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

There can`t be two more diverse figures in the public eye than Russell Brand comedian and media personality and Nick Herbert status seeking Minister for Police at the Ministry of Justice. There is also a complete nonentity named Victoria Fox of whom more later. All three have been making public statements associated with drug addiction.

Mr Herbert, who espouses more nonsense in five minutes than most of us can manage in an hour, was in Washington D.C. on Monday where he gave a speech entitled "Smart on Crime". From him that was an oxymoron considering some of the suggestions he has made since taking office. To quote from his speech, “Those with substance misuse problems should be put on courses that clean them up rather than just maintaining the habit”. Aren`t these fine words? However the substance [pun intended] seems to be lacking considering the virtual non existence of publicly funded clinics to compare eg with The Priory.

Russell Brand seeking to emphasise that mode of attire is no indication of depth of intelligence…..whether his or that of the august members of the parliamentary select committee before whom he appeared earlier this week……appealed for the scourge of drug addiction to be considered a medical problem. As a former addict himself his opinion was significant. He had had the financial means to seek a cure through abstinence.

And now the third person whose public statement on drug addiction made the news in the Norwich Advertiser on April 24th. A self confessed drug addict with a long list of convictions Victoria Fox pleaded for a prison sentence so that she might kick her habit. In her own misguided way she might not have been altogether aware that most of our prisons are permeable to all manner of illegal drugs but the principle is clear enough. She wants to be held in a drug free environment where she can go cold turkey. Such places exist……….for a price. When oh when will a government face the reality that drug addiction will not be controlled never mind cured by legal sanction? Please inform any aerodynamic porcine seen over London SW1.

Now that`s off my chest I`m taking the high road to the northern parts of this island for a week or so where the rain is continuous and the whisky wonderful.....slainte mhath.

There is a vociferous lobby which would dearly like to do away with short custodial sentences. At a stretch, to coin a phrase, they would relax their opposition for violent offenders being removed from society. But generally even when prison is a last resort for the oft quoted council tax defaulters or similar they refuse to acknowledge the need for the final sanction of loss of liberty. See my post LITTER LOUTS. Those holding such opinions are often “green” in their approach to society`s problems and their attitude to litterers is unforgiving. What then must the courts do to an offender in this regard who refuses or neglects to pay the fine imposed after conviction in absence for ignoring a fixed penalty notice?

Just such a case recently came before magistrates in Bedford. If the outstanding sum is not paid and wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay is found by another bench a custodial sentence of up to 28 days can be imposed. Are those who consider such sentencing inappropriate able to impose their own solution in such cases? Perhaps they would have him treated as a naughty boy. It is not unlikely that by the time of the next general election a sum approaching £2 billion will be owed in outstanding fines and court costs. I don`t think a naughty step type punishment for such offenders will make much of a dent in that figure.

I have never sat on a bench where it has been brought to its attention that the defendant is on bail from the crown court until his appearance for sentencing deliberately deferred for a fixed period. That seems to be the case of a certain Daniel Holloway at Canterbury. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than I can explain what would happen if this offender were convicted before a magistrates bench on a summary charge before said sentencing. That is assuming of course that all parties were aware of the judge`s remarks.

When I am in a motorised vehicle which doesn`t rely on wheels I rather prefer it has at least two engines with four offering even more re-assurance that there is some spare power in an emergency. For that reason I have never flown in a helicopter. These vehicles also have the disadvantage of usually having only one pilot. Therefore when there is an attempt to interfere with his ability to do his job it is a matter of concern. The vulnerability of helicopters with their low flying altitude was recognised by Article 222 of the Air Navigation Order 2009 which states: A person must not in the United Kingdom direct or shine any light at any aircraft in flight so as to dazzle or distract the pilot of the aircraft. It came into effect on 1st January 2010. I have been unable to source guideline sentencing for offenders convicted under this Article.

At Bristol Crown Court last week an offender who shone a laser into a police helicopter was punished with a curfew and a 12 month community order. As a member of the public my opinion is that this sentence does not properly reflect the seriousness of this offence and the high degree of culpability of the offender. The possible consequence of such behaviour is as horrendous as a dangerous driving which has been determined at Crown Court.

For the first time in ages I recently spent an afternoon sitting on motoring trials but as is not uncommon with any trial court only one case went ahead as listed. The first matter was of driving with no insurance. It was the 3rd listing and we were told at the pre court briefing that the previous trial date had been vacated owing to lack of time. Our L/A indicated a heavy bundle and a defence of mistaken identity. At 2.05pm the CPS prosecutor informed us that the officer involved in the “stop” had spoken to the defendant outside the courtroom and confirmed that she was not the person driving the car or given the ticket. It was apparent that the defendant`s details had been obtained by a fraudster and no evidence was offered. Accordingly the case was dismissed and the defendant advised to take urgent steps to prevent further problems at which point the prosecutor advised the court that the police were already working in that direction.

