of £465 for dropping a cigarette end outside her own home.
She was offered a £75 fixed penalty notice and when she didn’t pay was summoned to court. The fact is she didn’t attend court and was therefore unable to give her side of the story and the court, without details of her circumstances, had no alternative but to set the fine at a level commensurate with assumed national average earnings.

Had she attended court, and argued a case she seemingly feels strongly about, I suspect she would have been acquitted – the Council would have been unable to offer evidence of the actual ‘litter’ or show intent to litter as she took the offending article indoors with her.

She says she'd rather go to jail than pay, if so she should make sure she's sentenced on a Friday, that way she'll get a free trip to jail and her bus fare back home on the same day!

Puzzled?
A 7 day sentence means release half way through, ie 3 days actual jail time but...... From Friday, which counts as the first day, 3 days would mean release on Sunday and as prisons don't release on either Saturday or Sunday she would have to be released on Friday, the day of sentence (can't keep her until Monday, that would be 4 days and more than the specified half sentence).

And you thought British Justice was fair?

Lest We Forget

Today is Armistice Day, and 93 years since the guns on the Western Front fell silent.



In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

by John McCrae, May 1915

Crime and its causes

I read an interesting letter in this month's magazine of the Magistrates' Association regarding the erosion of those taboos which once ordered society.

The letter, with which I wholly agree, makes the case that it is a lack of discipline and proper punishment that is to blame for much of our present day ills and it cannot be denied that since the end of the last war there as been a fundamental shift in our entire concept of discipline.

Corporal punishment has been abolished in schools, Capital Punishment has gone, parental punishment is bounded by guidelines that if not followed will result in either prosecution for assault or the removal of children from their parents, or both!
Child criminals are viewed as victims and Youth Courts hand out 'last chances' time and time again.
Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that 'punishment' has become a dirty word.

All aspects of our society are required to be 'child friendly' and children grow up without being able to discern right from wrong or to understand how to conduct themselves as responsible citizens, rather they are imbued from an early age with the view that they are entitled, as of right, to do as they will.

Two stark illustrations of this malaise were reported in a local newspaper.

25 year old Adam Smith, in a drunken frenzy, kicked a man almost to death leaving him severely brain damaged, unable to walk or talk.
This violent thug has a history of drunken violence dating back to his school years, including an assault last year when he knocked another man unconscious, for which he was only cautioned. He has never received the punishment he deserved in the past and this is the result.

In similar vain, 39 year old Wayne Moffitt kicked to death a 71 year old man and at the time of the attack Moffitt was subject to a Community Punishment Order for a previous assault, clearly insufficient to deter him from further violent action.

One can only speculate that if their upbringing had taught them right from wrong, upheld and reinforced by their teachers, and if the punishment for their earlier misdeeds had been more onerous, might they have learned how better to behave?

An Inept Lot

With staggering ineptitude, just days before Remembrance Sunday, the Organising Committee for the London Olympics issues thousands of posters showing the river Thames with the Second World War cruiser, Belfast, see left, ‘air-brushed’ out.

One can only wonder at the mindset of these people, their disregard of history and the sacrifice made by such as served on Belfast so that London would be free to hold an Olympics.

Of course it was all a ‘terrible mistake’ says an unidentified spokesman – no it wasn’t! It takes time, skill and effort to digitally alter a photograph; it’s not something that can be done by accident.

Shame on the lot of them!

Remember Remember the 5th of November

Today is Bonfire Night, or Guy Fawkes Night if you prefer, not that poor Guy was actually consigned to a Bonfire, he was hung drawn and quartered and the original effigy burnt was that of the Pope!



But never mind that small historical inaccuracy, let's celebrate this great English tradition while we can, before the 'elfs get their hands on it as they've done with conkers and much else besides.

While I'm on the subject I can't help recalling the old adage that Guy Fawkes was
"the only man ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions".

However you view him and his actions, have a happy and safe Bonfire Night.

Golliwogs, Delays and the CPS

It’s not for me to comment as to whether the placing, last October, of a golliwog in Mrs Jenna Mason’s window constituted behavior likely to cause racially-aggravated harassment but what does concern me, yet again, is the shear ineptitude of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mrs Mason was charged by the police, on the advice of the CPS, on the 2nd September and on the 7th of September a police spokeswoman said: "We have had a complaint from a member of the public, we have investigated it and both the Crown Prosecution Service and ourselves have agreed there is enough to prosecute."

Yesterday, at Lowestoft Magistrates' Court, Chris McCann, head of the complex casework unit at the East of England Crown Prosecution Service, offered no evidence in a hearing lasting less than five minutes when he is reported to have told the Court that “a review has been carried out at the highest level” and that there was not “a realistic prospect of conviction”.

Now if that is the case what has changed, what further evidence has come to light to alter the view held by the CPS on the 2nd of September?

I suspect that nothing has changed and the CPS has belatedly done what it should have done much sooner and not waited until the day of trial, in the hope that Mrs Mason would plead guilty, to drop an unwinable case.

Love Barnsley

The Daily Mail (well I suppose it would have to be) has taken exception to a District Judge at Barnsley objecting to defendants calling court staff ‘love’.

http//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051798/Judge-accused-discrimination-ban-Yorkshire-defendants-calling-court-staff-love.html

Now I’m a Yorkshireman born and bred but I too have, on various occasions, instructed those before the court not to call the court clerk ‘love’, an almost automatic reaction in my part of the world.

Well that must make me also guilty of discrimination against traditional Yorkshire dialect if Graeme Garvey of the Yorkshire Dialect Society is to be believed. I prefer to think of it as an expression of good manners not to use a familiarity to those you don’t know, especially one with overt sexist overtones.

The Art of Sentencing

Last week I sentenced my first case of ABH (assault occasioning actual bodily harm) under the new sentencing guidelines.
Generally speaking, the new guidelines have down-graded assault cases, especially the most frequent, that of common assault, but for ABH the sentences have been substantially increased.

The starting point for the case I was involved with, a single unprovoked head-but causing no lasting damage, is 26 weeks imprisonment.

In the retirement room a strange dichotomy emerged; while generally we, on our bench, have bemoaned the down-grading of common assault cases, having to impose community penalties where previously we would have been considering jail, we also, on this occasion, were reluctant to send the perpetrator of the ABH to prison.

But we can’t have it both ways. If we are to follow the guidelines, and the law says we must unless we have good reasons not to and that it would be unjust to do so, we have to follow the intentions of the Sentencing Council which are clearly to increase sentences for the most serious assaults, including ABH, and to reduce those for the more minor cases.

In the event, we gave the defendant every mitigation - first offence, discount for a guilty plea, and that any prison sentence should be as short as possible but we still sent him to jail for 10 weeks. In many ways it was a compromise decision, but that’s often the case and it was a sentence we all could live with. I understand he intends to appeal the sentence and it will be interesting to see what the Crown Court has to say about it.

A Shameful Action

I’ll not comment on the sentence passed on Kallan Richardson for throwing a house brick through a car window, hitting a four year old child in the face and causing severe injury, but I noticed his solicitor said he was ‘remorseful and ashamed of his actions’.

Well this is him outside court, does he look ‘remorseful and ashamed’?

Trials

I was in trials court last week, two cases, both very different but with one thing in common, both were cases of one person's word against another, with no independent evidence to corroborate either's version of events.
It's always difficult in such circumstances to make a judgement, a finding of fact, and sometimes more so than others. In the first case we came to a decision fairly quickly, the defendant’s story was neither credible nor believable, and I think he knew it; the second case was trickier.
Both the complainant and the defendant gave good and clear evidence and both were entirely credible, so how to choose between them?
In all trials it's the job of the prosecution to convince us, such that we are sure, of the defendant’s guilt, if there is any reasonable doubt then we must acquit.
In this particular case it was, as so often, the small things that tipped the balance, not so much what was said but how it was said and what questions were left unanswered.
We were two-one for conviction in the end but it took us almost a hour to get there and I was then left with the difficult task of explaining to the defendant that we didn’t believe him, and why, something that can prove awkward for some magistrates.

