"Never in the field of human conflict, was so much owed, by so many, to so few"
Winston S Churchill
Saturday, 15 September 2012
Battle of Britain Day
"Never in the field of human conflict, was so much owed, by so many, to so few"
Winston S Churchill
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
Double Think on Freedom of Speech
Looking through one of my favourite blogs ‘The Diary of a Legal Eagle’ (and one wonders why lawyers are not precluded from blogging, as Magistrates are?) I came across an interesting bit of double-think.
In the 2012 case of Chambers v DPP (a case brought under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003), the Lord Chief Justice no less said in judgement for the plaintiff
"The 2003 Act did not create some newly minted interference with the first of President Roosevelt’s essential freedoms – freedom of speech and expression. Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by this legislation."
A pity the Senior Presiding Judge, and the Chairman of Council of the Magistrates’ Association, didn’t have those words in mind when formulating their recent ban on Magistrates blogging.
As to the question I asked at the top of this post, it would seem that barristers, officers of the High Court, can publish blogs highly critical of certain decisions in the Magistrates’ Courts, going so far as to name the particular benches, a move quite likely to, in the SPJ’s words “damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general”.
They, the lawyers, can make such comments without risk of censure, is that because judges such as the Senior Presiding Judge are ex-barristers themselves, that all lawyers must stick together but Lay Magistrates are just ignorant little people to be controlled.
Surely not, for that would be an exhibition of extreme prejudice, and quite unthinkable.
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
The Wonderful World of IT
Court today and an opportunity to see the CPS's new digital process in operation.
see here for the plan
The Crown Prosecutor's laptop looked like something found in a skip, and performed like one! Time after time her attempt to connect to the Internet, and so access various case files, failed.
Records of past offending, vital under the new Guidelines for assessing seriousness - not available!
Details of convictions previously dealt with by a Conditional Discharge, and liable for re-sentencing - not available!
Current bail conditions - not available (although the defendant kindly provided them himself)!
It's not the Prosecutors' fault, they are doing their best with inadequate equipment and a system not up to the task, but that's no help to the Courts.
Welcome to the future.
Friday, 7 September 2012
Good news, and not so good
The good news is that I'm delighted to be proved wrong.!
See here
It would seem the Crown Prosecution Service has had a rush of common sense and instructed the Leicestershire Police, after three days in custody, to release the man and wife who shot two burglars at their home.
They are not to be charged but the burglars are - hooray!
Some more good news is that, at long last, the Government intends to make squatting a criminal offence, time will tell just how the police will react to such matters in the future.
The best news of all is that at last we are rid of Ken Clarke as Justice Secretary, how his successor will fare we shall have to wait and see, but he can't be any worse.
The not so good news comes fromTeeside Crown Court where a true disciple of Ken Clarke, His Honour Judge Peter Bowers, a self-proclaimed 'softie', praises the courage of a three-times burglar!
Now it must be obvious I'm no fan of the Sentencing Guidelines but they're there and we, and Judge Bowers, are stuck with them.
It would seem that Richard Rochford broke into three houses, two of which were occupied at the time, one by a 73 year old man and his 71 year old wife, and attempted to burgle another one, stealing a considerable amount of property including making off with one of his victim's cars.
If the Guidelines on sentencing had been followed then such multiple offences, committed at night to occupied properties and under the influence of drugs, ought to have resulted in a sentence of 3 years imprisonment, reduced to 2 years for a guilty plea. In fact Judge Bowers imposed a 12 month sentence, suspended for 12 months and his praise for the criminal has led to a number of complaints, and an official investigation into his comments by the Office for Judicial Complaints, although, regrettably, not into his sentencing.
It has been said that Judge Bowers is one of the tougher judges at Teeside Crown Court, God help us if that's the case.
Monday, 3 September 2012
Swift and Sure? Or An Admission of Failure
I've been reading the White Paper, "Swift and Sure Justice: The Government’s Plans for Reform of the Criminal Justice System".
Yes I know, I need to get a life!
Whilst there is a lot in the proposals with which I agree the over-riding conclusion is that it represents an admission of failure by the Government to deal with the Criminal Justice System.
For example:
The paper says "The unprecedented rise in the use of out-of-court sanctions ...... has raised concerns about whether they have been used appropriately".
Well Magistrates have been saying this for some time, it's taken long enough for the Government to realise this folly of its own making.
Also, "alcohol related harm is estimated to cost society £21 billion each year" and "The Government’s Alcohol Strategy........includes introducing stronger powers for local areas to control the density of licensed premises including making the impact on health a consideration".
Isn't this the because the last Government introduced a free-for-all in licensing hours, and removed from local Magistrates the power to control alcohol licensing?
On community sentences, the paper is proposing reform:
"to make them an effective and credible means of tackling the high rate of re-offending".
Could this be an admission that they are neither effective or credible?
On IT, and I've mentioned this before, here the paper admits that:
"Significant resources have been invested in technology over the last decade. However, the public has not seen sufficient return on these substantial investments..................projects such as Libra, in the magistrates’ courts, and C-NOMIS for offender management suffered severe delays, ran over budget and did not deliver the functionality promised.