The only case which did proceed concerned the black chauffeur of a Footsie100 company C.E.O. being stopped in the company Rolls Royce Phantom at 31MPH in a 30MPH zone radar trap. We were told that the police driver who operated the radar gun warned him of his breaking the limit and the defendant was about to drive off on company business when the other officer began examining the almost new immaculate vehicle from the roof to the tyres scrutinising the windscreen of the vehicle and requesting the driver to demonstrate that all the lights were working after which she began examining the tyres with her hands feeling around them as much as the bodywork would allow before announcing that there was a bulge in one of them and issued the appropriate ticket which the defendant was challenging before us. The registration number written in the officer`s notebook had an error in one digit. The officer was unable to tell us the size or projection of the bulge and confirmed that it was not such a problem that she considered a prohibition on driving the car. She was hesitant in describing her reasons for such a thorough examination of a nearly new Rolls Royce. The driver told us he had no awareness whatsoever of the bulge but later that day had the tyre changed with the supplier being surprised to hear of the police`s opinion. We did not consider the prosecution had proved its case to the required standard and acquitted the relieved defendant who had a clean license. In the retiring room later there was just a hint of a feeling that there might have been some racial or class issue insofar as the car was worth 100s of £thousands, its speed was only 31MPH and the white examining officer seemed to be looking for a problem.

Our final case was from 2010 and involved a driver not wearing a seatbelt. Listed at 2.00pm this was the 4th listing for trial one of the previous having been vacated owing to lack of time and the defendant was dutifully before us at 3.15pm. However the two police officers due to give evidence had been warned for a 10.00am trial. In the circumstances the prosecutor very sensibly offered no evidence and the case was dismissed with advice to the defendant that she could claim travel expenses for the occasion. She declined.

Whereas prior to the amalgamation there would be work from remand and sentencing courts for a bench with an early finish all remands and sentencing now having been transferred to our other court building there were no crumbs for us to tidy up and our session finished at 3.30pm: so much for the great minds at HMCTS and their efficient use of time and space. Dr Who could do no worse.

A letter from Jonathan Djanogly Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice was published today and is copied here. It is a wonderful example of polticospeak; a language apparently using well rehearsed words in the English language but used in a combination and context to do what previously only Humpty Dumpty could hope to do:- have the words mean what the writer wants them to mean.

I will pick out just a few of the phrases to illustrate this ability with the true meaning below:-

JD the measures the Government is taking to support magistrates in the crucial role they play in delivering justice across England and Wales

JP none mentioned as examples because they are few and far between if they exist at all

JD We are clear that the magistracy have a vital role to play in the courtroom, and that, more than that, they shall increasingly play a vital role in modern society by strengthening the links between courts and the communities they serve.

JP This is to conceal the pending reduced role in the courtroom with the introduction of more and more DJs

JD new opportunities open up, and that it is Government’s role to seek these out and encourage them

JP lower level neighbourhood panels for so called restorative justice, offender restitution in the form of apologies to victims etc etc

JD Overall, I can say that the overwhelming reaction that I have had from speaking to transferring magistrates at the courts I have visited is that their court experience is now much improved, more efficient and more modern.

JP Notwithstanding the Ministry`s estimate prior to court closures that as a result 10% of J.P.s would resign

JD Over the last five years the Magistrates court caseload has fallen by around one third. One of the reasons for this is an increase in the use of Out of Court Disposals (OoCDs). OoCDs can deal effectively with low-level offences, however, we share Magistrates’ concerns that in some cases they are being used inappropriately, for persistent and serious offenders. We are determined to crack down on this by developing a clear framework for OoCDs to provide greater clarity to decision makers on their options for dealing with offending out-of-court.

JP This government before the election has been complicit in the rise of out of court disposals

JD We are also taking action to deal with the legal aid system, which incentivises lawyers to encourage their clients to take their cases to the Crown Court rather than to the Magistrates Court, thereby contributing to the fall in caseload to the latter.

JP A slur on most criminal lawyers being aggravated by reducing legal aid fees to such a low level that many have given up magistrates` court work altogether in addition to the removal of legal aid from many defendants thus increasing risks of their being hassled into guilty decisions and for others increasing the time taken for trials thus increasing costs all round

JD The successful court reform programme has given us an excellent platform on which to base further reforms and find new ways of strengthening the strong links which magistrates have within local communities. We have had some extremely positive consultations with their representative bodies on our emerging criminal justice reform programme, and as a result we are now looking closely at the role that magistrates can play as we develop proposals for Neighbourhood Justice and the newly created Neighbourhood Justice Panels.

