Let Them Do Their Worst

Following the general outcry against the recent restrictions placed upon Magistrates 'blogging', or other wise expressing opinions 'on-line'

HERE

AND HERE

the Magistrates Liaison Group discussed the issue at its meeting on the 23rd October and the Chairman of Council of the Magistrates Association, John Fassenfelt, who supports the restrictions, presented the arguments for and against to the meeting.

The Group concluded that the 'guidance' had been approved by members of the Senior Judiciary and so it was not felt that there was a case to withdraw or amend it.

So much for the MA sticking up for the rank and file magistrate and the time-honoured concept of freedom of speech.

I for one intend to ignore the 'guidance' and let them do their worst.
European Court of Human Rights here I come.

Despair

I despair at the continuing inequalities in sentencing.

A Leeds football fan attacked the Sheffield Wednesday goalkeeper, leaving him essentially unarmed but 'shocked and dazed' and for Common Assault received a 16 week prison sentence.
Joanne Armstrong carried out a 'very violent' attack as the ringleader of a gang of thugs, stamping on her victim with her stiletto shoe leaving him with a fractured jaw. Having pleaded guilty to causing Grievous Bodily Harm she walked free with a derisory eight month suspended sentence.

Why is this so unequal?
Lets look at the Sentencing Guidelines, which all courts are bound to follow.
Common Assault
Injury less serious, = lesser harm and with no higher culpability factors puts it into category 3, or at the worse category 2.
Aggravating features, in a public place, mitigating features, single blow, cancel each other out.
Entry point for sentencing, at category 3 a fine, at category 2, a medium level community order.
16 weeks custody? How?

Now for GBH.
Serious injury (a broken jaw) and a sustained assault = greater harm
Use of a weapon (a shod foot) and a leading role in a gang = greater culpability which puts this firmly into category 1, for which the starting point for sentencing is 3 years imprisonment.
8 months suspended?
How?

I continue to despair.

21st Century Policing

What is it with the police?

Ian Tomlinson, a homeless newspaper salesman, was pushed to the ground by a police officer and an inquest jury ruled he had been 'unlawfully killed' and that the police officer used 'excessive and unreasonable force' which led to his death.

The Gwent Police attack the car of a 73 year old with boots and batons, so severely that they cause £9800 worth of damage, for nothing more than a minor traffic infringement.
Read it HERE

They are viewed by a large part of the population as the enemy rather than the protector of the public.

They present, and seem to relish, in presenting a frightening appearance, clad more like para-militarists than bobbies.

Now Chorley police attack a blind 62 year old man with a Taser, a 50,000 volt electric stun gun, for carrying a white stick which they thought was a Samurai sword!
I don't know which is worse, the fact that they attacked an innocent man, or that they can't tell the difference between a white stick and a sword.
See if you can differentiate between them

(the sword is on the right).

I wonder how much longer 'policing by consent' can survive in such circumstances, and while this seems to be the vision of 21st Century policing.

Tough but Unintelligible

So hug-a-hoodie  'Call me Dave'  Cameron in a major law and order speech says he wants a tough but intelligent approach to law and order, whatever that means.
What seems certain is that he will not countenance the provision of more prison places but will continue Ken Clarke's mantra of 'Community Punishments'.
He sugars this particular pill by saying that in future all 'community punishments' will contain an element of.........punishment!
Well I never, don't they now then?
Obviously not!

He also seemed to suggest that outside groups would be involved in the provision of non-custodial sentences, with 'payment by results'.
Given that over half of those sentenced to 'community punishments' go on to re-offend within twelve months it would take a brave organisation to take on a task which history tells us is doomed to failure.

A definition of insanity is continuing to repeat the same failed course of action in the hope of a different outcome next time, a good definition of 'community punishments'!

Trafalgar Day

Today is Trafalgar Day, the celebration of the victory won by the Royal Navy, commanded by Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson over the combined French and Spanish fleets at the Battle of Trafalgar, 21 October 1805

Legal Aid and Duty Solicitors, or the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Traffic court yesterday revealed an interesting aside to the Governments restrictions on legal aid, particularly the duty solicitor scheme which operates in all courts. For the uninitiated, duty solicitors provide free legal advice and representation to un-represented defendants in court, although their free help and advice only extends, in most cases, to those facing an allegation which upon conviction carries imprisonment.

Thus, those facing allegations of driving without insurance, or licence, speeding and other such offences, must either employ a solicitor of their own or represent themselves, which is what most choose to do.

A number of cases came before the court yesterday which illustrated the difficulty caused by un-represented defendants.

One was charged with 'no insurance', despite having an insurance certificate which clearly showed he was insured, to drive a third-parties car not belonging to him, and a police report from the Motor Insurer’s Bureau saying he was insured, but not to drive a third party's car!

This case had to be adjourned for further enquiries to be made as we could not be confidant enough of guilt to convict.

Another was a defendant accused of driving without a licence, despite producing a full clean licence to the court. In this case it was reported that the DVLA had rescinded (wrongly as it turned out) her licence, a quick check with the DVLA revealed that after being stopped by the police, and a DVLA check having been carried out, the DVLA, realising their mistake, had promptly re-instated her licence, at no time informing the luckless driver what they had done.

The CPS took the wise decision to offer no further evidence and the case was dismissed.

Another unfortunate driver, having been stopped by the police and given a 'producer', to produce his document within five days at a police station, was charged with having no insurance, no licence, no MOT and failing to produce his documents as required.

In court he not only produced documents showing he had a full clean driving licence, comprehensive insurance and an up-to-date MOT certificate, he also had a receipt from his local police station showing all these documents had been produced within the required timescale, and that they were all in order.

Again, an embarrassed CPS solicitor was forced to offer no evidence and invite us to dismiss the charges.

None of the above, and a raft of similar 'cock-ups' were the fault of the CPS, who can only work with the information given them, but each case took upwards of half an hour to resolve, given the difficulties a court always faces when dealing with un-represented defendants who know nothing of court procedures, and often little about road traffic law and regulations.

Had these defendants been able to call upon the Duty Solicitor it is likely that none would have taken more than a few minutes to resolve, and may not even have got into court. Instead, for those three cases alone, one and a half hours of court time, three magistrates, a court clerk, an usher and a Crown Prosecutor were engaged in fruitless activity while 'genuine' cases went by-the-by.

I can't begin to guess what the cost of all this was, but I'll bet my pension it far exceeds what twenty minutes of a duty solicitor's cost would be.

The law of unintended consequences strikes again.