Juries in Crown Court trials are spared this part of the judgment process, simply announcing guilty or not guilty while we have to give reasons for our decisions, which can mean at times such as these effectively calling someone a liar.

It goes with the territory of being a court chairman and it is far better now than when I first started, when guilt was pronounced and sentence passed without ever giving any explanation as to our reasoning, but why I wonder are not juries obliged to also give reasons for their decisions? It seems to me that there is a dichotomy here when a defendant leaves the Magistrates’ Court knowing how a decision was reached, but not when leaving the Crown Court.

An Independent Judiciary?

I find it utterly amazing that Judge Johnathan Hall could suspend the 8-month prison sentence he passed on a thief on the basis that prison places are in high demand following the recent riots. (Daily Express 9th September 2011).
An 8 month sentence is little enough considering the thief in question, while employed by Asda, concocted an elaborate scam to steal goods worth an estimated £10,000, charging an accomplice as little as £8.49 for goods worth £200, but to suspend it?

The judiciary is supposed to be independent of all other government agencies, it’s not for us to worry about adequate prison places, that’s the job of the prison service and when we start concerning ourselves with the effects of the sentences we pass on other government departments it throws into question the whole ethos of an independent judiciary, who should pass sentences which are both just and in accordance with the law, and let someone else fret about the consequences.

Lest We Forget

September 11th 2001

Cameras In Court

The Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke has announced his intention to put before Parliament ‘as soon as time allows’ proposals to allow the televising of court proceedings.
Initially this will be restricted to broadcasting just the judgments in the Court of Appeal, with the intention to expand this same idea into the Crown Courts.

I’m unsure of the sense of such proposals as it will be impossible, from the Judges’ remarks and sentence alone, to get any real impression as to whether justice has been served in any particular case.

I also fail to see how, in Ken Clarke’s words, this will “allow the public to judge for themselves how we are performing and to hold us to account."

It seems to me that you should either broadcast all the proceedings of a case, evidence, witnesses, verdict, sentence etc. or, as at present, none at all. Of course that may be the ultimate aim and outcome and Mr Clarke is simply adopting the ‘salami principle’, getting what he wants one slice at a time.

Living in Cloud Cuckoo Land

So Ken Clarke thinks the penal system has broken down because three out of four of those involved in the recent city centre riots had previous criminal convictions – shock horror, now there’s a surprise!

His, and Boris Johnson’s view, seems to be that all would have been well if only those criminals had been given more probation and less prison. It would be interesting to see how true this assumption is and how many times those rioters had been given the opportunity to reform, and rejected it in favour of a life of crime.

Of course, Ken Clarke, to whom punishment is a dirty word, is unlikely to reveal such statistics in case it shows that his pre-conceived notion that non-custodial sentences are not the Holy Grail after all and it is more, not less, prison sentences which are the best deterrence to criminality.

Truly this man is living in cloud cuckoo land but in case it's thought this is the 'get Ken Clarke blog' I do agree with him on one point when he says "the key to creating a productive member of society is to ensure that each person has a job, a strong family, a decent education and, beneath it all, an attitude that shares in the values of mainstream society".

That may well be the solution, the problem is how to achieve it.

It's Beyond Belief

The latest ruling by another out-of-touch judge is almost beyond belief, if it emanated from any other source it would be, but I’ve reached the state of no longer being surprised by anything said by the men and women in wigs.

Judge Fiona Henderson has, at the request of the Advisory Service for Squatters, ordered Camden Council to publicise all its empty properties. The only reason the Advisory Service for Squatters could possibly want this information is to tell people where to go to illegally occupy houses and cause Camden Council the cost, at Council Tax payers’ expense, of evicting them and making good the damage they will have undoubtedly caused.

Judge Henderson declared that squatters were not law-breakers, ignoring the fact that to enter a locked house without a key involves committing criminal damage, and the occupation of an un-owned house involves using gas, water and electricity paid for by someone else, which is theft, both of which are against the law and makes those doing so law-breakers, how could a legally-trained judge be unaware of the law of the land?

This would be lamentable on its own but Judge Henderson went on to contradict herself by saying that she accepted her ruling would ‘facilitate squatting and associated crime’.

Let’s get this right, one of Her Majesty's judges has made a ruling which she accepts will lead directly to criminal activity!

No! I was wrong, it is beyond belief!

Post Holiday Rant

Back from a very wet and not altogether enjoyable holiday in France I’m in the mood for a good rant, and perusing the newspapers on my return gives me plenty to rant about.

Top of my list is the report of a gentleman acquitted of assaulting a teenage yob who was terrorising his 92 and 84 year old neighbours.

The bit that disturbs me is when told the police would be called the 14 year old yob is reported to have yelled “What are the ****** police going to do?”
To which the answer is likely to be ‘nothing at all’, despite the Devon & Cornwall force being swift to act in arresting and detaining in custody the Good Samaritan neighbour.
And what have the Devon & Cornwall police to say in answer to this criticism – they had no-one available for comment!
Shame on you Devon & Cornwall police, you’d have someone ‘available for comment’ quick enough if your actions reflected better on you.

On the subject of teenage yobs, it has been reported that the 11 year old convicted for his part in the recent riots, and who was handed into police by his mother had, just three weeks earlier used a knife to slash the seats of a bus before setting the stuffing on fire, smashing a window and leaping out of the bus to escape.
Convicted of arson, criminal damage and carrying a bladed instrument he was given a 10 month Referral Order and for his part in the riots an eighteen month Supervision Order.
Remember we are not talking about a hardened adult criminal; this boy is 11 years old. It is said that his father is a convicted criminal and the boy, being beyond parental control, is now in the care of the Local Authority, but what future does he have but the prospect of more and more community punishments, then Youth Custody and ultimately prison?

Without attaching any blame to the mother in the above case, who clearly does not want to see her child go down the same road as his father, a survey of grandparents commissioned by the Mature Times magazine reveals that they consider the bad behaviour of children to be a result of poor parenting and the failure of parents both to set clear behavioural standards and to discipline their children.
As a statement of the b****ing obvious this takes some beating.

My final rant is reserved for Nigel Burke, writing in today’s Daily Express and arguing for a repeal of the ban on hunting with hounds.
He states the case of Tony Wright who, in 2007 won his appeal against conviction for illegal hunting the previous year. Mr Burke says that following the successful appeal the Crown Prosecution Service attempted to get Mr Wright re-convicted and when that failed they took his case to Judicial Review. This is a gross distortion of the facts!

The case of Tony Wright threw up a number of anomalies with the Act and for the clarity of future prosecutions, either private ones by the League Against Cruel Sports, as in the Banks case, or by the police/CPS, the CPS quite rightly asked the High Court to rule as to where the burden of proof in such cases lay, with the defence to prove they were acting legally, or with the prosecution to prove the opposite.
There was never any intention to re-convict Tony Banks, Nigel Burke is obviously unaware of the law on double jeopardy, and such an action would have been impossible.

This article, in a respected newspaper, illustrates the dangers of those with a little knowledge commenting on things they know nothing about using terms they don’t understand.

Rant for today over, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

Don’t make me laugh!

I can’t say I’m surprised by the intention in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill currently before Parliament to repeal the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to increase magistrates sentencing powers to 12 months, so much for Cameron’s tough talk on sentencing, but I’m appalled at the proposals to restrict the powers of the courts to remand in custody those whom the court pre-supposes are unlikely to receive a prison sentence.