JP Remove our court role totally and invite us to serve on these neighbourhood panels

When I was a child a Parker pen was a valued gift. The brand indicated quality and exclusivity. M.G. cars had a cache as the epitome of the English sports cars until under the industrial umbrella of the British Motor Corporation and laterally British Leyland it became an example of badge engineering and has been so devalued that the title was sold to a Chinese company which intends to export its now worthless heritage back to this country in the guise of a metal box with four wheels. Paradoxically Jaguar has been saved a similar fate by being sold to an Indian billionaire. The list of managements who stray from their area of so called expertise is legion. Even Tesco has been humbled by its failure to understand the American market. So what has this to do with a magistrate`s blog? The rush to semi privatisation has and will be creating some very strange bedfellows in order to try to balance the books of a country where quality is being sacrificed for quantity.

Durham Prison was not exactly praised to the hilt by in a recent report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons: indeed there was not much praise at all. So it is a matter of some controversy in my opinion whether Teesside Probation Service in conjunction with Interserve a conglomerate PLC can and will manage a function which should truly be a function of the state just like the courts, any better than previously. Of course similar such “partnerships” have been around for decades although in perhaps a more discreet form and where their usefulness could be justified as being in non essential services; BBC Licensing aka Capita plc comes to mind in this respect. But with the recent scandal of courts` interpreter services being hived off to the aforesaid Capita plc, security to Serco et als, the employment of security companies to patrol our streets etc etc the future is more hope than promise and that is without castigating the entire principle of any “Justice” functions being farmed out to private enterprise. Justice and Defence are alone in their being the only state activities which the state and the state alone should control.

Society evolves and with it the law. The rate of legislative change for actions deemed “acceptable” to “unacceptable” is as variable as the British weather. In the case of domestic violence we are in a period of transition. There is as yet no specific offence so named. It can safely be said that only since the 1970s has this subject become a matter of public concern. The so called liberation of women in the previous decade focussed many minds political and apolitical on male violence against women within an intimate relationship. As in many of life`s twists and turns this was a situation long overdue for attention.

A former senior police officer on my bench who is not yet 60 remembers clearly instructions from his sergeant when he was a bobby on the streets to treat domestic incidents where there was perhaps only limited violence as a “domestic” and not to follow up.

We are now at the point where the government will be soon deciding whether or not to implement countrywide Domestic Violence Restraining Orders which are being trialled in Wiltshire amongst other places. This latest addition to the array of legal powers in this regard is the right of police to remove suspected abusers from their marital home for between two and four weeks. These domestic violence protection orders can be applied to those who have not even been charged. This is a major change. The subject of such actions will not therefore even have been found not guilty . There will not even have been enough evidence to have brought the charge against him; a charge which he at least could have defended in court. I have posted here several times on DV. As a matter of principle I am extremely pleased that my court has not been involved. To impose such draconian action on the basis that a police superintendant considers that on the balance of probabilities a woman, and it`s usually a woman, is liable to be subjected to violence is perhaps a step too far. It will not be unlikely that the usual suspects will label any opposition to such measures as belonging to another age. I hope that before the almost inevitable implementation of this further encroachment on the principle of innocent until proved guilty the whole subject will have the public debate it deserves.

In the days of Buggin`s turn to ascend to the bench magistrates` courts were relatively self governing and almost a parody of themselves and their members. Indeed long serving female colleagues can still remember when hats and gloves were approved accessories if not de rigueur. Thank goodness such days are behind us but like all fashion swings the pendulum has reached its maximum amplitude on the opposing side. Magistrates` Courts are now completely and totally controlled by HMCTS. There is virtually no independence of thought or action. Indeed I have been informed that at a recent Bench meeting in a metropolitan area the area Justices` Clerk [presumably on behalf of his employers HMCTS] objected to said Bench discussing with regret the appointment of an additional District Judge his argument being that the Bench had no control of said appointment and therefore should not even consider the matter. He was given short shrift and the matter was formally adjourned for inclusion as a proposal at a later meeting. That a high ranking member of HMCTS dare to tell an independent Bench at its meeting what it could and could not discuss was arrogance of the highest order.

