Well this is him outside court, does he look ‘remorseful and ashamed’?
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
A Shameful Action
I’ll not comment on the sentence passed on Kallan Richardson for throwing a house brick through a car window, hitting a four year old child in the face and causing severe injury, but I noticed his solicitor said he was ‘remorseful and ashamed of his actions’.
Well this is him outside court, does he look ‘remorseful and ashamed’?
Well this is him outside court, does he look ‘remorseful and ashamed’?
Trials
I was in trials court last week, two cases, both very different but with one thing in common, both were cases of one person's word against another, with no independent evidence to corroborate either's version of events.
It's always difficult in such circumstances to make a judgement, a finding of fact, and sometimes more so than others. In the first case we came to a decision fairly quickly, the defendant’s story was neither credible nor believable, and I think he knew it; the second case was trickier.
Both the complainant and the defendant gave good and clear evidence and both were entirely credible, so how to choose between them?
In all trials it's the job of the prosecution to convince us, such that we are sure, of the defendant’s guilt, if there is any reasonable doubt then we must acquit.
In this particular case it was, as so often, the small things that tipped the balance, not so much what was said but how it was said and what questions were left unanswered.
We were two-one for conviction in the end but it took us almost a hour to get there and I was then left with the difficult task of explaining to the defendant that we didn’t believe him, and why, something that can prove awkward for some magistrates.
Juries in Crown Court trials are spared this part of the judgment process, simply announcing guilty or not guilty while we have to give reasons for our decisions, which can mean at times such as these effectively calling someone a liar.
It goes with the territory of being a court chairman and it is far better now than when I first started, when guilt was pronounced and sentence passed without ever giving any explanation as to our reasoning, but why I wonder are not juries obliged to also give reasons for their decisions? It seems to me that there is a dichotomy here when a defendant leaves the Magistrates’ Court knowing how a decision was reached, but not when leaving the Crown Court.
It's always difficult in such circumstances to make a judgement, a finding of fact, and sometimes more so than others. In the first case we came to a decision fairly quickly, the defendant’s story was neither credible nor believable, and I think he knew it; the second case was trickier.
Both the complainant and the defendant gave good and clear evidence and both were entirely credible, so how to choose between them?
In all trials it's the job of the prosecution to convince us, such that we are sure, of the defendant’s guilt, if there is any reasonable doubt then we must acquit.
In this particular case it was, as so often, the small things that tipped the balance, not so much what was said but how it was said and what questions were left unanswered.
We were two-one for conviction in the end but it took us almost a hour to get there and I was then left with the difficult task of explaining to the defendant that we didn’t believe him, and why, something that can prove awkward for some magistrates.
Juries in Crown Court trials are spared this part of the judgment process, simply announcing guilty or not guilty while we have to give reasons for our decisions, which can mean at times such as these effectively calling someone a liar.
It goes with the territory of being a court chairman and it is far better now than when I first started, when guilt was pronounced and sentence passed without ever giving any explanation as to our reasoning, but why I wonder are not juries obliged to also give reasons for their decisions? It seems to me that there is a dichotomy here when a defendant leaves the Magistrates’ Court knowing how a decision was reached, but not when leaving the Crown Court.
An Independent Judiciary?
I find it utterly amazing that Judge Johnathan Hall could suspend the 8-month prison sentence he passed on a thief on the basis that prison places are in high demand following the recent riots. (Daily Express 9th September 2011).
An 8 month sentence is little enough considering the thief in question, while employed by Asda, concocted an elaborate scam to steal goods worth an estimated £10,000, charging an accomplice as little as £8.49 for goods worth £200, but to suspend it?
The judiciary is supposed to be independent of all other government agencies, it’s not for us to worry about adequate prison places, that’s the job of the prison service and when we start concerning ourselves with the effects of the sentences we pass on other government departments it throws into question the whole ethos of an independent judiciary, who should pass sentences which are both just and in accordance with the law, and let someone else fret about the consequences.
An 8 month sentence is little enough considering the thief in question, while employed by Asda, concocted an elaborate scam to steal goods worth an estimated £10,000, charging an accomplice as little as £8.49 for goods worth £200, but to suspend it?
The judiciary is supposed to be independent of all other government agencies, it’s not for us to worry about adequate prison places, that’s the job of the prison service and when we start concerning ourselves with the effects of the sentences we pass on other government departments it throws into question the whole ethos of an independent judiciary, who should pass sentences which are both just and in accordance with the law, and let someone else fret about the consequences.
Sunday, 11 September 2011
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
Cameras In Court
The Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke has announced his intention to put before Parliament ‘as soon as time allows’ proposals to allow the televising of court proceedings.
Initially this will be restricted to broadcasting just the judgments in the Court of Appeal, with the intention to expand this same idea into the Crown Courts.
I’m unsure of the sense of such proposals as it will be impossible, from the Judges’ remarks and sentence alone, to get any real impression as to whether justice has been served in any particular case.
