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

So now we know; Roman Abramovich has won at least the first round of his monumental legal tussle with Boris Berezovsky. It seems that Russian media have had a feeding frenzy. The Russian billionaires have, according to some observers, contributed £150 million to some of London`s leading law firms and chambers. For matters that were alleged to have taken place in Russia London was the chosen place to have the case heard because, we are told, of the probity of the judiciary and confidence in the English legal system. So smiles all round at the Inns of Court and pink champagne for all involved is the order of the day. What a glowing testimony to our legal system that the biggest by cost of any legal case involving individuals took place in the land of Magna Carta.

And so to my sitting earlier this week in a common or garden magistrates` court metaphorically as far from the Commercial Court as my income is from that of the owner of Chelsea Football Club. At 10.00 a.m. the video appearance of the defendant to be committed to the crown court could not go ahead on time because the CPS had no file; apparently it had been sent to our other court building some miles away. About an hour later we trooped back in. Nobody was now quite certain where the missing file was but to all intents and purposes it was lost for the morning. Defence counsel agreed that the committal could proceed on her file and court`s information. Thankfully the prison had agreed to extend the defendant`s availability until 12.00 noon and the process was completed. The next case was a guilty plea on morning of trial to possession of class A heroin. The offender, a recent immigrant, who had no fixed abode had been remanded in custody for over five weeks and was rapidly dealt with by fine deemed served by his time incarcerated. He was told that if he had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity he would have saved himself being another remand in custody statistic. As a conclusion to our sitting around 12.40 p.m. we were about to issue a warrant against a non appearing defendant due for trial on a charge of criminal damage when he did actually turn up. At this point the CPS prosecutor told us that neither she nor defence solicitor had viewed the CCTV upon which the prosecution had apparently relied. Back in court at 12.55 p.m. the prosecutor told us that it was impossible to identify the defendant from the CCTV. Apparently the case had been progressed by police and CPS had not been involved until that morning and owing to the other misfortunes which could not in a hundred years be laid at the door of the prosecutor it was only at this late stage that the paucity of the evidence had been revealed. He was told that the case against him was dismissed with a word of advice concerning his late appearance. During our down time we were told that two CPS prosecutors had actually failed to turn up with no explanation available. Our colleagues were rather scathing in their opinions of the mismanagement at our local CPS office and had requested a written explanation. This was a frustrating morning for many by any account.

Argumenty I Fakty, Russia`s newspaper with the largest circulation, won`t be sending a reporter to my court to praise the British legal system.

I would refute any suggestion of those who might comment that this telling of a not atypical morning in a typical magistrates` court has a likelihood of reducing public confidence in the judiciary. What I would suggest is that those agencies upon whom the judiciary and the justice system rely, starved of funds as they are, whilst not on the point of collapse, are in serious need of imminent resuscitation. If there is much delay even the kiss of life might not be enough.

Those who have a few years experience of the bench under their belts will appreciate that the variations in quality of advocacy from the lawyers` desks are as widespread as the stripes on a stockbroker`s shirt. Just as all Premier League footballers were once talented twelve year old schoolboy players every criminal QC had his/her apprenticeship honed appearing before a lay bench at the magistrates` court. That invaluable source of information Crimeline has published a useful guide for those recently called to the criminal bar setting out some hints on how to progress successfully in their chosen field. The first four chapters are available here. Would that some of those who appear at my court take advantage of the advice. As far as the CPS is concerned considering that many of them are not lawyers......

Since last year`s riots those clever people in Whitehall who determine the direction of future government policies and in particular policies encompassed by the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office have been working hard like beavers on steroids to do their masters` [and mistress`s] bidding………or perhaps have found those masters and mistress more willing to accept their long gestating proposals. In whatever order was effect and cause one such proposal was for late night and/or weekend courts. The trumpeting of speedy Olympic justice has energised them. The unions representing legally qualified and other court staff and some within the CPS made the small suggestion that lack of willing staff and associated increased costs might render the proposals still born. Kenneth Clarke and his subordinates {who might lose their jobs in the reshuffle} were not dissuaded. A pilot scheme was announced with the usual fanfare. It didn`t go down very well at North Staffordshire Magistrates' Court; one of the courts chosen as a pilot.