The biggest display of public disorder in a generation which constituted the August riots of last year has provoked some deep thinking in almost every organisation and government department remotely associated with the maintenance and understanding of a harmonious society at one with itself. None was more pleased to squeeze the last pip of self righteousness from a lemon of a situation than the Ministry of Justice and its offspring Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service. This organisation has more than a whiff of authoritarianism in its ever increasing reach. The trumpeting of evening and weekend magistrates` courts sitting extended hours staffed by eager workers for the common good was a propagandist’s delight. That J.P.s were not involved and many of the staff involved have now been made redundant has not dimmed the almost messianic glint in the eyes of government ministers. Pilot schemes to increase court hours are beginning in various courts but the attitude of HMCTS to J.P.s can be seen in the manner in which the proposals have been set out to at least one court involved. Currently courts sit from 10.00am – 1.00pm and 2.00pm – 5.00pm. Many sittings go beyond 5.00pm but only with the goodwill of all involved. The pilot court will sit from 9.00am – 1.00pm and 2.00pm – 6.00pm or so it is intended. A court sitting is akin to baking a rather scrumptious cake or pudding; all the ingredients in the correct quantities must be available to be mixed at the appropriate times at the correct temperature for the requisite time by somebody who is familiar with the whole process. It is completely fanciful to expect that defendants [many relying on public transport], CPS files, electronic or otherwise, witnesses, police officers and all the other required components of a trial are going to be ready at 9.00am. The attitude of Group4, SERCO and similar who transport prisoners and who are sometimes not now available even at 5.00pm is still to be negotiated. But it is the manner in which J.P.s have been treated in this exercise which exercises me. We are all volunteers. We do this job because we enjoy it. We do not undertake it as a task. We are motivated internally. We sit a minimum of 26 half days a year; ie one day a month whether a winger or a chairman. Personally I do not consider that is sufficient for a chairman to retain competence. but that`s another matter for another time. HMCTS in this latest pilot scheme regard us as unpaid employees. Why do I say this? The proposal is that J.P.s who sit in the morning session will be regarded as having had two sittings and will not, as now, sit in the afternoon session. Similarly will be the allocation for the afternoon bench. In other words according to this reasoning it will be an attraction to the supposedly employee mindset of a J.P. to have an extra hour regarded as the equivalent of two hours on the old basis for his/her minimum number of sittings. By this reckoning 13 four hour half day sittings per annum will constitute our minimum sitting requirement. HMCTS in their gross arrogance seem to think that an inducement of less work for “equal” reward will be an attraction. If that is not the mindset of an employer I will have to ask my wife`s Dutch family how to speak their language twice over. I state unequivocally that no chairman will be able to retain competence with such reduced day to day experience. And that in my opinion is precisely where we are going being ushered along the way by HMCTS with this as an example. We are being undermined as surely as sitting over a rabbit warren…….solid on the surface and full of pit holes underneath. .

This ground is subtly being prepared for a complete take over of the magistrates` courts system by salaried District Judges with J.P.s like a herd of sheep being corralled into various local justice centres by any other name to be part of a so called representative organisation for low level matters outwith the current summary justice system. The letter published here in the blog KOWTOWING 11th April is just the prelude. The thinking and control behind it is now well established.

Prior to the final decision on which magistrates` courts were to be closed many Bench chairmen made themselves available to the media to argue their case for their court to be excused execution. Whether or not their efforts were against the spirit of the rules on media guidance is not for me to say but lest there be any doubt up to date guidance was published this week although it does not appear on the judiciary dot gov website. In its advice to magistrates who are considering writing to a newspaper it has this to say, “You may wish to let a colleague read your draft before submitting for publication”. And then again you might not………

In some countries stray dogs are treated like vermin and end up like such. In southern Europe feral cats breed like rabbits and habitate every al fresco restaurant encouraged by misplaced sympathies of unthinking diners; not so in England. We, on the other hand, are used to charities asking for funds for all manner of four legged creatures from donkeys in distress to hapless hedgehogs. There are those who consider that the English treat their animals better than their children. When one contemplates the position of those at the very bottom of the economic food chain there is much truth in that. England, for them is a brown and unpleasant land.

Those involved in the lower courts must daily face the reality that for some drug addicted and/or alcoholic offenders there is just no remedy that the state provides. There are few bail hostels. The NHS steps in when livers rot. Addiction clinics are on the whole reserved for the wealthy with the result that those most in need, of the hundreds of thousands affected, are allowed to sink slowly into the judicial quagmire where in their thirties, forties and fifties they beg to be imprisoned.

The following two reports are the tip of the iceberg. The scenarios are repeated every day everywhere. As a society we should be hanging our heads in shame.