What pray will happen to the prolific shoplifter, who commits offences never quite serious enough to warrant imprisonment but nevertheless will, as soon as he/she is released on bail, go on another spree of minor offending?
Or what about the common assault cases, now downgraded by the government’s poodle the Sentencing Council so that custody is unlikely ever to be an option, but where the court has substantial grounds for believing the defendant will, if granted bail, interfere with witnesses and so pervert the course of justice?

It is all too common in cases of petty violence, especially those involving Domestic Violence, for the victim to fear intimidation and/or further violence from the defendant and where only a custodial remand can properly protect the victim, even where the current guidelines effectively prevent the courts from passing a prison sentence for the actual offence.

And then there are those for whom conditional bail, bail with conditions of residence, reporting or non-communication either with co-defendants or witnesses, is routinely ignored. The courts only sanction for someone who will not comply with their bail conditions is to remand them in custody but even this will now disappear if:
“it appears to the justice of the peace that there is no real
prospect that the person will be sentenced to a custodial
sentence in the proceedings”.

These proposals are at best a ‘bail-bandit’s’ charter and at worst will lead to even more ineffective trials due to witness intimidation and therefore a denial of justice.

Punishment of offenders? – Don’t make me laugh!

Hard talk = soft justice

So the rioters in London and elsewhere will, according to David Cameron, ‘face the full weight of the law’! That must set the 11 and 12 year olds quaking in their designer trainers, like the 12 year old given a nine month referral order for burglary who told photographers outside court to ‘#+*#*@ off’, although with a mother who told reporters to ‘watch your #@**’#ing face’ what can one expect?
And what of the 11 year old girl, who travelled 16 miles specifically to join in the mayhem, which she said ‘made her happy’, and where did her parents think she was while she was engaged in hurling stones at shop windows? Another 9 month referral order for a girl who ‘wasn’t bothered’ because she ‘never thought we were going to get caught’.

Isn’t it high time to remove the restrictions on naming, and splashing the photographs, of these lawless creatures, and their dysfunctional parents, all over the newspapers so we, their teachers and prospective employers can all see them for what they are?

Might some good come out of all this, or will it just become another exercise in hand-wringing, ‘community initiatives’ and the pouring of further money down the plug-hole of ‘urban regeneration’?
Mark Reckless MP of the Commons Home Affairs committee thinks that parliament, not that ultimate soft-touch quango the Sentencing Council, should set sentences and the MP Rodger Gale called for an immediate increase in magistrates sentencing powers, but I should live so long!

Of course, and predictably, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice is reported to have said ‘If you are old enough to commit these crimes you are old enough to face the punishment’. This is the same Ministry of (in)Justice who restricts ‘punishment’ of feral children to a referral order, meaning they have to talk to a probation officer!!!!!!!
Well tell that to Judge Tim Devas who reminded all those dismayed at soft sentences;

‘If there are any criticisms of sentences handed down by the courts, if you want anyone to blame, then go and speak to the government. Do not blame the judges or the magistrates who do their jobs professionally and abide by the guidelines set down’.

All David Cameron’s hard talk, and the Ministry of Justice’s idea of punishment, is just so much propaganda while ever the courts are shackled by, and forced to adhere to, sentencing guidelines which neither reflect the public’s concept of justice or attempt to punish the offender.

Liberal Do-Gooders

The Institute for Public Policy Research (not another one!) is calling for jail sentences of less than six months to be replaced with community punishments.
They claim that short sentences are ‘expensive’ and ‘ineffective’.
Their director, Nick Pearce, is reported as saying that ‘low-level crime …… must be taken seriously’.
However, not it would seem, seriously enough to impose the type of sentence that society expects for those prolific, repeat offenders who have had more community ‘punishments’ than they’ve had hot dinners and which have consistently failed to bring about any change in their offending behaviour.

Spare me the liberal clap-trap which says that community ‘punishments’ are a magic wand which miraculously transforms hardened criminals into paragons of virtue, because they don’t! There is little, if any, difference in re-offending rates between those given them and those sent to prison, and at least prison is a real punishment, which is and should be the end result of criminal behaviour.

Saintly Grandmothers

I see there is another spate of hand-wringing over the grandmother given a tagged curfew order for causing unnecessary suffering to her pet dog.
Why is it grandmothers are deemed incapably of criminal activity?

It is reported that she is humiliated at being treated like a common criminal – well isn’t she?

And here I must take issue with Ann Widdecombe, writing in the Daily Express, who questions what good such a curfew will do. Well Ms Widdecombe, it's not supposed to 'do any good', it's supposed to be (shock - horror) a PUNISHMENT!

Atrocity in Norway

...for the Lord shall be thine
everlasting light, and the days
of thy mourning shall be ended.
Isaiah 60:20

Bang!..... Out of Order

I was gripped with a strange fascination reading the reports that an eight-year-old boy has been banned from playing his drums later than 10pm after neighbours complained to their local council of drumming into the small hours.

His father, recently fined £100 for breach of a restraining order, considers this restriction on his son’s nocturnal activities as, ‘bang out of order’!

I doubt this role model for his son intended it as a pun but shouldn’t an eight year old be in bed long before 10pm, in preparation for school, rather than taking lessons in advanced anti-social behaviour?

A Grubby Little Tale.

Daniel Bird, desperate “not to sponge off the state” by remaining unemployed, put up posters around his home town of Kingston–upon-Hull advertising himself for work.
Thankfully his initiative was rewarded with a job offer within days and we all ought to commend him and wish him well, but not the Bürgermeisters of Hull who instead accused him of offences under, wait for it, The Anti-Social Behaviour Act, the Highways Act and of criminal damage (to what pray?), and imposed upon him a £75 fine!

My, the jobsworths of Hull certainly know how to deal with the criminal elements of their dirty little town don’t they?

None more so than their chief jobsworth, the Assistant Head of Service for Community Safety, (important or what?) who I’ll warrant has never had to go job seeking in his life, and who is reported to have said “The Council has an obligation to act to prevent unauthorised fly posting”.

The laws of libel prevent me saying what I think of people like that, and of their ingrained attitudes, but if I were Daniel Bird I’d shake the dust of Hull off my feet as soon as possible, that grubby little ‘end of the road’ place doesn’t deserve him.

An End to Squatting?

I’ve written about squatters before, see My Blood Boils, 2nd May 2011, so I was intrigued by the announcement by the Justice Minister, Crispin Blunt that squatting is to be made a criminal offence and that ‘squatter’s rights’, as if such a thing ever existed, are to be scrapped.

It remains to be seen if the police will actually enforce any such law and prosecute the offenders. Personally I’m not holding my breath seeing as they persistently refuse to uphold the current laws of criminal damage and theft, inherent in all cases of squatting (unless of course the squat happens to be on the route of a Royal wedding)!

Needless to say, the spokesman of the Squatters Action for Secure Homes group condemned any such law claiming it “would only serve the interests of property speculators”, ignoring completely the devastating effects illegal squatting has on the ordinary homeowner who returns from his or her weeks holiday to find their home occupied by a bunch of eastern European immigrants, the locks changed, their furniture and possessions ruined and facing a long and expensive process before they can regain possession of that which is rightfully theirs.

I sincerely hope that Crispin Blunt’s proposals do become law and that the police vigorously enforce it for the sooner this scourge is lifted the better.

Love is blind

So the anarchist thug Charles Gilmour has been sentenced to 16 months in jail for his part in the student fees riots, quite right too!

Whilst I accept that a mother’s love can be, and often is, blind I’m astounded that Polly Gilmour has described her son, on her Twitter site, as “My poor gentle boy”, describing him as “the kindest boy I know” and saying the sentence is “entirely political”!