Behind this attempt to ramrod justice was Police Minister Nick Herbert, as arrogant a politician and Minister as one could imagine…..or worse. A man who deals with the facts as a man who deals with the problem of doggy doos on the pavement....he walks round them. As an example of the need for this so called initiative he used the argument that it typically takes five months for a case to be disposed of in a magistrates' court, from the date of the offence to sentencing. Of course we, the simple minded British public, would be unable to reason that it might have taken four months and twenty seven days from offence to arrest with sentence on the twenty eighth day. Such is the manner of our political masters.

The problems of staffing courts for extended sittings were highlighted by staff representatives and lawyers. If some do indeed go ahead it will be another nail in the coffin of the lay magistracy as we know it because in all likelihood these courts would be presided over by a single District Judge[MC]. Since that is the long term intention of many within government and without some of these pilots will be forced to proceed to save face if not cost. The coalition can afford no more U turns with Heathrow`s 3rd runway and HS2 still not finally put to bed.

Participatory democracy or a phrase similar is used effortlessly and thoughtlessly by politicians from the left right and centre to indicate that we are all important; that all our opinions are valued and that we are all in it together. What we are in is of course open to conjecture. Postal voting was encouraged by the previous administration to further greater participation in both local and national elections. The result was an increase in election fraud. The project was sound but there was no appreciation of the possible misuse of what was ostensibly an effort to increase the numbers of voters making use of their hard earned privilege.

The workings of magistrates` formal gatherings are somewhat less participatory. Every bench in the country has at least three meetings annually where matters of local policy can be discussed, reports by various committees are presented, short presentations by representatives of other agencies can be made and at one of these meetings elections must be held for membership of those committees, in particular for the Training and Development Committee; the group which more or less controls the bench`s activities from training and all that entails to dealing with all grievances. The “Rules and Procedures” of my bench`s TDC runs to 17 A4 pages. One would have thought that such a powerful committee would operate best with the full confidence of the bench if the full bench were involved in voting on its membership of nine although by statute three members only may comprise the committee. One would be wrong.

My bench comprises about 360 members. However only around 90 J.P.s turned up for the last three meetings one of which was the annual election meeting. Although members interested in standing for election to committees can submit their own nomination papers only those actually attending the meeting are eligible to vote…..hardly participatory democracy in the age of e-mail, i phone and i pad. Arguably the most important function of those behind the scenes of our magistrates` courts is to draw up a rota, balanced for sex and ethnicity where possible, for our courts` benches of three to be allocated. For my court that means up to a maximum of 72 J.P. positions daily have to be confirmed as being available. Since my own appointment these rotas have been drawn up twice a year. Predicting one`s movements six months in advance is difficult but considering it takes about two months for the rota`s gestation from filling in an availability form to its final production it is a reasonable process and has worked well.

At one of those three meetings referred to above there was a proposal to issue the rota on an annual basis. In my opinion this was a purely cost saving measure but nevertheless it was put to the meeting where about 49% of those present voted “for” with about 36% “against” and the rest abstaining. That means that around 14% of the bench approved the change. This is an insult to democracy. This is the same procedure that brought British Leyland to bankruptcy by incessant strikes forty years ago, that voted many union leaders into powerful positions and BTW elects the fine gentlemen who run the Magistrates` Association....election meetings where only those present can vote; where proxy or on line voting is prohibited. Of course for certain groupings such limitations in representation are the basis of their existence. For magistrates it should be ended.

“OMOV”, one man one vote, was a driving force which could have propelled the late John Smith to 10 Downing Street instead of T.Blair. Its sentiments are as applicable today as they were then.