There has been much discussion on out of court disposals. In general that phrase sums up the situation where a single police officer sometimes with the approval of an inspector and sometimes without decides to offer some form of caution to an offender who admits his/her guilt. It has been recognised not least by police themselves that this situation has gotten out of hand. Cautions are considered successful convictions and go towards meeting whatever targets have been set to indicate a job well done. The fact that years ago the Home Office set up and approved this process of police being judge and jury on the still fatuous belief of speedy justice serves only to undermine current statements on the same topic. But it also fixated in the minds of police officers that their job specification went beyond the prevention of disorder and the apprehension of law breakers. There is an old saying, “Give the Devil a finger and he will take the whole hand”.

This mindset was revealed unwittingly by ACPO in the form of comments by Deputy Chief Constable Mike Barton, of Durham Constabulary when discussing criminal activities within prison walls. “I spent most of my service thinking after I had sent people to prison that the job was done,” he says. “I was really proud of some of the sentences I had achieved for drug dealing. I have personally ‘sold’ life imprisonment three times to people by convincing them to tell me what they had done.”

He seems to have forgotten or overlooked that sentencing is a function of the courts. It would seem unlikely that this very senior officer is aware of the implications of what he is quoted as saying or perhaps I am being pedantic. There is however one undeniable truth. For myriad reasons this country is a far less free society than when I was appointed to the bench.

You`ve been arrested in Hatfield for a summary offence and held in a police cell. A duty solicitor has spoken with you and you decide to plead guilty and you still are in the police station. You are taken into a room equipped with a screen and a video camera and by CCTV you are shown the officials present at the local court and they, you by virtue of the CCTV link. It is uncertain if you will be sentenced there and then because the court might not be in possession of the information required prior to coming to a decision. A further date will be arranged for your appearance in person at court. In the event you plead not guilty the matter will be adjourned for your trial. You will be required to complete a form with the help of the solicitor if needed upon which your defence to the charge will be based including the witnesses you intend to call. You will be released at the police`s discretion assuming bail is granted without special conditions having to be considered. This is how the Hertfordshire public is benefitting [not my words] from our new improved justice system.

The question of expenses for magistrates has been and is a hot potato burning the hands of those involved from the inept and supine manner of previous senior office holders in the Magistrates` Association to the bland self serving and contradictory statements of many of those holding the purse strings. The reply published today from Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service countersigned by inter alia the Chairman of the M.A. and the Senior Presiding Judge is a perfect example.

In the face of escalating travel costs a “stand still” in travel expenses is being held as a beneficent concession. But more to the point just as some racists say that Jewish people themselves are the cause of anti Semitism the signatories assert that we Justices of the Peace are the problem in that some of us sit too often; this at a time when the number of J.P.s is at its lowest for many years and many individual Justices are being rostered for lower numbers sittings than many can remember.

I suppose I can be described as a “high sitter”. When my business and professional commitments allowed me more time than I initially envisaged having I offered to sit extra days and my bench Chairman endorsed my availability with thanks. At least once more since that initial encouragement I have checked that my additional sittings would not lead to problems with the Advisory Committee and been assured that the bench had a requirement from those with the time to make themselves available for extra sittings especially at short notice. The writers of the current letter seems to take an opposing view; a view which is illogical. Low sitters are low sitters precisely because they do not have the time to fulfil their minimum requirements. Either they make the time or they should resign. High sitters have that precious commodity and offer it to HMCTS. To attempt to reverse the situation is to attempt to make water run uphill. In addition to allude that magistrates are milking the system by this over sitting is a disgraceful slur.

"The review identified that there are some excessive mileage claims by magistrates, in the main, caused by: sitting a large number of days; or travelling excessive distances to courts that are not closest to where they live or work."

J.P.s do not choose where to sit. Advisory Committees send successful applicants to an allocated court. I myself and many colleagues were not allocated to our court of choice nearest our home or business bur to the nearest court where we were required. The closure of about one third of magistrates` courts by the Ministry of Justice has forced many J.P.s to travel much further than they originally intended or desired. Indeed that is a prime reason why some have resigned. To cap their enforced mileage claims is nothing short of a disgrace.

I had had high hopes that with a change of leadership the Magistrates` Association would stop kowtowing to government dictat and stand up for the legitimate rights of this country`s premier volunteer grouping. I was hopelessly optimistic!

Sensitivities over language and particularly the language used by police officers have been making headlines over the last week or so. Indeed any person outside the four walls s/he calls home must think very carefully whether any terms used could cause offence to an unconnected third party overhearing them. Whether this definition of being offensive is just, equitable or offensive in itself is not for debate; this is where we are.