Just to remind ourselves, this “kind and gentle boy”, high on a mixture of Valium, LSD and whisky, swung off the Union Flag on the Cenotaph; hurled a bin at the royal cars; screamed “Arson”, “Destroy” and urged his fellow rioters to “storm Parliament”.

If that’s how Polly Samson has brought her son up to behave, and believes that it makes him “kind and gentle” then I despair, and why, if she’s so proud of him, did she bother to ‘scrub him up’ for court rather than let him appear in his riot gear?



Before!



After!

Love might be blind but there is no excuse for it being stupid as well.

I Should Live So Long 2

Is Ken Clarke for real?

First he’s all for letting criminals out of jail early, then for cutting their sentences in half, now he’s advocating bashing a burglar!
And not just bashing but using ‘whatever force is necessary’ including hitting them with a poker (hasn’t he heard, we don’t have pokers anymore – no open fires due to the Clean Air Act), or stabbing them with a kitchen knife!

He is reputed to have said, on the BBC, that if a householder does react in this way ‘he or she has not committed a criminal offence’ and that ‘nobody should prosecute and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes these steps’.

Well we’ll see how long it is before the police arrest another burgled householder and the Criminal Protection Society drag him or her before the courts while letting the burglar off with a caution.

Jail the burglar and commend the householder who bashed him?
I should live so long.

Capital Punishment

Following the conviction of Levi Bellfield for the murder of Milly Dowler, his previous convictions for the murder of two other women, and his suspected involvement in the gang-rape of teenage schoolgirls, there has, in the national press, been an altogether understandable revulsion at his actions and a call for such monsters to suffer judicial execution.

Leaving aside that the return of capital punishment is a non-starter, prohibited as it is by the Human Rights Act, and the fact that we no longer have any working gallows, or anyone trained in their use, I am reminded of the words of our most famous executioner, Albert Pierrepoint who, in his 1974 autobiography, Executioner: Pierrepoint, wrote:

“I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off”.

The problem with execution within a civilised society is that emotions become confused with justice.

It would seem that a significant, or at least a vocal, proportion of the population wanted Myra Hindley executed for her part in the 1960’s Moors Murders yet when Ruth Ellis was sentenced to death in 1955 a petition, signed by 50,000 people, was sent to the Home Office asking for clemency and the execution was roundly condemned both in the press and by the great and the good.

Yet Ruth Ellis committed a cold-blooded murder in broad daylight in a London street when she took a .38 calibre Smith & Wesson revolver from her handbag and shot dead David Blakely, shooting him four times while he lay on the ground.
At her trial at the Old Bailey she said in the witness box: “It's obvious when I shot him I intended to kill him”.

For all her obvious guilt, her execution led directly to the abolition of capital punishment in the United Kingdom in 1965, just a year before Myra Hindley stood trial.

So why did one woman receive such support, and the other such condemnation?

Why should there be such a call for one to hang and the other to be reprieved?

To re-quote Pierrepoint: “nobody wanted it (the death penalty) for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off” which will always be the case, and pandering to the press’s version of public opinion is no way to ensure that justice is done.

Role models

It has been reported that Martin Aspinwall, a 29 year old rugby league football player with Castleford Tigers, was recently convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when, in a drunken brawl, he broke another man’s jaw, hitting him so hard that in the process he dislocated his own shoulder.
Whilst awaiting sentence for this offence, and once again drunk, he led the police on a 10 mile long high-speed car chase through the streets of Wigan and surrounding towns.
For the assault he received an eight month jail sentence, suspended for two years and for dangerous driving while over the proscribed limit he was sent to jail for four months.

I’m a firm believer in the principle that once an offender has paid his or her debt to society they should be allowed to resume, and get on with their life, but…………

Those who are in the public eye, and who act as a role model for the young, have a greater responsibility than others so I view with concern the report that Aspinwall’s club coach has said he will be welcome back into the squad at the end of his sentence.

I hope that both Aspinwall and Castleford Tigers will use their undoubted influence with their young supporters to reinforce the message that such action is both despicable and unacceptable and that other young men will not look upon Aspinwall as a role model for their future behaviour.

Children, Crime and Prison

Amazing what you see on children’s television (courtesy of my grandson).
CBBC today had a report about children in prison, and some ‘child expert’ predictably condemning the practice.

It would seem that she has little regard for the murder of James Bulger by two children, the rape of a girl by two Doncaster children and the gang of boys, some as young as 13, who repeatedly shot two London teenagers for their iPods and phones.
Prison? Oh dear me no, children shouldn't be in jail.

The Youth Offending Board say that a quarter of all children between the ages of 11 and 16 have committed a crime in the past year, and of those excluded from school almost two-thirds admitted doing so.

Stealing or threatening someone were the most common offences among both groups of children.

The top five crimes among school pupils were fare-dodging, graffiti, shoplifting, criminal damage and carrying a weapon.

One in five also admitted stealing from school, handling stolen goods, or stealing from home.

One in four excluded pupils said they had stolen a mobile phone within the last year.

About 40% admitted vehicle theft and arson, a quarter had attempted burglary and almost one in five claimed to have carried a gun.

But she says, prison is no place for children and discipline and punishment should be carried out by parents in the home.
Don’t blinkered morons like this realise that the very reason so many children are involved in crime is precisely because their parents either can’t, or won’t, discipline and control their off-spring?

One wonders what this do-gooder’s reaction would be if a gang of street urchins invaded her leafy suburb, armed with knives and baseball bats, stealing, destroying and maybe killing.
Whatever, I’ll bet it wouldn’t be ‘send them back to their parents for a good talking to’.

Sentencing for Assault

We had a demonstration today as to the effects of the new sentencing guidelines for assault.

The case in question, like so many allegations of Common Assault, was one of domestic violence.
It ticked all the boxes for aggravating features:
injury caused, a sustained attack, a breach of trust (common to all cases of domestic violence), committed whilst in drink (an all too common feature of DV cases), children present at the time of the assault and an attempt by the defendant to prevent the victim leaving and/or seeking help.

With two or more aggravating features the starting point is a custodial sentence and given the plethora of aggravating features, and the defendant's past record of like offending, we decided a sentence of 120 days imprisonment, reduced by a third for his guilty plea to 80 days, was appropriate.

Just out of interest we later compared this sentence under the old guidelines with what it would be come Monday when the new Sentencing Guidelines take effect.

Following the method set out in the guidelines:

The factor indicating greater harm:
Sustained or repeated assault on the same victim

The factor indicating lower culpability:
Lack of premeditation

This suggests it to be Category 2 offence ie greater harm and lower culpability, with a starting point of a medium level community order.

Statutory and other aggravating factors to take into account, which may result in an upward or downward adjustment from the starting point, or in some cases, to sentence outside the identified category range, are:

Previous convictions, the presence of children, the abuse of trust, the commission of the offence whilst under the influence of alcohol and the steps taken to prevent the victim from obtaining assistance.

There are no factors which reduce the seriousness or reflect personal mitigation.

Given these aggravating features an upward move of the starting point to a high-level community order would be justified, resulting in a sentence of a 12 month Community Order with a 12 month Supervision requirement, attendance on a ‘Safer Relationships’ program, and 210 hours of un-paid work, reduced by a third to 140 hours for his guilty plea.

Which is the more just, that or 80 days in jail?
Let me know what you think.

How are the mighty fallen

As judges are not amongst my favourite people just now, see ‘I Should Live So Long’, Monday 6 June 2011, I was tickled pink to read of judge Beatrice Bolton’s latest brush with the law.

> See here


This is the same judge who last year was convicted and fined £2,500 by Carlisle Magistrates after one of her dogs attacked her neighbour’s son and who has so little respect for the Magistrates that she described the findings of their court as “a ******* travesty”




It is the very same judge, who seemingly thinks she is above the very law she is sworn to uphold, that erected a garden dividing fence without first obtaining Planning Permission.
Not currently sitting at Newcastle Crown Court she is subject to an investigation by the Office for Judicial Complaints.
How are the mighty fallen indeed.