Since the “guidance” on blogging by members of the judiciary was published a fortnight ago I have been convinced it was aimed primarily at blogging by magistrates for the simple reason that as far as I have discovered no judges blog anonymously about legal matters. I am not concerned with the other advice by the Senior Presiding Judge in that same “guidance”. My initial opinion was and is that this government through officials of varying seniority have nudged enough people in a short or long chain enough times for their wishes to be translated into action and that reasonable criticism of the functioning of the magistrates` courts has become too heavy to be tolerated. Why else has this issue been raised? Are the true results of cost cutting in magistrates` courts and associated agencies slowly being realised by mass media? Are there skeletons to be discovered in the justice cupboard? Is the government`s intention in the long run to reduce magistrates to being members of neighbourhood justice panels and replace them in the courts with District Judges? How many judges resign over legislation being enacted which goes against their conscience and everything in which they believe? Unpaid magistrates cannot be threatened by anything other than removal from office. That such a disposal would not affect that office holder`s income is a problem for the Justice Department. "Bystander" whose identity is almost common knowledge has taken the route of declaring a collective.

Since November 2009 I have published over 1,000 posts dealing with activities within my own court {a small minority}, commenting on the activities and outcomes in other courts reported in the public media, been none too complimentary about the Magistrates` Association, criticised more than praised the activities of the Crown Prosecution Service and associated similar court agencies, various senior police officers and police generally and been coruscating in my opinion of the consequences to our justice system of the government`s funding cuts.

The essence of the “guideline” is the following.... "They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general....Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith. Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action."

Apart from the free speech argument which has been presented here and in many other places it is an insult to even the most junior members of the judiciary that they would damage public confidence in the judiciary or their own impartiality. Even if that were to be considered a possibility the existing sanctions available to such individuals are sufficient; ie removal from office although by what standards and by whom would such people be judged?

I therefore am going to continue blogging as I have done previously. I can declare very firmly that my actions in court are as impartial now as they have always been since I was appointed. By shining a little light on others within the system and offering my own considered opinions when I feel obliged no impartial observer could reasonably opine that public confidence in the judiciary and its impartiality could be undermined. I seem to recall that similar arguments were raised when live televising of the House of Commons was first mooted. If the SPJ and his associates consider that criticism by this blogger per se is detrimental to the standing in which judges and the judiciary in this country are held, it is they who have the problem not a simple blogger and his simple messages.

There is an old political adage that if an individual or policy is attacked both from opponents on the left and also from the right then that person or policy is probably broadly acceptable to the non political majority. Long before I ever thought about the magistracy I was aware of the conflicts between the hang `em and flog `em brigade on one side and the leftie do gooders on the other.

Two reports today illustrate as well as any that that conflict is still alive and kicking and probably will continue as long as there exists any resemblance to a civilised country. A teenage thug is spared an immediate custodial sentence for reasons about which we can only speculate and the Howard League on the flimsiest of bases makes observations totally in line with its modus vivendi.

However an obvious drawback to such a philosophy, akin to being positioned in the middle of the road, being least offensive to as many as possible, is the likelihood of obliteration by an out of control truck. The custodial sentences imposed upon last year`s rioters were greeted with satisfaction by those loosely described as Daily Mail readers but with much more circumspection by many criminal lawyers. I would posit the question as to how far sentencing not in line with the wishes of the unwashed majority.....to coin a pejorative term of old.....can be supported by a government which requires the votes of that majority.

Last week my lawyer neighbour told me how mortified he was when he got out of the taxi which had been ordered for him and walked towards a client`s office. He felt a strong hand on his shoulder and a not very happy voice demanding the £9.00 fare. My neighbour had thought that the fare had been paid for by or put on his client`s account. With some little embarrassment he dutifully gave the driver £10 with his apologies.

AGMs of the Magistrates` Association are as “enjoyable” for the exchange of colleagues` stories on the bench as they are for the official business….probably more so. One such chat over a pint or two a few years ago at such a gathering flew straight back to my short term memory as my neighbour completed his tale of woe.