A sergeant of the Metropolitan Police who referred to a Mediterranean looking man as a “fat Greek” was reported to senior officers by a colleague. The sergeant in question received advice about his conduct. Apparently the officer concerned was himself described as being fat and the object of his description was Portuguese. What, I wonder, would have been the result if the fat sergeant had spoken of a fat Paki or fat Jew or a fat Jock and the recipient of the remark had been Indian, Arab or Irish respectively?

The decision announced today by the European Court of Human Rights that pending the failure of a final appeal within the next three months five alleged terrorist suspects will be extradited to America is sure to fan the flaming hot keyboards of human rights lawyers and all those apologists who consider that prioritising the rights of British citizens in Britain to be free of the fear of harm from the activities of jihadists is secondary to the abilities of those same individuals to use every dot, comma and nuance of complicated legislation to escape their just deserts if convicted. It would appear that the decision reflected a rejection of the appellants` argument that their prison conditions if they were convicted in America would be a breach of their human rights.

As a mere lay magistrate at the very bottom of a legal pecking order which reaches great heights it has not escaped me that even in our lower courts deterrence is a phrase which is often heard from the mouths of District Judges in particular. Judges in the higher courts are not averse to framing their sentencing decisions with the words “as a deterrence” included in their reasons. Indeed one of the prime requisites of sentencing is as a deterrent to others who might consider law breaking as a chosen path to satisfy their requirements of whatever kind. Those who encourage mayhem on social networking sites whilst sitting safely in their bedrooms or others who in cyberspace racially abuse sportsmen who collapse with almost fatal results in full view of TV cameras are sentenced more severely than many would consider justified in order to demonstrate an element of deterrence for others similarly inclined. The considerable antagonism by many against community sentences arises in great part because many such outcomes do not provide that very element of deterrence required to instil even a modicum of fear in those who might stop for just a moment to think where their law breaking might lead them. The assumption of not being detected is top of the list of reasons for many offenders` continuing offending but of course it is somewhat difficult to prove a negative and whilst there are many first offenders in court who can tell what their history of successful evasion has been?

It is more than likely in my humble opinion that the five jihadists are using the harsh conditions they might have to endure if convicted in America literally as a get out of jail free card. It is available so it is being used as would any possible escape route. However if there is any genuine fear of what captivity might mean for these people then deterrence is working. More emphasis on that aspect of sentencing in this country might be beneficial for all but the law breakers.

The umbrella under which we have the privilege of sitting in judgement over our fellow citizens is Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service. The tribunals service was until a couple of years ago a separate entity but this government like all of its species believes bigger is better and just as we now have Inland Revenue AND Customs we now have Courts AND Tribunals.

I have in the past been a participant in the justice that Employment Tribunals have dispensed on both sides of the employer/employee divide. I have some sympathy with the mindset of Vince Cable which encouraged him to effect the changes in these tribunals and their rules which apply from today. Where I find it disturbing is that one of these changes is the replacement of a three person panel by a single judge. Previously the chairman of a panel would be a lawyer assisted by two lay colleagues with experience as employer or employee representative. In such highly contested matters as employment law it is in my opinion iniquitous that a possibly life changing event be in the hands of a single individual. If the process of appeal is similar to that now existing in the county court where costs can make such appeals a no go area except when the sums involved are well into five figures only the richest or most foolhardy will be able to challenge a decision. In magistrates` courts where District Judges also, in defiance of all that is reasonable and equitable, sit alone in judgement there is at least a no cost opportunity for a non represented defendant to appeal against conviction and/or sentence at the crown court where a judge assisted by two Justices of the Peace will re-hear a case.

Perhaps somebody with the knowledge will be able to inform if it were ever considered that J.P.s now under utilised could have assisted at ETs or is it the case that government policy is to acquire an ever increasing stranglehold over another part of the judicial process? The balance which should exist between the governed and their governors is now a bit more out of kilter.

Unlike judges in the Crown Courts magistrates have to fend for themselves at lunchtime. The health conscious amongst us, usually of the female gender, bring their own various salads in the ubiquitous Tupperware box whilst others unwrap tin foil containing a sandwich. The nearby petrol station or café serve the needs of the remainder. In short nobody has a meal substantial enough to induce afternoon drowsiness unlike the lawmakers who face only the indignity of the cameras those applying said laws cannot have that luxury. However, as we all know only too well, an overheated courtroom and a monotonous sounding voice can induce perhaps a quantity of boredom which for the unwary can subtly slide them into that state of somnambulation more usually associated with residents of rest homes for the mentally impaired elderly.

