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Now all the car-parking matters could have been withdrawn by post and if it was necessary to send an officer about the hire car allegation why couldn’t he have dealt with all the Local Authority cases that morning?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.
Saturday 26 March 2011
Wednesday 23 March 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday 22 March 2011
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.
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.
Sunday 20 March 2011
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.
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.
Monday 14 March 2011
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.
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!
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!
Sunday 6 March 2011
Fines Aren’t So Fine
Time was fines court was a test of both nerve and skill, but not so any longer.
Nowadays, most fine defaulters are dealt with by the Fines Enforcement Officer leaving only two main types who need to go before the Bench, those who clearly are unable to pay their fines and those claiming ‘it weren’t me guv’.
The first lot are usually those who, over a period of time, have managed to amass fines sometimes running into the thousands of pounds, usually as a result of non-appearance at court and a fine being imposed in their absence. This can mean that they’d be paying their fines for the next 20 or 30 years.
‘So what’ you might say – ah but those placed in high above us have decreed that:
(a)we can’t take more than £5 per week off a benefit claimant, and the majority of fine defaulters are on some form of State Benefit, and
(b)fines should be re-payable in 12 months.
Effectively, it limits a benefit claimant’s fines to approx £250, the rest we are compelled to ‘remit’, cancel by any other term.
The second category comprises those who, following a speed camera violation, claim they never received the request to confirm the identity of the driver and were consequentially fined in their absence. Strangely, they usually receive the fines notice which brings them hot-foot to court but can rarely, if ever, give any cogent reason why the camera violation notice, a reminder, and a summons all mysteriously went astray.
One man last week beat all pervious records for ‘missing’ post. In addition to the three above he also claimed he had ‘never received’ the fine notice and two reminders about paying his fine, a total of six ‘missing’ articles of post. It took a warrant without bail to get him into court where he promptly made a Statutory Declaration that he’d been unaware of the proceedings and his conviction and fine was thereby quashed.
To say we didn’t believe a word he said is an understatement but if he makes a ‘Stat Dec’ I have to sign it, admittedly with a stern warning about the consequences of a long time in jail if he commits perjury by making a declaration he knows to be false.
Sometimes I’m compelled by law to do things I perceive as being ‘not right’, and which I’d have difficulty justifying to anyone outside the court or legal system.
Nowadays, most fine defaulters are dealt with by the Fines Enforcement Officer leaving only two main types who need to go before the Bench, those who clearly are unable to pay their fines and those claiming ‘it weren’t me guv’.
The first lot are usually those who, over a period of time, have managed to amass fines sometimes running into the thousands of pounds, usually as a result of non-appearance at court and a fine being imposed in their absence. This can mean that they’d be paying their fines for the next 20 or 30 years.
‘So what’ you might say – ah but those placed in high above us have decreed that:
(a)we can’t take more than £5 per week off a benefit claimant, and the majority of fine defaulters are on some form of State Benefit, and
(b)fines should be re-payable in 12 months.
Effectively, it limits a benefit claimant’s fines to approx £250, the rest we are compelled to ‘remit’, cancel by any other term.
The second category comprises those who, following a speed camera violation, claim they never received the request to confirm the identity of the driver and were consequentially fined in their absence. Strangely, they usually receive the fines notice which brings them hot-foot to court but can rarely, if ever, give any cogent reason why the camera violation notice, a reminder, and a summons all mysteriously went astray.
One man last week beat all pervious records for ‘missing’ post. In addition to the three above he also claimed he had ‘never received’ the fine notice and two reminders about paying his fine, a total of six ‘missing’ articles of post. It took a warrant without bail to get him into court where he promptly made a Statutory Declaration that he’d been unaware of the proceedings and his conviction and fine was thereby quashed.
To say we didn’t believe a word he said is an understatement but if he makes a ‘Stat Dec’ I have to sign it, admittedly with a stern warning about the consequences of a long time in jail if he commits perjury by making a declaration he knows to be false.
Sometimes I’m compelled by law to do things I perceive as being ‘not right’, and which I’d have difficulty justifying to anyone outside the court or legal system.
Saturday 5 March 2011
Some Good Excuses?
I was amused reading the latest briefing note from the TV Licensing Authority to see what the latest excuses were for not having a TV licence.
“I’ve got no TV licence because when I called TV Licensing they refused to barter with me. Everything should be up for negotiation”.
“My house was invaded by a squirrel which wee-ed on my TV so now it doesn’t work properly”.
“I don’t watch the television, I just use it as a light in the dark”.
Wish we got excuses like that in court, it would certainly brighten my day!
“I’ve got no TV licence because when I called TV Licensing they refused to barter with me. Everything should be up for negotiation”.
“My house was invaded by a squirrel which wee-ed on my TV so now it doesn’t work properly”.
“I don’t watch the television, I just use it as a light in the dark”.
Wish we got excuses like that in court, it would certainly brighten my day!
Don’t Believe All You Read In The Newspapers
I was somewhat surprised to read a report in the Daily Express (Friday 4th March) that only 1 in 5 of those found in possession of a knife were sent to prison.
The report says that 31% received a community sentence; 13% a suspended sentence and 21% a police caution.
This seems to contradict the above headline as that leaves 35% unaccounted for, who presumably did go to prison, and 35% is over a third, not 1 in 5!
In the case of the 13% who received a suspended sentence, the court obviously found that the offence was so serious that it merited a prison sentence, but for reasons we can’t know decided to suspend the sentence, and the 21% who received a police caution are outside the court’s jurisdiction, which leaves 31% who received a community sentence.
Now given that the starting point in the Sentencing Guidelines are that the lowest level of possession of a knife should result in a prison sentence, and that courts should follow these guidelines unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so, the 31% who received a non-custodial sentence is bad enough but it is a matter for the courts and certainly not, as the Express contended, the fault of the government and the current liberal Justice Secretary.
The government have given the courts the power, and the higher courts the direction, to imprison those caught in possession of a knife and it is up to the courts to use those powers wisely. There will always be exceptional circumstances in all types of cases where a deviation from the guidelines is justified, I only hope that was the case for all those where the court imposed a community penalty for carrying a knife.
The report says that 31% received a community sentence; 13% a suspended sentence and 21% a police caution.
This seems to contradict the above headline as that leaves 35% unaccounted for, who presumably did go to prison, and 35% is over a third, not 1 in 5!
In the case of the 13% who received a suspended sentence, the court obviously found that the offence was so serious that it merited a prison sentence, but for reasons we can’t know decided to suspend the sentence, and the 21% who received a police caution are outside the court’s jurisdiction, which leaves 31% who received a community sentence.
Now given that the starting point in the Sentencing Guidelines are that the lowest level of possession of a knife should result in a prison sentence, and that courts should follow these guidelines unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so, the 31% who received a non-custodial sentence is bad enough but it is a matter for the courts and certainly not, as the Express contended, the fault of the government and the current liberal Justice Secretary.
The government have given the courts the power, and the higher courts the direction, to imprison those caught in possession of a knife and it is up to the courts to use those powers wisely. There will always be exceptional circumstances in all types of cases where a deviation from the guidelines is justified, I only hope that was the case for all those where the court imposed a community penalty for carrying a knife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)