As my fellow member of the M.A recounted it, a cab driver had behaved in a situation exactly as had the driver with whom my neighbour had had his recent experience. A major difference was that he [my neighbour] is mid forties and a former Counties level rugby prop forward and the non paying cab passenger in the matter before my colleague was a slightly built thirteen year old schoolboy. The brief facts as I can recollect the tale were that he left the taxi in an anxious state without paying the fare caused, he had asserted, by the driver`s intimidating attitude and bad driving. The long and the short of it all was that the driver admitted chasing after him and that his hand reached out to his shoulder to indicate that he should stop and pay the fare. The scene had been observed by a third party who, noting the boy`s apparent distress, had dialled 999. Defendant`s counsel offered the defence against the charge of common assault by citing s3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which provides that: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime”. It seems that during his time in the witness box the defendant did not fully or adequately explain whether he knew or believed before the incident that the non paying of a taxi fare was a crime or a civil matter. The bench did not accept the defence argument and he was convicted. It was subsequently revealed that he had had two convictions in the previous four or five years for common assault.

I cannot recollect ever having had that defence put before any bench in any case remotely similar I`ve been involved with but I certainly will ensure I pay any cab fare promptly without having to be reminded by an irate taxi driver tapping on my shoulder.

Dogs…….one either loves them or hates them. In a feeble attempt to keep body and soul in a reasonably state of repair and to assist in my marbles remaining where they work best I go out running two or three times a week. Unfortunately at around similar morning times in my neck of the woods many dog owners have a similar timetable for exercising their four legged versions of their best friend. I would assume that almost everybody undertaking similar efforts to keep fit will concur. Today, not for the first time, I was prompted into kicking up my heels just a little bit more than usual to avoid the attentions of a black long eared creature snapping at my ankles. Its owner walking nearby cheerfully shouted out that he was only a puppy having some fun before one of my feet tapped his little fun loving creature enough for him to desist and for his owner to describe me as an uncaring person of doubtful parentage. This was only the most recent occasion when similar events have interrupted my Olympian efforts to keep my heart going for yet another day.

The limits and shortcomings of the Dangerous Dogs Act [1991] have been commented upon here 21/02/2010, 04/06/2010 and 09/11/2010. At long last the Sentencing Council has applied some common sense in its forthcoming guidelines to put an end to the anomalies which were inherent in the previous dog`s breakfast of legislation. This is not before time and I hope that when the possible repercussions of poor control over their pets becomes common knowledge to dog owners there will be fewer occasions such as occurred this morning near my house.

Yesterday I commented upon a case at Caerphilly Magistrates` Court and the apparent inadequacy of the pre sentence report insofar as the offender breached his order owing to reasons if substantiated which should have determined another form of sentence. Overseeing all the beaurocracy of the probation service is the National Offender Management Service which, to quote the first two relevant paragraphs on the Ministry of Justice website, “is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice, bringing together the headquarters of the Probation Service and HM Prison Service to enable more effective delivery of services. The two bodies remain distinct but have a strong unity of purpose – to protect the public and reduce reoffending. Prison and probation services ensure the sentences of the courts are properly carried out and work with offenders to tackle the causes of their offending behaviour.

NOMS is responsible for commissioning and delivering adult offender management services, in custody and in the community, in England and Wales. It manages a mixed economy of providers. Decisions on what work is to be done and who it will be done by are based on evidence and driven by best value”. Now we know.

Its Inspectorate produces reports on its efficiency region by region. It is only by passing a weary eye over such a document that one can begin to understand the thinking processes of these people......read about South Yorkshire if you have the stamina.

The probation service is under enormous pressure as is almost every sector concerned with the delivery of justice. These difficulties can and do result in requested reports by the [magistrates`] courts being compiled within limited parameters in as short a time slot as possible. The outcomes of such limited reports are often apparent only when a non custodial sentence is breached and the offender is returned for re-sentencing. A frequent reason offered for the non compliance of a community payback order….unpaid work before the name changers became involved……..is that in one way or another the health or family obligations of the offender militate against his/her adherence to the order`s requirements. If evidence is offered showing that the offender indeed has good reason for his non compliance the question is put to the probation officer in court as to why the matter was not explored and/or mentioned in the report. All the officer can do is to mumble an apology and further thought is given by the bench as to a more suitable outcome. All this causes unnecessary stress to many offenders and wastes public money in having the breach matter in court in the first place; a situation easily avoided if adequate knowledge of the offender`s situation had been obtained by a fuller insight involving a more in depth interview.