I also fail to see how, in Ken Clarke’s words, this will “allow the public to judge for themselves how we are performing and to hold us to account."
It seems to me that you should either broadcast all the proceedings of a case, evidence, witnesses, verdict, sentence etc. or, as at present, none at all. Of course that may be the ultimate aim and outcome and Mr Clarke is simply adopting the ‘salami principle’, getting what he wants one slice at a time.
Initially this will be restricted to broadcasting just the judgments in the Court of Appeal, with the intention to expand this same idea into the Crown Courts.
I’m unsure of the sense of such proposals as it will be impossible, from the Judges’ remarks and sentence alone, to get any real impression as to whether justice has been served in any particular case.
I also fail to see how, in Ken Clarke’s words, this will “allow the public to judge for themselves how we are performing and to hold us to account."
It seems to me that you should either broadcast all the proceedings of a case, evidence, witnesses, verdict, sentence etc. or, as at present, none at all. Of course that may be the ultimate aim and outcome and Mr Clarke is simply adopting the ‘salami principle’, getting what he wants one slice at a time.
Living in Cloud Cuckoo Land
So Ken Clarke thinks the penal system has broken down because three out of four of those involved in the recent city centre riots had previous criminal convictions – shock horror, now there’s a surprise!
His, and Boris Johnson’s view, seems to be that all would have been well if only those criminals had been given more probation and less prison. It would be interesting to see how true this assumption is and how many times those rioters had been given the opportunity to reform, and rejected it in favour of a life of crime.
Of course, Ken Clarke, to whom punishment is a dirty word, is unlikely to reveal such statistics in case it shows that his pre-conceived notion that non-custodial sentences are not the Holy Grail after all and it is more, not less, prison sentences which are the best deterrence to criminality.
Truly this man is living in cloud cuckoo land but in case it's thought this is the 'get Ken Clarke blog' I do agree with him on one point when he says "the key to creating a productive member of society is to ensure that each person has a job, a strong family, a decent education and, beneath it all, an attitude that shares in the values of mainstream society".
That may well be the solution, the problem is how to achieve it.
His, and Boris Johnson’s view, seems to be that all would have been well if only those criminals had been given more probation and less prison. It would be interesting to see how true this assumption is and how many times those rioters had been given the opportunity to reform, and rejected it in favour of a life of crime.
Of course, Ken Clarke, to whom punishment is a dirty word, is unlikely to reveal such statistics in case it shows that his pre-conceived notion that non-custodial sentences are not the Holy Grail after all and it is more, not less, prison sentences which are the best deterrence to criminality.
Truly this man is living in cloud cuckoo land but in case it's thought this is the 'get Ken Clarke blog' I do agree with him on one point when he says "the key to creating a productive member of society is to ensure that each person has a job, a strong family, a decent education and, beneath it all, an attitude that shares in the values of mainstream society".
That may well be the solution, the problem is how to achieve it.
It's Beyond Belief
The latest ruling by another out-of-touch judge is almost beyond belief, if it emanated from any other source it would be, but I’ve reached the state of no longer being surprised by anything said by the men and women in wigs.
Judge Fiona Henderson has, at the request of the Advisory Service for Squatters, ordered Camden Council to publicise all its empty properties. The only reason the Advisory Service for Squatters could possibly want this information is to tell people where to go to illegally occupy houses and cause Camden Council the cost, at Council Tax payers’ expense, of evicting them and making good the damage they will have undoubtedly caused.
Judge Henderson declared that squatters were not law-breakers, ignoring the fact that to enter a locked house without a key involves committing criminal damage, and the occupation of an un-owned house involves using gas, water and electricity paid for by someone else, which is theft, both of which are against the law and makes those doing so law-breakers, how could a legally-trained judge be unaware of the law of the land?
This would be lamentable on its own but Judge Henderson went on to contradict herself by saying that she accepted her ruling would ‘facilitate squatting and associated crime’.
Let’s get this right, one of Her Majesty's judges has made a ruling which she accepts will lead directly to criminal activity!
No! I was wrong, it is beyond belief!
Judge Fiona Henderson has, at the request of the Advisory Service for Squatters, ordered Camden Council to publicise all its empty properties. The only reason the Advisory Service for Squatters could possibly want this information is to tell people where to go to illegally occupy houses and cause Camden Council the cost, at Council Tax payers’ expense, of evicting them and making good the damage they will have undoubtedly caused.
Judge Henderson declared that squatters were not law-breakers, ignoring the fact that to enter a locked house without a key involves committing criminal damage, and the occupation of an un-owned house involves using gas, water and electricity paid for by someone else, which is theft, both of which are against the law and makes those doing so law-breakers, how could a legally-trained judge be unaware of the law of the land?
This would be lamentable on its own but Judge Henderson went on to contradict herself by saying that she accepted her ruling would ‘facilitate squatting and associated crime’.
Let’s get this right, one of Her Majesty's judges has made a ruling which she accepts will lead directly to criminal activity!
No! I was wrong, it is beyond belief!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)