A Lesson from History

I was intrigued enough, on reading that ‘The Gemlich Letter’ had been bought by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, to read it for the first time:
read it here

Written in September of 1919, the letter espouses Adolf Hitler’s views on what he considers to be the ‘Jewish threat’ to post World War I Germany.
Whilst I do not, and emphatically reject, the central premise of the letter, and it’s conclusions, whether attached to Jews or any other ethnic minority, two paragraphs stood out as a chilling reminder of the dangers to any society of the separation of one culture from the mainstream of their country of residence, and here I quote from the letter:

“The danger posed by Jewry for our people today finds expression in the undeniable aversion of wide sections of our people”.

“And thus comes the fact that there lives amongst us a non German, alien race which neither wishes nor is able to sacrifice its racial character or to deny its feeling, thinking, and striving. Nevertheless, it possesses all the political rights we do”.

The persecution of any ethnic minority is now prohibited by law, and rightly so, but no-one could have imagined that one of the most civilised and cultured of nations, as Germany was, and is again, could have ever embarked upon the course of conduct it did in the 1930’s and 40’s.
That being said, there will always exist the danger that where there “lives amongst us” an “alien race which neither wishes nor is able to sacrifice its racial character or to deny its feeling, thinking, and striving” racial intolerance will flourish and will fuel the fires of extremism.

If we can learn one lesson from history it is this; that in any socio/economic conflict the minority will, in the end, lose, they will not re-build society in their own image nor impose their will upon the majority.
Integration will always involve sacrifice by those wishing to integrate; it is to be hoped that in this new multi-cultural Britain the will to make such sacrifices exist.

I should live so long

In late 2010 an unemployed young man, taking part in an extensive drinking session, ran out of beer and took a friend’s car in order to buy more. Driving without either licence or insurance he ran a red light and crashed broadside into another car. Thankfully no-one was hurt but our friend fled the scene of the accident and was arrested too late to be breathalysed.
For, amongst other things, the aggravated taking of a vehicle without the owner’s consent, he was later sentenced to a large number of hours of un-paid work and you might think he was lucky to avoid a jail sentence.

He consistently failed to turn up for work, despite having additional hours imposed and being given the stark and unequivocal warning that further breaches of the order would result in it being revoked and him being sent to prison.

After more failures to comply with the order the Probation Service finally lost patience with him and summoned him to court for revocation and re-sentence.

He didn’t attend court and it took a warrant without bail to ensure his attendance. In court the Probation Officer expressed the opinion that he had no confidence that this individual would carry out any form of community-based punishment.
The order was duly revoked and he was re-sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment, again a rather lenient sentence giving the circumstances.

He duly appealed the sentence and appeared before a judge in the Crown Court who promptly quashed the prison sentence and, despite the Probation Service’s reservations, re-imposed the un-paid work order but cut it in half, leaving him with a sentence less that he got for the original offence and ignoring the contempt with which he’d treated the previous order.

I have no idea what thoughts were going through the judge’s mind but I do know that justice, the rule of law and the protection of the public were concepts not amongst them. If anyone can equate for me His Honour’s decision with these ideals and the circumstances of this case then I’d be greatly obliged for I confess I don’t understand it, and I doubt I ever will.

How Not To Prosecute

Two men walk into a scrapyard weighed down with lead, clearly taken from a roof.
Mr Plod duly arrests them and determines that the lead is an exact match for that stolen from a house in Wakefield, West Yorkshire.

Now at the very least they are guilty of handling stolen property but the police go the whole hog and charge the men with theft.

When the men appear in court the Criminal Protection Society, who prefer to be known as the Crown Prosecution Service, offer no evidence, the charges are duly dismissed and the men walk away.

In a letter to the victim of the theft the CPS say the men should not have been charged by the police as they denied the theft, well they would wouldn’t they?

Not surprisingly, when this matter hit the newspapers, the CPS somewhat sniffly deny their decision to discontinue the charges had anything to do with the men pleading ‘not guilty’ and related instead to ‘evidential issues’.

Obviously being caught red-handed is not enough for the organisation that ‘Couldn’t Prosecute Satan’.

It’s a wonder the Police don’t just give up in despair.

Road Safety

The government’s recently published Strategic Framework for Road Safety

read here

seems to have got the press and television reporters into something of a lather.
Their concerns seem to be centred on the proposals to introduce a ‘new’ law of careless driving, no such thing!
That law already exists but what is proposed is to empower the police to issue a fixed penalty notice for ‘careless driving’.

I see nothing fundamentally wrong in this approach, very few such cases come to court as it is, I suspect because in most cases, the relativity minor ones, the police see such offences as not worth the bother of mounting a prosecution. If a fixed penalty is available, with a penalty points endorsement, it will, if nothing else, be a more robust approach that the current verbal warning.

As to the rest of the Strategic Framework there are some very sensible proposals and ideas.
The stated ‘Key Themes’ are to make it easier for road users to ‘do the right thing’, with better education and training for children and learner and inexperienced drivers. It proposes remedial education for low level offences and for those who make mistakes, (which may be far more effective in the long term than a fine and a licence endorsement), alongside tougher enforcement for the small minority of motorists who deliberately chose to drive dangerously; extending this approach to cover all dangerous and careless offences, not just focusing upon speeding.
It’s long been advocated by numerous road interest bodies that the police currently put far too much emphasis on speeding, through the over-reliance on speed cameras, and not enough on the generally appalling standard of driving exhibited by a majority of road users.
The idea to increase the range and use of educational courses that can be offered in place of fixed penalty notices to develop safer and more responsible driving behaviour, and the development of courses that courts can offer in the place of imposing a disqualification, is a progressive step towards improving the standard of driving in this country and should, if carried through, lead to safer roads through better driving.

The proposals to make it mandatory for disqualified drivers to be re-tested before regaining their licence, and developing special tests linked to remedial training, similar to those currently in place for drink-drivers, and for making that course mandatory rather than optional as it is now, are also positive steps towards safer roads.

One other welcome consideration is to increase the fixed penalty notice charge for uninsured driving, which is currently set far too low at £200 and has no relation to the actual cost of obtaining insurance for a great many drivers.

It’s a fact that less than 20% of road accidents are attributable to speeding and if these measures signify a change from the persecution of motorists through the hated Gatso and its ilk and towards a system which addresses the 80% of accidents caused by bad driving then I for one am all in favour.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

The making, by judges, of the so-called ‘super injunctions’ has had some unintended consequences; at least I hope they were unintended.
Whereas, without such injunctions the press and other media would be free to report the truth, or at least the allegations, the muzzling of the UK media has led to widespread ‘revelations’ on the Internet, on Twitter and the like.
Such ‘reporting’ whilst technically subject to the courts jurisdiction is, especially when originating from outside the UK, impossible for the courts to enforce, leading to, amongst others, Gabby Logan and Jemima Khan being forced to deny their involvement with notable celebrities.

These injunctions have presented those who peddle gossip and innuendo with a golden opportunity to make mischief and illustrate the problems inherent with making up the law ‘on the fly’ rather than after reasoned discussions in Parliament and elsewhere, which is how the law should be made, not in the way the judges are currently doing.

The Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt is reported as saying that Twitter was ‘making a mockery’ of privacy laws – well Mr Hunt you ought really to know that there are no ‘privacy laws’ in the UK at present – that’s just the problem, the judges are making such laws up as they go along!

Legal Aid

The word is that the government, in their never-ending quest to save money, is now targeting the provision of Legal Aid, specifically the reduction, or in some cases the removal, of aid in a wide range of Civil and Family Law cases; for example, divorce; employment tribunals; school exclusion appeals; clinical negligence; and personal injury.