It would be harsh if this inadvertent transgression were to reach the Lord Chancellor`s office. It would be harsher still if the ultimate sanction were to be handed out in this reported case. The Office for Judicial Complaints has officiated in only 23 cases in the last twelve months where Justices of the Peace were removed from the magistracy or resigned beforehand. Considering the numbers involved that is less than one in a thousand; a very low proportion by any understanding considering that those were ordinary members of the community. During the same period two Deputy District Judges were removed from the judiciary out of a total of 791 {2010}.

ADDENDUM 07/04/2012

There is a further report here on this case which was re-heard by another bench.

“Jumped up little Hitlers”......how often is that phrase used to describe those with apparently minimum sense but maximum power in those limited circumstances where their power is supreme? They are evident at railway booking offices undermanned but overwhelmed by commuters who are unable to buy tickets on board their train. They are evident in hospitals where refusal to switch off a mobile phone in a waiting area where there are no signs to do so can lead to a uniformed LH exercising his authority to remove trouble makers and where a raised voice in protest can lead to a real authority figure being called. They are evident in our towns and villages where parking has long been contested between local authority and common sense justice. In the courts they are evidenced on occasion by truant officers or whatever nomenclature they now assume when assessing a parent`s lack of control insofar as school attendance is concerned. On the streets so called police community support officers are perhaps the epitome of the pile it high sell it cheap uniformed LHs with which unfortunately we have had to become familiar. There is a law of inverse proportionality....the greater the number the less the effect and so it is with uniformed authority.

Once upon a time there were policemen, park rangers, transport conductors and inspectors in uniform. Each group used its authority as prescribed and generally earned the respect of the society employing them. In the space of a single generation and umpteen changes of titles there has been an explosion of uniformed figures exercising authority in various limited circumstances to such a degree that overall respect for any in authority is at an all time low. This change in public attitudes was as predictable as night follows day. One would have thought that those at the top of the various political trees would take cognisance of these attitudes but instead they behave like the monkeys they are……chattering excitedly in their family groups taking the lead from the boldest and loudest amongst them.

To its credit the Magistrates` Association has long complained that Fixed Penalty Notices offered by Police to offenders except in the most carefully controlled circumstances were unhealthy options to contain offending. They were talking to the wind. ACPO with government backing oversaw the almost exponential expansion of cautions for repeat offenders including those previously convicted of violence. It is only in recent months that there is discussion to put a brake on such out of court disposals.

It was therefore disturbing to read that the government is considering extending on the spot justice to private security guards employed in hospitals. In a society where currently the mantra of “cuts are necessary”, “we are all in it together”, “we have to live within our means” and many other headline slogans seem to be the wherewithal and guiding light for ministers, to further dilute the responsibility for law and order is a further sign of the accelerating segmentation of our country into umpteen groupings depending on circumstances. It increases a “them and us” mentality.

I have visited many courtrooms in English speaking foreign countries. They were all staffed with armed police officers for security. What do we have? SERCO, GROUP 4 or similar companies clocking off at 5.00pm even when there might be custody cases to be taken to prison or refusing to service all three security courtrooms owing to lack of staff. Even in today`s news the headline was of the Border Agency`s inability to provide sufficient staff at Heathrow to progress travellers in a reasonable time. All these fragmented services of the Home Office, Justice Ministry and local authorities serve to weaken respect for our institutions not enhance it and lack of respect in all its guises is a root cause of much discontent at all levels and ages.

The Tory rhetoric is rising. When that rhetoric is orchestrated by Kenneth Clarke one can be sure that the cause is politics over pragmatism. For the last two years the Justice Secretary in his last cabinet post has had but one obsession; keeping to his guaranteed budget reduction of 23% offered before the coalition had barely coalesced. In order to do that he has turned the Tory totem of local everything where possible for local people and their local representatives to the virtual nationalisation of local magistrates` courts notwithstanding closing about one third of them. He has overseen the shambolic reduction of personnel in the courts, CPS, probation and similar ancillary services to such a degree that many courts run without ushers, without qualified lawyers in CPS prosecutions, with interpreters who don`t turn up etc etc. He has a wish list to abolish defendants` remands in custody in many if not most summary matters irrespective of the details. He has presided over changes to the legal aid system that have forced many solicitors` firms to operate with a Tesco service of volume piled high and never mind the quality; a legal aid system centralised to the extent that it is only just recovering from a four week backlog; a probation service that`s hardly worth the name with its demoralised staff seeking to compete with PLCs to obtain trust status to make profits from the proven so called ability to rehabilitate offenders. And for J.P.s it has never been more obvious that he has a long term ambition to be overseeing a lower courts` system presided over by single professional District Judges who unlike we lay magistrates will be beholden to government for their monthly salaries which are currently around £130,000 p/a when holidays, pensions etc are included and whose recruitment is accelerating. And that is why he is now flying the flag of traditional right wing Tory law and order advocates whose thunder was neatly usurped by T.Blair with his most famous mantra, “Tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime”.

