The Justice of the Peace [magistrate`s] Blog:

When, for whatever reasons, a household has to budget in straightened circumstances there will be a common denominator to the belt tightening which must be undertaken to keep the family supplied with basic necessities. Those activities and items without which the family can tolerate until better times will be jettisoned. Margaret Thatcher who was criticised for equating national budgets to family budgets was, in my opinion, not too inaccurate in her metaphor.

A quarter of a century later reduced funding for one public body or another is being wheeled out as a cause to reduce services to the public detriment. No bodies have been more vociferous in making sure their retaliation gets in first than Police Constabularies.

The Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) however is seeking to increase police powers by being given the power to shut down websites without the need for judicial authority. Judging by its website this organisation has more than enough on its plate without treading where it appears to want to go irrespective of its significance for free speech.

On the other hand the Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary is seeking to reduce the workload of his force in the light of financial constraints. As an example he wants the “policing” of dangerous dogs to be handed over to the RSPCA. Considering that many cases involving banned breeds have as their basis the animals` use as weapons to intimidate or as power symbols this wish to abrogate police powers is akin to allowing motor insurers to police those driving uninsured. If police can be called out on the suspicion of illegal hunting with hounds there is little substance in this Chief Officer`s argument to wash his hands of dangerous dogs.

The Association of Chief Police Officers [ACPO], an organisation which if not truly murky is certainly not the most transparent, wants police to take a slice of the speed camera financial pudding resulting from payments made by offenders to attend various courses to deter them from future similar disregard for the Highway Code. This income, it is said, will allow speed cameras to continue in operation.

Perhaps I am old fashioned but in my idea of how society should be organised there is no room for police receiving any income whatsoever from whatever source except that bestowed by a democratically elected local or national government.

Case Management Hearings do what it says on the box. I was surprised therefore a couple of months ago when I suggested from the middle chair to our L/A that a CMH would seem to be appropriate in the rather complicated matter of which we had just heard the history of its previous five listings to be told that they were no longer being listed except in DV matters. There are many twists and turns in recommended procedures that are picked up in such a fashion and as far as I was concerned that was that. Roll on to earlier this month sitting on another far from straightforward [non DV] case that had had a long history. Our [different] L/A half turned to us and said that it would seem sensible sir to have a CMH a week prior to the new trial date. It was not the time to question him so of course we concurred.

Skip forward to the post court review and put forward the obvious question to be told that a CMH should be listed where it would help to ensure a trial would go ahead if there were any known obstacles or where there were certain indications that it would facilitate matters in a predictable way. In short a CMH was still a formidable weapon in the court`s armoury to allow matters to be pushed forward at every opportunity. The opinion of the other L/A was greeted with a shrug. Just a little more confusion and an example where a bench sometimes must use its collective common sense even it is at odds with the advice given.