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.
Monday, 11 April 2011
Thursday, 7 April 2011
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.
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?
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!
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!
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, 26 March 2011
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)