The proposed weekend and evening courts will be under the direction of these D.J.s in the vast majority of cases. Just as in the recent events of last week and last August they will serve justice the way their paymaster requires. One can be sure that when defendants are paraded on a video link from a police station where they are being held to be tried by video link in a distant courtroom justice will not and cannot be seen to be done.

We currently have a situation where the Tory right is pressing its case and trying to out authoritarianise the left of a Milliband led opposition which smells blood. The results will not enhance the concept or practice of justice in this country.

From about the age of twelve to sixteen I was an enthusiastic bike rider. I wasn`t a cyclist but I rode a bike. Cyclists were those adults on bikes with a trillion gears, skinny tyres and drop down handle bars. My bike was red and black, had three gears and a bell to scare unwary old deaf people crossing the road too slowly in front of me. Helmets were for soldiers, traffic compared to current levels was very light and the independence of self propelled transport was a delight. So during my bike period I can`t recollect ever riding on the pavement. I can also be sure that I`ve never sat on a bench with a miscreant cyclist before us for doing just that.

In Selby a 43 year old man has pleaded not guilty to a charge under Section 72 of the 1835 Highway Act of riding his bike on the pavement. I suppose there are two immediate reactions to reading of this; the local PCSO?? perhaps a P.C. but I doubt it, had nothing better to do or it`s a good thing to teach those louts there`s a place for them and that`s on the road. I must admit notwithstanding my lack of knowledge in this case I am unusually truly undecided whether or not there is in general an allowance to be made for riding a bike on the pavement especially since I`ve had a machine with a trillion gears and still shiny red and white sitting in my garage since I bought it some years ago to accompany my son on his newly purchased machine and which apart from about twenty miles worth of effort I`ve been too scared to ride on the very busy suburban roads near my home never mind the suicidal proposition of using the main roads.

The probation event referred to here on 23/03/2012 is now past tense. Area chiefs were brought to the front line to sing the praises of the new improved version of their chosen profession of which they were now managers. Whether their enthusiasm was to convince us or to convince themselves was a moot point. We were assured that reports would be “electronically transmitted” by this new month of April. Since fax is the current method favoured often enough now I think they`ve got that promise covered. If the term “electronic” was meant to indicate that ipad ready formats or pdf to computer lap tops in court were going to be employed it was left unsaid. We were assured there would be more probation officers on court duties and there would be pre-assessment at the court stage. The supremo present was surprised to be questioned on the fact that my “own” court where trials are held for the group [of the three benches now amalgamated to one in two buildings] had now relinquished its own probation office and consequently no probation officers were available. “But if you call the other building where the probation office is now situated before 11.30am an officer will come to your building,” lady big chief responded. She appeared to be astonished when informed that not one of her audience had known of this innovation because nobody had told us. She put that omission down to a lack of communication. There was a follow up point made that rarely is a guilty defendant after trial convicted by 11.30am owing to trial logistics and that meant effectively she was talking rubbish about P.O. availability at the trial court. The subject was immediately changed. She was further embarrassed by a question again on P.O. availability for offenders subsequent to DWP trials. She blustered her way through mentioning involvement of HMCTS. Reminded of public order offences at youth trials where again no probation people are present for pre assessment of offenders under the current system she laid the blame on HMCTS who arrange such trial allocations. As far as I can understand what`s going on HMCTS does not decide to have a courts building undertaking youth, adult and DWP trials doing away with an available probation officer. She was proud to declare that our area was meeting its target {75%} of reports within five days with an increasing number being oral reports of which paper copies would be available for future reference if required. We were told that probation officers were going to be allowed more discretion report writing in an effort to reduce the tick box culture which for my part I recollect being informed by her predecessors years ago would transform the writing of pre sentence reports. What goes around comes around. Finally she enthusiastically championed the proposed competition to provide probation services and assured us that our area Probation Service was going to bid with partner companies for the work.

It was impossible to take seriously this mouthpiece of an individual. She behaved like the puppet she is of a system imposed from above with the aim of reducing costs what ever the price….pun intended.

Since January 1st I have sat once only at our newly constituted remands only court in the building now housing the probation service. At the appropriate time for a sentencing of an offender the court probation officer did not offer us the pre sentence report and could offer no explanation for its unavailability.The defendant confirmed he had undergone the required interview and the P.O. concurred on that. Given half an hour to enquire she returned to tell us nobody in the probation service had any knowledge of the missing file!