Not only does the government wish to cut the Legal Aid bill, it hopes, by restricting that aid, to reduce the number of cases that come to court, effectively denying to all but the rich the redress for wrong that the court system provides.

Whilst it cannot be denied that the bill for Legal Aid has reached record heights, around two thousand million pounds a year, the idea that access to the courts will be denied to large sections of the community has met with some strong opposition.
The Bar Council says that such a move will ‘compromise the very rights and freedoms which underpin our society’. The Law Society calls the proposals ‘short sighted’ and ‘a false economy’ while the Children’s Commissioner for England calls them ‘potentially devastating’.

It seems to me that a judicial system which side-lines those on low incomes, who are likely to be most at risk from unfair persecution and at the same time least able to defend themselves, is no justice at all.

‘Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer’ is the noble sentiment engraved over the doors of the Central Criminal Court, a sentiment that appears to be lacking within the Ministry of Justice.

A National Scandal

Mark Townsend in ‘The Observer’, Sunday 8 May 2011,
read here
reported that the National Association of Probation Officers (Napo) has condemned as "scandalous" the fact that hundreds of dangerous offenders, including those assessed as likely killers, are routinely released after serving half their sentence, despite most of them having failed to carry out any rehabilitation work or showing any remorse for their crimes.

According to the Napo report, during a two-week period last month more than 30 prisoners considered to pose a high or very high risk to the public were released, or about to be released, which must surely bring into question the 2005 law that stipulates all offenders sentenced to a fixed prison term are automatically released once half of their sentence is completed, regardless of their circumstances.

As Harry Fletcher, Napo's assistant general secretary, said: "It is scandalous that hundreds of prisoners are being released from custody automatically when they have completed half their sentence, despite assessments that they are of high risk of harm to the public. Case histories published by Napo show clearly that there is no incentive for certain prisoners to comply with rehabilitation plans in prison because they will be released when they have done half their time anyway”.

Whilst I entirely agree that this law is nothing short of a national disgrace, with the government putting the cost savings derived from cutting prison numbers before public safety, it’s a bit late now to decide one’s chickens have come home to roost. Where was Napo when this proposal was first mooted, and the proposal was that prisoners released early would be subject to supervision by the Probation Service? Now, when it’s been predictably shown that such a system does little or nothing to protect the public and prevent further crime, is a little late for a Damascene Conversion.

Last night a Ministry of Justice spokesman predictably said: "Reducing reoffending and protecting the public lies at the heart of our work”.

Tell that to the victim of a 40-year-old man, a convicted stalker from the Thames Valley area, who within two days of his release had turned up at his victim's house and conducted extensive Internet searches on her, even though he had previously been assessed as likely to kill her.

I wonder which parts of "reducing reoffending and protecting the public” does the Ministry of Justice not understand

"Our 'Enery"

In memory of Sir Henry Cooper KB,OBE, (3 May 1934/1 May 2011) – past British, Commonwealth and European Heavyweight Champion and a true gentleman of the ring, we shall not see his like again.

My Blood Boils......

We’ve heard so many times the police saying, in response to squatters taking over someone’s home, “It’s a civil matter, there’s nothing we can do”, not it seems if the particular squat is anywhere near the route of a Royal Wedding!
On the 28th April police raided squats in Camberwell, Hackney and Sipson and arrested and removed twenty illegal occupants.
The police’s justification was that they suspected the crime of the theft of electricity had been committed.
Those arrested were later bailed with conditions preventing them returning to the squats.

It seems to me that two criminal elements must exist in all cases of illegal occupation; breaking in causes criminal damage and the use of the connected services is theft.
Why then do the police consistently refuse to use the powers they’ve demonstrated they have? Is it just laziness or is it a complete disregard for upholding the law that prevents them from arresting and removing squatters and giving them bail conditions to stop them returning to the premises?

Whatever it is it makes my blood boil. Come on coppers, get off your behinds and do what you’re supposed to do, protect and defend the law-abiding citizens plagued by this modern-day curse.

I'm Disgusted!

It’s not often that I see something that fills me with disgust but a story in Thursday’s Daily Express did just that when I read that the management of United Biscuits’ Glasgow factory had ordered staff to take down their Union Flag as it was considered ‘offensive’!
Since when has the country’s flag been ‘offensive’, and to whom?
Well in order to give the maximum offence to anyone who so decries their country’s banner…………

Injunctions

The granting last week by Mr Justice Eady of a worldwide gagging order, known as a contra mundum, to protect a certain television personality from publication of details of his private life, after it emerged a woman had attempted to sell intimate photographs of him to the press, has led to disquiet in various quarters.

The latest to join the condemnation of such ‘gagging orders’ is Private Eye editor Mr Ian Hislop after Andrew Marr, the BBC's former political editor, admitted he obtained a High Court order in January 2008 to silence the press following his extra-marital affair, especially as Mr Marr had previously said that Parliament, not judges, should determine privacy law.

Last week Prime Minister David Cameron sounded a warning about the way judges, "rather than Parliament", are creating a new law of privacy:
"The judges are creating a sort of privacy law whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is Parliament, which you elect and put there, should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening".

Although the exact numbers are unknown (with the so-called ‘super injunction’ it is even prohibited to report that the injunction has been granted) what is clear is that a large number of celebrities, television personalities and Premier League footballers have, in recent weeks, been granted injunctions which ban newspapers and television from reporting stories about their behaviour.

Is this something we should be worried about?

Well it is extremely expensive going to the High Court for such an injunction, something simply out of reach of the ordinary citizen and it could, and is, argued that judges are effectively creating a two-tier system where the wealthy and powerful are able to buy a level of privacy not afforded to the rest of us.

Whilst there are factors of American life and jurisprudence that I am wary of one thing is certain, such moves by ‘celebrities’ to protect themselves from the consequences of their own indiscretions would be unsuccessful there.
The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably the single most important part of the Constitution, states:

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The ability to speak one’s mind is a right that Americans take for granted, a right it would seem we are in danger of losing to an un-elected body of judges who seem determined to create a law where one does not exist.

Today

Today is traditionally St George's Day, celebrating England's Patron Saint.

Short-sighted Policies

Sadiq Khan, the Shadow Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, gave a speech to the Fabians and the Prison Reform Trust on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 in which he said that the drive by the government to cut prison numbers was not on the grounds of criminal justice but purely on economic principles.
Regarding rehabilitation, he went on to say that he was unsure that the government was offering any real alternative to prison and that the policies of the Ministry of Justice were founded on the short-term need to cut costs not crime and that successful rehabilitation required resources.

In his view the government is taking a very short-sighted view of the rehabilitation process and in the long run are gambling with public safety and that, as a consequence, there is a real and genuine danger that, because of their policies, crime will rise.

I tend to agree with Mr Khan, watch this space as they say.

Dogs and Jackboots

The headline of a certain ‘red top’ newspaper caught my eye, such that I bought the paper to see what all the fuss was about.
The report states that a lady pensioner (as if that makes any difference – are pensioners above the law?) has been issued with a £70 fixed penalty notice by ‘jobsworth’ council park wardens using ‘jackboot tactics’ for letting her dog run in a park without a lead.
Well she admits she did, and she shouldn’t have and the rules should apply to any and everyone alike.

‘Jackboot tactics’ indeed, anyone would think the wardens had shot the dog!

There must be more important things to report on than this.

My Ideas on Dignity

I make no apologies for once more returning to the subject of piracy after reading a report in the Daily Express (Monday 18th April 2011).

According to the political and economic intelligence group Geopolicity, and the International Maritime Bureau, a Somali pirate can now earn £48000 a year from his criminal activities (150 times the average earnings in Somalia) and that there are as many as 1500 of them operating in the Red Sea/Indian Ocean.
The number of attacks has reportedly increased from 276 in 2005 to 445 last year, with 97 off Somalia in Jan to March 2011 in which 18 vessels were seized, 340 hostages taken and 7 sailors killed.