Such an example appears to have been the case at Caerphilly Magistrates` Court where Paul Townsend was sentenced in March to a 12 month community order with 40 hours’ unpaid work, for taking £550 worth of cigarettes and cash from a Bristol pub, including £160 which had been for charity. The report in the South Wales Argus if accurate is an example where it seems that the original sentencing Bench`s lack of knowledge of the offender`s medical condition contributed to his being unable to comply with the order. And that points straight to the probation report prior to sentencing where his health and medication requirements ought to have been discussed. It would not be correct to put all the blame on any individual involved. It just appears to be yet another sign pointing to the submerged 90% of the justice iceberg which is slowly melting away unseen or uncared about beneath the surface and about which the Senior Presiding Judge would rather not have blogged on this or any similar site.

There has been much introspection on this the anniversary of the riots which engulfed many high streets throughout England last summer. The causes put forward by uncle Tom Cobbley and all range from the police being too heavy handed to being mere onlookers, from social deprivation to an excess of materialism among young people, to a lack of parenting, poor teaching, unfettered capitalism, failings of socialism and any other trisyllabic description with meaningful overtones. The remedies proposed are equally diverse but none can be so unbelievably obscure as that proposed by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. This band of brothers would have inter alia the public gear up its ability to defuse and control anti social situations. Perhaps after the circus in East London would be pacifiers with stout hamstrings should sign up for an introduction to aikido or perhaps a course of Thai kick boxing for those with time on and power in their hands. A script for defusing potentially violent situations could be supplied as an app for smart phones using the Bluetooth facility. It seems odd that such a simple solution has taken so long to appear.

Motoring Courts are an infrequent sitting. Lists of non appearances can, on odd occasions, reach three figures. Generally these are tried in the absence of offenders who have failed to take the opportunity to appear in person often to their financial detriment.

Being not an every day occurrence my colleagues and I on the day in question were struck by the number of times an inquiry to DVLA about an offender`s road traffic history was returned “no trace”. We estimated between one third and a half were returned thus. Post sitting discussion with our legal advisor and the prosecutor returned the opinion that the cause had to be down to one of two reasons:- either the name was wrongly reproduced by police or where police were not involved DVLA`s name search facility was not flexible enough to cope with perhaps a single letter error. Of course it was also possible that many applicants for driving licenses make deliberate errors in their application forms. Whatever the reason[s] there seems to be an unreported problem at DVLA.

On 10/08/2012 I concluded my post with the following, “Until judges as a group speak openly about the ever worsening situation in the magistrates` courts I fear that the decline in efficiency will continue.” Well, the Senior Presiding Judge has spoken but not about those increasing problems in the lower courts. Firstly he has back tracked on his guidance recently published concerning the requirement of J.P.s who were intending to stand as candidates for the post of Police and Crime Commissioner to resign. His revision was stated thus:- “Provided a magistrate undertakes not to sit from the time of his/her selection as a candidate, and to resign if elected, he/she may resume sitting if not elected. In other words, in respect of the present elections, it will not be necessary to resign upon announcing an intention to stand. No doubt those magistrates seeking election will conduct themselves in such a fashion as not to compromise their ability to return to their Bench as an independent and impartial member of the judiciary.” One wonders why such simple advice was not offered initially. After all everything was originally agreed with the assent of a shadowy committee known as the Magistrates` Liaison Group. The magistrates who were on this so called group are currently anonymous. The Magistrates` Association website is not helpful on this detail. Either the revision was considered and rejected or it was not even on the agenda. However the change in tune occurred, it is welcome.

The content and tone of the guidance on blogging by magistrates is of an entirely different order of magnitude. It is unknown whether the aforementioned Magistrates` Liaison Group was associated with this further guidance also.

