Devaluing The Currency

Streets lined for hero floods cop

The Sun - 27 November 2009

Grant can be Av a go hero

The Sun - 27 November 2009

Like I said the other day - sense of proportion anyone?

I'm Not Sure How To Admit This

This isn't going to be easy, I know. I have led a pretty blameless life, and I have rarely had to admit to thoughts or deeds that run counter to all that I have previously held dear. But here goes:
Ready?
Sure?
It's this, then:-

I find myself in agreement with Jack Straw.

There, I have said it.

Speaking to the Magistrates' Association earlier this month, the Justice Secretary said:

the number of cases going to the Crown Court has increased. But we also know that magistrates are declining jurisdiction to hear trials in more either way cases than three or four years ago; Crown Prosecution Service figures indicate around 6,000 a year. In 2007 around 59,000 defendants were sentenced in either way cases in the Crown Court, of which 20,000 could, on the face of it, have been dealt with by magistrates. I have heard that magistrates are bound to take the upper end of the prosecution’s view of where a case might be heard as a result of the defendant’s election.

But let me give you an example. The Sentencing Advisory Panel has found that in 2006 found that 80% of fines for theft offences in the Crown Court were for less than £200 and 59% of these were for less than £50. Some of those cases may have merited the attention of a Crown Court judge because of prevalence or reputation. But at the same time, the levels of fines suggest that some could have been dealt with just as effectively as magistrates.

This is, of course, a matter of judicial discretion. You will want to take into account a whole range of factors in determining where a case will be best heard. But I think it is, at the very least, worth asking yourselves the question: are the matters at issue so serious that a Crown Court trial is necessary? Or would it be better – for victim, witness, defendant and public confidence – to dispose of the case more quickly in the magistrates’ court? If you find your powers to sentence a defendant are not sufficient, you are able to refer a case to the Crown Court for sentencing.

I believe there is a strong case for magistrates being more confident in retaining jurisdiction. Just as you have grasped the nettle of court efficiencies under CJSSS, I now want to encourage you to use the full extent of your powers in either way cases, where appropriate, rather than referring them to the Crown Court.

This is something that I have felt for some time. Many magistrates and their legal advisers play for safety in sending cases upstairs, but the facts show that a large proportion of those cases end up being sentenced well within the powers of the lower court. That is a waste of money and of resources, and by delaying justice it deprives victims and witnesses of seeing their case dealt with swiftly and fairly.

A few months ago I saw a case that seemed to me to be eminently suitable for summary disposal. It was a guilty plea, but I can't otherwise say too much about it. My clerk was, while respecting the bench's prerogative of making the decision, clearly nervous about our keeping the case, and my colleagues' views persuaded me that the case should be sent upstairs. I made discreet enquiries of the Crown Court the other day, and I discovered what the learned judge had decided - six weeks' imprisonment.

Crown Courts are busy; very much so in London. They cost vastly more per sitting day than the lower courts. They consume more resources of advocates and judiciary, and delay disposal by weeks and months.

I hope to see my fellow JPs bracing themselves to accept more of the borderline cases that currently go upstairs. We have the powers, we have the competence. All that we lack, sometimes, is the courage.

It's Our Turn!

The expenses scandal juggernaut has moved on to the judiciary.
Of course, I am in it up to my ears, submitting, as I do, an expenses claim every month. However, the fact that judges, who pull down something like £130,000 a year, also run up twenty quid a week in expenses doesn't seem too scandalous to me, and as for JPs, well I get 55p a mile for driving to and from court, and either £7.45 or £10.38 a day in flat-rate subsistence, depending whether I have been away from home for four to eight hours or more than eight. It isn't a life changing amount.

Raving Mad

We may be desperate for helicopters in Helmand, and some police forces are declining to pursue almost half of the matters reported to them, but a couple of hundred young people daring to enjoy themselves was seen as being worth two choppers and dozens of coppers to effect a handful of arrests.
Sense of proportion anyone?

Hammered

Marcel Berlins has had yet another bash at the infuriating appearance of gavels in media depictions of English courts. I can't add anything except "Grrrrr".

Truly Disturbing

I have hitherto refrained from commenting on the troubling case of Paul Clarke, who appears to have got himself into some very hot water in handing in a sawn-off shotgun to the police. I agree with Charon QC that the affair has been comprehensively dealt with on Jack of Kent's blog, and you can do no better than to read JoK's post.
My initial restraint was based on a hunch that there had to be more to this than meets the eye, and indeed Mr. Clarke appears to have had previous less-than-harmonious dealings with the police.
Strangely enough, I have experience of a case that is pretty close to Mr. Clarke's. Someone came before us charged with having a loaded firearm in a public place. The person was wealthy and respectable, and the gun was duly licensed and being carried as part of his luggage on a journey - but due to an oversight there were three bullets in the magazine. The CPS asked us to take the unusual step of adjourning matters for one week to allow them to have another look at the charge, because as matters stood the 5-year minimum would apply, which would be ludicrously overdoing things. So we put the case off and the man came back before my colleagues a week later, when he faced a different charge and was fined heavily.
So is it the case that Mr. Posh was given an easy ride, but Mr. Stroppy will feel the full weight of the law?
I don't know, but I hope that the decisions taken will be transparent and clearly set out as matters progress.
The other truth that is emerging is the inescapable fact that laws imposing minimum sentences will always, sooner or later, produce injustice that cannot be averted by the sentencer. Every case is different, and legislators cannot possibly envisage every twist and turn and nuance of the offences they are trying to proscribe. That is why judicial discretion is essential if we are to do justice.