While this carnage continues unabated ‘experts’ gather for a conference in Dubai and our navy gives captured pirates cigarettes and lessons in how to treat hostages ‘with dignity’.

The ‘dignity’ I’d give these brigands would be delivered via a 4.5” gun!

Injustice and Shame

Andrew Ryan gets 70 days in jail for burning a copy of the Koran; Emadur Choudhury is fined £50 for burning a poppy at a Remembrance Day two minutes silence.

Is it just me who feels a deep sense of injustice and shame at such a disparity of sentencing?

Deportation and the Human Rights Act

Australia is deporting a Briton, a serial offender, back to the UK despite him having lived in Australia for more than 40 years and having a wife and three children.
We on, the other hand, can’t deport Aso Mohammed Ibrahim. an illegal immigrant, who fled the scene after killing a child when driving whilst disqualified because he has, yes a wife and two children in the UK and this would deprive him of his right to a family life under the Human Rights Act. It was reported that he is, like the UK resident of Australia, a serial offender having since racked up additional criminal convictions, including more driving offences and harassment.

It’s worth noting here that the right to a family life, as contained within Article 8 of the Act, is not an Absolute Right, it is a Qualified Right, ie one which has to be balanced against the rights of others, or the interests of society in general.

What Article 8 actually says is:

8(1). Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
8(2).There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I would have thought that the deportation of such an individual was ‘in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of crime and for the protection of others’ and I find it amazing that the judges thought otherwise and it would seem treated his ‘right’ to a family life as an absolute not a conditional one.

It’s rulings like this that give the whole Human Rights argument a bad name.

How to waste £11 million

An interesting snippet from the weekend’s papers:

A project to cut the re-offending rate for criminals jailed for up to one year has cost £11 million and has, it was reported, been ‘disappointing’ and has had no impact on re-offending rates. Those targeted by the scheme have shown a 42.4% re-offending rate, against a rate of 41.6% for those not given this special help - £11 million for a worse result!
Some people seem unable to grasp the simple fact we face in court every day, you can’t force rehabilitation on those who don’t want to be rehabilitated.

Law and Order

As I’ve written before, we are seeing more and more Poles and other eastern Europeans in court, but it is worrying, although hardly surprising, that APCO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, reports a disturbing trend that is becoming evident regarding crime in the UK.
More than 500 crimes a week are reported as being committed by EU migrants with Poles, Lithuanians and Romanians between them committing over 15,000 crimes in 2010.

There may be some benefit to the UK economy to be gained from this ‘economic migration’ but it seems the downside is the importation of cultures whose respect for Law and Order is considerably different from our own.

Burkas and Bans

So the ban on the burka, and other ‘full-face’ coverings, came into force in France yesterday.
I’ve no doubt that France, with its strict secular tradition, will make it work so would it work in the UK, and should it be tried?

Muslims are far more militant here than in France despite their far larger Muslim population, which was evidenced by a small demonstration in central Paris and a far larger one outside the French Embassy in London.
Is this because French Muslims embrace the ethos of the French Republic whilst many UK Muslims seem to want a form of separatism, both religious and secular?

But do we want to dictate what a woman can wear? One person’s freedom can be another’s tyranny and we need to ask ourselves what a free society actually means. Yes the burka and such like can appear threatening, and it is doubtless ‘un-British’, but is that reason enough?

Pirates Again

An article in the Sunday Express (10th April 2011) caught my eye regarding the freeing of Somali pirates by the Royal Navy.
According to the author, Jane Clinton, 700 pirates were caught and released in the first half of last year and that in February HMS Cornwall seized seventeen pirates armed with AK47 assault rifles and grenade launchers.
After freeing their five hostages the pirates were given a free meal, halal of course, a health check and then released to continue their barbaric pursuits.
The Navy is not to blame for this farcical situation; they are acting under Rules of Engagement set down by HM Government.

The incident is to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 8pm on Tuesday.

It’s little wonder that Jan Kopernicki, the former head of shipping at Shell, says that “It is essential that governments authorise the military to take determined action.”

While almost 800 people are being held hostage by the Somali bandits all the UK Foreign Office can say is that it is “appalling” and “unacceptable” – so do something about it!

The Decision to Prosecute

Trials Court last week and a lady charged with failing to comply with a red traffic light.
Two police constables claimed that she’d failed to stop when the lights were clearly at red, something she strenuously denied. She’d been offered a Fixed Penalty, £60 and 3 points on her licence, but had chosen to come to court and argue her case before us.

We did wonder why she was risking a large fine, paying for a solicitor and the payment of court costs if found guilty, when she had a clean licence and the 3 points would be no great hardship.

The two police officers gave their evidence and it was only under cross examination that it transpired that one of them was an officer under training, specifically in the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices, and that he had a certain quota to reach in order to qualify.

We had no evidence to support a suspicion that a lone lady driver had been deliberately targeted in order that the requisite number of tickets could be issued that day, but we were sufficiently impressed with the quality and clarity of her evidence, and her apparent sincerity, to acquit her and order that her legal costs be met from Public Funds.

I’m sure the fact that she was black had no bearing on the decision to prosecute her.

Fairies In Your garden

I see that Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary (there’s a joke in there somewhere) is being hammered again, this time by senior members of the judiciary, over his plans to cut jail terms in half for those criminals who plead guilty.

The example given by some of the most senior judges in the land is that someone sentenced to three years imprisonment will serve a maximum of only nine months; yes that’s not a misprint – nine months! Three years cut in half is eighteen months and automatic release after serving half the sentence means out to commit further offences in just nine months, less any time spent on remand.
Where a persistent offender, and/or ‘bail bandit’, is remanded in custody awaiting trial or sentence, which could easily be two months, that time will be taken off his sentence, thus the nine months comes down to seven, or even less if made subject to a home curfew.

So a sentence for, say, repeated aggravated burglary, which merits a three year jail sentence, in reality amounts to a little over one sixth of that.

Ken Clarke calls this justice (told you there was a joke in this didn’t I?) and the Ministry of Justice (another joke?) says this measure will reduce crime!

Well if you believe that then there must be fairies at the bottom of your garden.

Piracy

The murder of four innocent Americans by Somali pirates must surly provide the final justification for the western nations, especially America, France and Great Britain, to start dealing with these brigands in the only way they’ll understand – with overwhelming force.

Until we put aside our concern for their human rights, and the territorial integrity of Somalia, an un-governed lawless place, and start administering summary justice, the execution of the pirates and the destruction of their boats and bases, this killing of innocent people will simply escalate out of control.

It cannot be outside the expertise of the American Delta Force, the British Special Boat Squadron and the SAS combined, to storm and destroy the pirate’s bases in Somalia - and if Somalia doesn’t like it well tough – they shouldn’t provide a safe haven for thieves and murderers.

As far as international law is concerned piracy is considered to represent the earliest invocation of the concept of universal jurisdiction and those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity).

The above may sound both harsh and reactionary but we know from experience that the paying of ransoms, which is blackmail by any other name, merely fuels the fire and encourages more brigands to join the pirates and reap these rich rewards, while at the same time financing more pirate ships and weapons. There is no incentive for the pirates to stop, if caught they are simply released to continue their lawless ways, and there is no authority within their own land, wracked as it is by civil war and in the grip of War Lords, to enforce any code of civilised behaviour. In such a situation the western nations have the right to protect themselves, their ships, trade and citizens from such people and ensure the freedom of the seas.

To quote from the Royal Naval Prayer:
Preserve us from the dangers of the sea and from the violence of the enemy, that we may be…………………… a security for such as pass on the seas upon their lawful occasions.