Poor investment decisions led to wasted resources, with programmes implemented in a way which reinforced the silo working approach, rather than helping to overcome it. There are few examples of criminal justice agencies sharing services; the agencies’ systems are not well integrated with one another" .
What an admission of failure!
It doesn't get any better, on video the paper admits it will aim to:
"create a unified infrastructure that will allow full interoperability of all different HMCTS video equipment so that every camera can be used with every screen".
Because at present it doesn't, often the police provide video evidence that the court's video player can't read, you couldn't make it up!
I don't know what to make of the proposals to:
"empower a lay magistrate, sitting alone, to deal with certain low-level uncontested cases, in some cases outside traditional court buildings".
The paper says it is about
"magistrates, engaging with the people in their communities ".
This from a Government that has presided over the wholesale slaughter of local justice in the closing of hundreds of local court houses, no wonder they talk of dealing with cases "outside traditional court buildings".
That's because there aren't any truly 'local' ones anymore!
Yes I know, I need to get a life!
Whilst there is a lot in the proposals with which I agree the over-riding conclusion is that it represents an admission of failure by the Government to deal with the Criminal Justice System.
For example:
The paper says "The unprecedented rise in the use of out-of-court sanctions ...... has raised concerns about whether they have been used appropriately".
Well Magistrates have been saying this for some time, it's taken long enough for the Government to realise this folly of its own making.
Also, "alcohol related harm is estimated to cost society £21 billion each year" and "The Government’s Alcohol Strategy........includes introducing stronger powers for local areas to control the density of licensed premises including making the impact on health a consideration".
Isn't this the because the last Government introduced a free-for-all in licensing hours, and removed from local Magistrates the power to control alcohol licensing?
On community sentences, the paper is proposing reform:
"to make them an effective and credible means of tackling the high rate of re-offending".
Could this be an admission that they are neither effective or credible?
On IT, and I've mentioned this before, here the paper admits that:
"Significant resources have been invested in technology over the last decade. However, the public has not seen sufficient return on these substantial investments..................projects such as Libra, in the magistrates’ courts, and C-NOMIS for offender management suffered severe delays, ran over budget and did not deliver the functionality promised.
Poor investment decisions led to wasted resources, with programmes implemented in a way which reinforced the silo working approach, rather than helping to overcome it. There are few examples of criminal justice agencies sharing services; the agencies’ systems are not well integrated with one another" .
What an admission of failure!
It doesn't get any better, on video the paper admits it will aim to:
"create a unified infrastructure that will allow full interoperability of all different HMCTS video equipment so that every camera can be used with every screen".
Because at present it doesn't, often the police provide video evidence that the court's video player can't read, you couldn't make it up!
I don't know what to make of the proposals to:
"empower a lay magistrate, sitting alone, to deal with certain low-level uncontested cases, in some cases outside traditional court buildings".
The paper says it is about
"magistrates, engaging with the people in their communities ".
This from a Government that has presided over the wholesale slaughter of local justice in the closing of hundreds of local court houses, no wonder they talk of dealing with cases "outside traditional court buildings".
That's because there aren't any truly 'local' ones anymore!
A Rotten State
It can't be right that 70 year old man, born in what was then British India, to a British Army Officer father and who can trace his British ancestry back to the 14th Century has had his passport revoked and is facing deportation!
The Home Office and UK Boarder Agency are congenitally incapable of deporting thousands of illegal immigrants, and such undesirables as the Muslim hate cleric Abu Qatada, but give them a decent upstanding citizen whose family has served this country faithfully and well for 120 years and they're lightning fast with the deportation order.
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark".
Hamlet (Act 1 - Scene 4), Marcellus to Horatio
The Home Office and UK Boarder Agency are congenitally incapable of deporting thousands of illegal immigrants, and such undesirables as the Muslim hate cleric Abu Qatada, but give them a decent upstanding citizen whose family has served this country faithfully and well for 120 years and they're lightning fast with the deportation order.
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark".
Hamlet (Act 1 - Scene 4), Marcellus to Horatio
Just Deserts?
Four men break into a house during the night and two of them are shot, not fatally, by the homeowner.
One might think that a dose of buckshot up the behind is just what they deserved.
Needless to say, the police see things differently and the homeowner and his wife are arrested.
Despite the Governemnt's assurance last November that 'the law is on their side' when homeownwers try to protect themselves and their homes against intruders, what's the betting that the would-be burglars will be let off with a 'Community Punishment', if they are even charged, but that the easy-target homeowner will end up in jail?
One might think that a dose of buckshot up the behind is just what they deserved.
Needless to say, the police see things differently and the homeowner and his wife are arrested.
Despite the Governemnt's assurance last November that 'the law is on their side' when homeownwers try to protect themselves and their homes against intruders, what's the betting that the would-be burglars will be let off with a 'Community Punishment', if they are even charged, but that the easy-target homeowner will end up in jail?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)