Just As If............

A young man was alleged to have committed a robbery on a trader, causing great terror, but mercifully no injury, to the victim. With the bovine stupidity that characterises so many of our customers he had performed the robbery in clear shot of good quality CCTV, from which police immediately recognised him. Once armed officers had been sent for, since he was suspected to be carrying a weapon of sorts, a couple of vanloads of police went to his home, bashed in the front door, and stormed inside. According to the prosecutor the officers shouted "Where's the money?". The defendant prudently took them to the cash, and he was arrested.
The defence solicitor did not apply for bail, but had one representation to make:-
"Just one thing sir, I am instructed that what the police in fact shouted was 'Where's the fucking money, scumbag'".
That doesn't sound like a police officer now, does it?

A Few Proposals From Some Bill Or Other

I quote, from some newspaper:-

"Gives police the power to bar suspected domestic violence offenders from their homes for a period, even when not charged".
So if the police - suspect - that a man (it will usually be a man) is beating his wife, then they will, without charging him, and without taking him before a court, be able to ban him from his own home and family.

Just for the record, I have strong views on domestic violence - I am against it. But this is simple tyranny, driven by good intentions but giving the police without any judicial intervention the power to turn a legally innocent person out of his (or exceptionally her) home. That is too much power to give to police or to any extra judicial body.

Another Top Tip

I like to pass on bits of wisdom gleaned from my days in court, so here's a useful pearl from today:-

If you are short of somewhere to lay your head;
And if your mate offers you a bed in his council flat;
And if you get back a bit late after a heavy session;
And if the doorbell is broken;
And if you can't get your mate to wake up and let you in;
And if you think of tossing a handful of gravel up to the first-floor window to alert him;

(Here's the Top Tip, okay?)

Make sure that it is a handful of gravel - not a half-brick. That way lies trouble, including a charge of criminal damage and a summary eviction.

Mind how you go, now.

Not Quite........

Susan Levy, the mother of Brooke Magnanti, the research scientist unmasked as the former call girl Belle de Jour, said she was proud of her "brilliant" daughter for "standing up for herself".

Isn't 'standing up' the opposite of what she did?

Only In England?

I had lunch in London today with someone for whom I care a good deal. After lunch we strolled somewhat aimlessly in the autumn sunshine until we found ourselves approaching Westminster Bridge, along the Embankment. Thus we came to Parliament Square. In our random way we crossed Whitehall, and we decided to have a look at the Supreme Court building, formerly the Middlesex Guildhall, in which incarnation I used to know it well.
It was about 3.45 pm, and as we approached the doors a polite uniformed man asked if we wished to enter. We did, and after a professional security check (in which my HMCS photo ID cut no ice whatsoever) we were told that Court 3 was sitting - so in we went. We were two of about eight members of the public in the court, and there, a few paces away, we saw the backs of various barristers (some bewigged, some not) and, facing us, Lord Phillips, the senior judge in this jurisdiction, flanked by four of his colleagues.
The court rose at 4 p.m., and I have no idea what the matter before their Lordships had been, other than the fact that it was a Privy Council matter, thus an appeal from a Commonwealth jurisdiction.
I am proud of the fact that my guest and I were able, with little fuss, to enter and watch the proceedings of our highest court. Next time you are in London, give it a try.

A Blinding Flash of the Obvious

Jack Straw today gave the Mags' Association AGM some advice about collecting fines.

A Grim Reminder

This is a tragic reminder of the responsibility that magistrates carry when they decide to grant or withhold bail. Every bail decision is a calculated risk because there are few certainties. Whether there are 'substantial grounds' to fear further offences, failure to surrender, or interference with witnesses is a judgment call, pure and simple.
The newspaper is unfair in its report, as you would expect: it suggests that the decision was taken by one named JP rather than a bench, "despite" CPS objections. If we always followed the CPS line, nobody would ever get bail and we would need another 50,000 prison places. As I have said before, all that we can do is consider the evidence with great care, stick to the Bail Act rules, and hope that we get it right.

Short Shrift

So-called 'Mr. Loophole' doesn't always get his clients off, as in this case.

As the Crown Court judge (who was sitting with two JPs) pointed out, the fees of Mr. Freeman probably far exceeded the fines and costs imposed, but for a Premiership footballer it's all small change anyway.

I was interested to see that the DJ in the lower court was 'Custody' Cooper, who seems to crop up in the news quite frequently.

Later - Here's another one who came unstuck.

This Needed Saying

The constant harping on from Government about 'putting victims at the centre of justice' is in danger, as this article points out, of raising false expectations in victims of crime, and of blurring the reality that it is the state that prosecutes and the state that punishes crime, as it must. Anything else is a cruel deception, made to grab a headline.