Is it not time to put these words into action?

It's Never All Bad

It was ‘Traffic Court’ yesterday, the first one I’ve done for some time, and a disturbing trend was evident, that of the foreign national, uninsured, with no driving licence and unable to speak English.
Young men in the main, and predominately from Eastern Europe, they exhibited little or no understanding of the traffic laws in the UK and the requirement to hold a driving licence, to pass a driving test and to obtain insurance.
Without exception they all claimed to be without a job, and mostly ineligible for State Benefit, yet they could afford, on this non-existent income, to both buy and run a motor car!

I can only assume that those we saw are working in the ‘black economy’ and whether the imposition of penalty points on their non-existent driving licences, and in some cases a disqualification from driving, will have any modifying effect on their driving behaviour only time will tell, but I’m not holding my breath.

On the plus side they were unfailingly polite, deferential to a degree I rarely see in court these days, and accepted without question the court’s judgement; they must be doing something right in Poland!

The Weekend News

Over the weekend I’ve read various newspaper reports which illustrate the strange state of modern British society.

Adam Pardoe breaks into the home of 70 year old woman, hits her twice in the face with a concrete block before stealing money and a gold watch just four weeks after receiving a community sentence for burglary, and I’ll bet the Pre-Sentence Report prepared by the Probation Service at the time said the risk of reconviction was low.

The shooting of five year old Thusha Kamaleswaran has revealed some insights into the gang culture in south London. According to a news article in the Sunday Express, an eighteen year old girl has, as part of her college studies, made a video called ‘Pushed To The Trigger’, which allegedly shows 8 and 9 year olds ‘rapping’ about ‘I’ll shoot my gun’. If there’s any truth in this report then I’d be interested in what the justification is for any college encouraging the acceptance of gun violence, for I’m damned if I can think of any.

On another topic altogether, it’s been reported that 400 Community Support Offices issued just 19 penalty notices in three years, as if this is evidence of their ineffectiveness. The Police, including CSOs, are there as much as anything else, as a visible deterrence to the commission of crime, not to dish out penalty notices like confetti at a wedding. One suspects the same reporter would be accusing these same CSOs of over-reaction if they’d issued 1900 PNs over the same period.
Some folk just can’t win.

What a waste

I was in our private court last week when we had a number of cases being prosecuted by the local authority, four car-parking violations and one alleged contravention of a hire car licence.
The presenting officer for the Council, who’d travelled 10 miles to be with us, one-by-one withdrew each of the car parking matters and then left the court.
His place was then taken by another officer of the same Council, who had also travelled 10 miles to the court, and who promptly offered ‘no evidence’ in the hire car case and invited us to dismiss the charge.
Now all the car-parking matters could have been withdrawn by post and if it was necessary to send an officer about the hire car allegation why couldn’t he have dealt with all the Local Authority cases that morning?
Do you think that this particular LA has not quite grasped the concept of cost-savings?
How many Local Authority officers does it take to say ‘we’ve changed our mind’?
Answers on a postcard please to The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Human Rights and that Act

I see constantly in the newspapers reports and articles condemning the Human Rights Act and blaming it for many ills, both real and imagined, and calling for its repeal, on the basis that it is something enforced upon us by Europe and the EC when nothing could be further from the truth!
The Human Rights Act merely gives UK courts the power to determine issues arising from the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is to this we must look.

In 1941 US President Franklin D. Roosevelt articulated the four freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
Nothing anti-British there!

In 1946, in a speech at the University of Zurich, Sir Winston Churchill called for a United States of Europe and the creation of a Council of Europe and in 1948 in Paris the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represented a global expression of the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled.

So far so good?

The Council of Europe itself, as advocated by Churchill, was founded on 5 May 1949 by the Treaty of London which was signed on that day by ten states: Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

At the Hague Congress in 1949 of the Council of Europe, representatives from all walks of life called for a convention on human rights following the atrocities of the Second World War and the British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, guided the drafting of the Convention. He had been a prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and had seen at first hand how international justice could be effectively applied.

The Convention was drafted in broad terms, in a similar manner to the English Bill of Rights, the American Bill of Rights, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and was designed to incorporate a traditional civil liberties approach to securing "effective political democracy" from the strongest traditions in the United Kingdom, France and other member states of the fledgling Council of Europe.

Thus it can be seen that there is nothing about the Convention that is contrary to British values, indeed it is those same British values which underpin the entire Convention and Britain was a major player in its creation.

Far from the Convention being somehow un-British, fostered upon us by Europe, it would be more accurate to say that it was Britain who applied to Europe our standards of behaviour. Indeed, it was always the justification given for the UK, prior to the Human Rights Act, not ratifying the Convention into English Law - for that was how we did things anyway and didn’t need a Convention to tell us how to behave.

Insurrection

A sovereign nation is facing armed insurrection by a politically and religiously motivated minority.
The legitimate government of the day responds with armed force, some of the rebels are killed by the government forces.
Certain other nations view this conflict as government oppression and the rebels as freedom fighters.
They decide to intervene in the struggle, siding with the rebels.

Libya 2011? No, Northern Ireland 1969!

Of course the foreign intervention in Ireland didn’t happen, but how would you have reacted if it had?

I find it hard to justify an action upon others I’d object to if directed against myself.

Sentencing for assault

I am appalled at the decision of the Sentencing Council, who produce the sentencing guidelines for both the Crown and Magistrates’ courts, to downgrade all but the most serious assault cases, but especially so concerning that dealing with the offence of ‘Assault on a Police Constable in the Execution of his Duty’.
http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/forthcoming-guidelines.htm

Under these new guidelines, which the courts must follow unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying diversion, only the most serious of such assaults will result in imprisonment.

It has been a long-held principle of sentencing that those performing a public service should be afforded rigorous protection by the courts, and non more so than the police.

We enjoy something that few other countries do, an unarmed police force, and if we expect our police to put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf then we owe a corresponding duty to offer them the protection that comes from the certain knowledge that those who seek them harm will go to prison, no ‘ifs’ no ‘but’s’!

OK so the prisons are full, but there are lines which we cross at our peril, and this is one of them. None of us want to see a repetition of the unacceptable face of policing evident at some recent demonstrations but we can’t have it both ways. If the courts are unable, through the dictates of the Sentencing Council, to protect the police then it is logical to expect them to protect themselves, and that takes us down a road I don’t wish to travel.

None so blind

So the Howard League for Penal Reform wants to remove from Magistrates the power to imprison, no surprise there then.
They are quoted as saying we “overuse our sentencing powers” and their proposals would “reduce short term sentences” and force Magistrates to “work more closely with community projects and programmes”.
Such tosh could only come from an organisation so blinkered in its view that it is determined to avoid reality.
Magistrates view imprisonment as a sentence of last resort, and use community sentences far more than they do jail, but where criminals refuse to comply with these community sentences, an unfortunately far too common occurrence, the court must resort to it's ultimate sanction. Indeed, without the implied threat of jail it is likely that very few community sentences would be completed at all but to this uncomfortable fact the Howard League, in their ivory tower, turns a blind eye.
Truly, there are none so blind as they that do not want to see.

Hypocrisy

It had been my intention not to comment on the case of Emdadur Choudhury but I was intrigued to read (Daily Express Monday 14th March) that his father Mohammed Gouse Miah served with the Royal Naval police for 14 years. Had things turned out differently the poppy Choudhury burned may have been the one representing his father!
Little wonder then that Mr Miah is appalled at his son’s actions.

Mr Choudhury professes to abhor Britain and all things British although it would seem that his abhorrence does not extend to the freedom of speech won by those whom the poppies represent and which would be denied him in those lands he so admires under the Sharia Law he seeks for Great Britain.
I can’t abide a hypocrite!