An illuminating article in The Law Gazette took my eye
read it here
In light of the proposals to privatise the courts the author makes a cogent argument for returning control of Magistrates' Courts away from the despised Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) and back to the local community, as it was in the good old days of Magistrates' Courts Committees.
OK, so she's not advocating the return of MCCs but the idea that courts should, or could, be run locally by a board of local people, Police Commissioners, Magistrates, Local Councillors etc. seems eminently preferable to them being run by Tesco.
It's highly unlikely of course. As the author says, central government always disliked the autonomy of MCCs and it is inconceivable that having wrested control away from local people it will voluntarily relinquish that control now, more's the pity.
The author is quite right when she says that magistrates now have no influence over the running of the courts, despite having many ideas on how they could be run more efficiently, and feel like hired hands, expected to preside over justice, but having no input into its administration.
I can think of no better way of restoring that lost pride and feeling of worth, which was an integral part of being a Magistrate when I was appointed, than adopting the ideas in this article
Friday 21 June 2013
Richard Madeley and Contempt of Court
You read some dangerous stuff in the newspapers.
I picked up an article written by Richard Madeley in the 'Richard & Judy' page of the Daily Express (Saturday 8th June) relating to contempt of court proceedings, and his decrying the lack of vigour with which these were pursued in the preliminary hearing of the Michael Adeblajo case.
My reading of his article is that he is in favour of imprisonment without trial and in this he harks back to what he considers were 'the good old days' when he was a cub reporter, it seems as if he's learnt nothing since!
Just because someone asks questions of the court, and in an open society shouldn't we encourage this, or puts his hands in his pockets, is no cause to imprison them for days or weeks at a time, which Richard seems to think is 'a good idea' - well I don't, and it isn't!
The days when an over-officious judge or magistrate could imprison someone on a whim are long gone, thank goodness. We aren't some tin-pot, third-world, despotic regime, and I suspect the great Richard would be amongst the first to condemn such regimes if they acted in his preferred manner against a British subject, we are a shining light in democratic justice, and we shouldn't allow the Richard Madeleys of this world to poison our minds.
Apart from the emotive aspect, and enough of that, R Madeley seems to have forgotten, if he ever knew, some pertinent legal facts. The first being Article 5 of the Human Rights Act - The right to liberty and security, in that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person and that no one shall be deprived of his liberty save after conviction by a competent court.
No imprisonment without trial in other words.
There are also the Criminal Procedure Rules, April 2013 which sets out, in some detail, the laws and procedures governing alleged Contempt of Court, section 62.5 deals with contempt by disruption etc.
Very briefly then:
The first step in any contempt proceedings is to offer the accused free legal advice if he or she doesn't already have it.
Secondly, the court must explain, in plain language, what is the conduct that is in question.
Thirdly, the accused must be given the opportunity to apologise, and if thought necessary an undertaking not to repeat the behaviour, in which case that is the end of the matter.
If an apology is not forthcoming then the accusation must be put to the accused and if he/she accepts they were in contempt, unlikely if they won't apologise, then the court, after making a full enquiry can, after again giving the accused the opportunity to apologise, impose punishment, which as with all punishments must be appropriate to the offence and in the case of contempt in the Magistrates' Court ranges from a fine up to a maximum of £2500 or imprisonment for one month (or both).
However, if the alleged contempt is denied there must be a trial on the issue (no imprisonment without trial remember).
Such a trial must be heard by a different court to that which was supposedly insulted/disrupted, one can't be a judge in your own cause, and the disrupted/insulted Magistrates become, in effect, witnesses as to fact.
The whole issue of contempt is so difficult that official advice to Magistrates is to effect wherever possible 'judicial deafness', small wonder then that the Magistrate in the Adeblajo case took the line that he did. He was obviously aware of the pitfalls of possible contempt proceedings, it's pity Richard Madley didn't do a little research, and even better some thinking, before making his ridiculous and damaging comments.
I picked up an article written by Richard Madeley in the 'Richard & Judy' page of the Daily Express (Saturday 8th June) relating to contempt of court proceedings, and his decrying the lack of vigour with which these were pursued in the preliminary hearing of the Michael Adeblajo case.
My reading of his article is that he is in favour of imprisonment without trial and in this he harks back to what he considers were 'the good old days' when he was a cub reporter, it seems as if he's learnt nothing since!
Just because someone asks questions of the court, and in an open society shouldn't we encourage this, or puts his hands in his pockets, is no cause to imprison them for days or weeks at a time, which Richard seems to think is 'a good idea' - well I don't, and it isn't!
The days when an over-officious judge or magistrate could imprison someone on a whim are long gone, thank goodness. We aren't some tin-pot, third-world, despotic regime, and I suspect the great Richard would be amongst the first to condemn such regimes if they acted in his preferred manner against a British subject, we are a shining light in democratic justice, and we shouldn't allow the Richard Madeleys of this world to poison our minds.
Apart from the emotive aspect, and enough of that, R Madeley seems to have forgotten, if he ever knew, some pertinent legal facts. The first being Article 5 of the Human Rights Act - The right to liberty and security, in that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person and that no one shall be deprived of his liberty save after conviction by a competent court.
No imprisonment without trial in other words.
There are also the Criminal Procedure Rules, April 2013 which sets out, in some detail, the laws and procedures governing alleged Contempt of Court, section 62.5 deals with contempt by disruption etc.
Very briefly then:
The first step in any contempt proceedings is to offer the accused free legal advice if he or she doesn't already have it.
Secondly, the court must explain, in plain language, what is the conduct that is in question.
Thirdly, the accused must be given the opportunity to apologise, and if thought necessary an undertaking not to repeat the behaviour, in which case that is the end of the matter.
If an apology is not forthcoming then the accusation must be put to the accused and if he/she accepts they were in contempt, unlikely if they won't apologise, then the court, after making a full enquiry can, after again giving the accused the opportunity to apologise, impose punishment, which as with all punishments must be appropriate to the offence and in the case of contempt in the Magistrates' Court ranges from a fine up to a maximum of £2500 or imprisonment for one month (or both).
However, if the alleged contempt is denied there must be a trial on the issue (no imprisonment without trial remember).
Such a trial must be heard by a different court to that which was supposedly insulted/disrupted, one can't be a judge in your own cause, and the disrupted/insulted Magistrates become, in effect, witnesses as to fact.
The whole issue of contempt is so difficult that official advice to Magistrates is to effect wherever possible 'judicial deafness', small wonder then that the Magistrate in the Adeblajo case took the line that he did. He was obviously aware of the pitfalls of possible contempt proceedings, it's pity Richard Madley didn't do a little research, and even better some thinking, before making his ridiculous and damaging comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)