Content




It is inevitable that, being who I am, this blog will contain a fair bit of comment on legal matters, including those cases which come before me in court. However, it is not restricted to such and may at times stray ‘off-topic’ and into whatever area interests me at the time.

All comments are moderated but sensible and relevant ones, even critical ones, are welcome; trolling and abuse is not and will be blocked.

Any actual case that I have been involved in, and upon which I may comment, will be altered in such a way as to make it completely unidentifiable.





Monday 23 April 2012

St George's Day


Today is the day to celebrate England's patron saint, and everything English; Shakespeare said it best:


This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,—
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

King Richard II. Act ii. Sc. 1.

Saturday 21 April 2012

A Betrayal


I admit to being astounded at the recent decision at Basildon Crown Court to sentence a 16-year-old to just 60 hours of community service, a three-month curfew and a three-year supervision order after he admitted wounding with intent and affray.
The youth, one of a gang of three, stabbed a 46 year old man three times in his back in an attempt to rob two schoolboys.

Now the Sentencing Guidelines for Wounding with Intent to do Grievous Bodily Harm, contrary to the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (section 18) says that, for a category 2 offence, which this undoubtedly was, the starting point should be 6 years imprisonment.
Even at the lowest category the starting point is one of 4 years custody.
Just carrying a knife, and where it’s not used should, according to the Court of Appeal in the 2008 case of R vs Povey, result in 12 weeks custody.

It takes a leap of the imagination which eludes me to find so much mitigation in sentencing to go from 6 years custody to 60 hours of un-paid work!

I can only assume the judge was influenced more by Ken Clarke than he was by the Sentencing Guidelines for last October our notoriously soft Justice Secretary said, to a Commons committee, that he opposed the concept of automatically locking up young knife criminals, saying it was wrong to suggest that every 13-year-old caught using a knife should be sent to jail.

It is frankly farcical to have the Government appointed Sentencing Council saying one thing, and the Justice Secretary saying exactly the opposite.

It’s little wonder the general public has lost faith in this government’s commitment to law and order, and to the protection of the people who elected it. I suspect they will pay dearly for this betrayal at the ballot box.

Monday 2 April 2012

Big Brother is going to watch you.


The government says is considering including a Bill in next month's Queen's Speech to extend its ability to monitor all phone calls, emails and Internet use in the UK, a Bill which would force ISPs to install hardware on their servers which would enable GCHQ, the government's spy headquarters, to access "on demand" communications data stored on them without the necessity of first obtaining a court order.

This would allow the government to monitor everyone in the UK's emails, phone calls and which web sites they have visited.
Every email to your child, every status update for your friends, every message to your mistress, all would be monitored by GCHQ, at all times.

The Home Office Minister, James Brokenshire, has denied that it is the government's intention to form a giant database,"absolutely not" he says, and insists that the content of the calls, emails etc will not be monitored - just where and when they were made or sent, and to whom, and of course we believe him, and who will be able, once this facility is in place, to prove otherwise.

He has also said that the reading of people's Facebook conversations by GCHQ would be "disproportionate", although he doesn't say they won't do it, and does admit they could be "looked at", and if that isn't 'reading' what is?

When the last Labour government tried to introduce a similar Bill the present coalition partners opposed it, it hasn't taken them long to change their minds.

Nick Pickles, director of campaign group Big Brother Watch, has said the move is "an unprecedented step that will see Britain adopt the same kind of surveillance seen in China and Iran".
Conservative MP Dominic Raab says it would "fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between the state and the citizen" and turn every individual "into a suspect".

At present, our freedom and privacy is protected by the courts by saying: 'If you want to intercept someones private conversations and it is a terrorist or a criminal, go and ask a Magistrate to approve your request.'

Conservative MP David Davis said the planned changes would remove that protection
and in an interview with the BBC went on to say that "you shouldn't go beyond that in a decent, civilised society, but that is what is being proposed."

The cost of installing the tens of thousands of specialised pieces of hardware to monitor the country's Internet traffic by ISPs is expected to run into billions of pounds, a cost which Internet Service Providers would have little choice but to pass it on to their customers so that British Internet users would be paying extra to allow their government to spy on them more effectively.

Big Brother would not only be watching you, but would be charging you for the privilege.

Some, particularly government ministers, in an attempt to justify these plans, will no doubt say what, throughout history, every tyrant that ever existed has said to excuse their mechanics of repression and surveillance:

"It's for your own good''
"It's for the greater good of all"
"It's to combat dissidents"
"Law-abiding people have nothing to fear"

These very same sentiments were expressed by Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao and are used now by tyrannical regimes worldwide, be it China, Iran or North Korea.

David Morrish, a long serving Liberal Party councillor expounded the Liberal Party's principles before the last election when he said that the party was born out of the struggle for individual freedom and that "We will fight excessive government interference".
The Liberal Party's main pre-election manifesto stated quite clearly that they, the Liberal Party existed to create a liberal society and that they opposed the “Database” State.

The Colchestaer Conservative Association articulated the principles of the Conservative Party by saying that the core Conservative principles which provide the basis for all policy are that Conservatives stand for less interference from the state – freedom for individuals, families, voluntary groups and businesses and that they believe that the more you trust people, the more power and responsibility they are given, the stronger they and society become.

I never thought I would live to see the day that a Conservative-led government, in partnership with the Liberals, would be prepared to ignore these sentiments.
It shows that their so-called principles are no such thing and that they will set them aside, and all the traditions of freedom that countless millions have given their lives for, in their pursuit of power, power pure and simple over what was once a free people.