It specifically refers to “magistrates” although the advice is ostensibly not so limited referring as it does to “judicial office holders” or “members of the judiciary”. It differentiates also between blogs which refer incidentally to the writer`s office and blogs written anonymously by magistrates. As far as I am aware there is no legal blog written by an anonymous judge. The same cannot be said for letters to the press, books, media interviews etc by named judges commenting on matters legal or more worldly. Thus in my simplistic opinion this directive, for that is what it is, is directed against magistrates and magistrates alone every single one of whom has been sent a copy. There are fewer than three or four of my colleagues I know of who publish a blog directly concerned with the legal system as viewed through their insightful eyes.

The wording of the directive patronising as it is deserves some scrutiny. The opening paragraph is itself an example:- “Judicial office holders should be acutely aware of the need to conduct themselves, both in and out of court, in such a way as to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary”. It continues, “ They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general.” My interpretation of this statement is that it seeks to curb my right of free speech to express opinions which might or might not be those of the official organs involved. I have for example frequently criticised the Crown Prosecution Service amongst others within the judicial system. I have used actual incidents carefully camouflaged and edited to preserve total and complete anonymity of all parties concerned. Is such knowledge made public a possible cause of damage to public confidence in my or my colleagues` impartiality or the judiciary in general? I would answer that it is not. By seeking to eliminate a view of a real working day in a magistrates` court by an experienced and objective observer within the system as opposed to bland statistics and/or statements published by the organisations involved and political point scoring from K.Clarke and E. Milliband downwards this directive appears to want to put a lid on unfavourable comment. And what star chamber is to be judge and jury on the conduct of a blogger whose writing is considered in breach of the guideline? As with eg the General Medical Council would there be a preliminary investigation to determine if there were indeed a breach? I think not. It would be justice conducted behind closed doors. Indeed the quality of justice dispensed by the Bar Standards Board to members of the Bar itself has been roundly criticised as being subject to allegations of conflicts of interest, lack of transparency and poor management. Reading press releases from the Office for Judicial Complaints one is not immediately overwhelmed by the wealth of detail in such pronouncements.

The conclusion of this misguided guidance states, “ Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith. Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action”. So this guidance is compulsory upon pain of disciplinary action. The last time I checked the definition of “guidance” in my 1982 copy of “The Oxford Combined Dictionary of Current English and Modern English Usage” it stated thus:-“directing principle”. Microsoft Word offers “leadership, direction, supervision, management, control, regulation”. It seems control and regulation are the Senior Presiding Judge`s interpretation.

Unpaid and voluntary, Magistrates are not beholden to anybody except their employers or themselves to pay their mortgages and/or maintain their standard of living. They are however a very British hybrid: they are generally well versed in their own specialities from taxi driving to taxidermy. The vast majority within a relatively short time have shown their ability in adopting to a distinctly new function well policed by regulators. They are independent people who cannot be disciplined by threats based upon their financial well being. Thus the only disciplinary sanction available to the Office for Judicial Complaints the body through which any discipline would have to be applied would be removal from office. It is a moot point for those much more learned than I whether such a course would be lawful based on this guidance. I suppose time will tell.

ADDENDUM 17/08/2012

According to a spokesman for the Judicial Office,

“The guidance was agreed by the Magistrates Liaison Group: chaired by the Deputy Senior Presiding Judge (Lord Justice Gross) and attended by the Chief Magistrate, the Magistrates Association and the National Bench Chairs Forum.”

Official “advice” from senior judiciary………..

"Judicial office holders should be acutely aware of the need to conduct themselves, both in and out of court, in such a way as to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, officer (sic) holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary. They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general.

The above guidance also applies to blogs which purport to be anonymous. This is because it is impossible for somebody who blogs anonymously to guarantee that his or her identity cannot be discovered.

Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith. Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action. It is also recommended that all judicial office holders familiarise themselves with the new IT and Information Security Guidance which will be available shortly."

CPS and defence lawyers in magistrates` courts as well as magistrates themselves are well aware of the forms to be signed subsequent to cracked or ineffective trials. Apparently these forms are poured over by HMCTS, as the entrails of chickens were by pagan witch doctors of a bygone era, in order so we are informed to analyse the myriad causes of the non effectivity. There was a time not so long ago when case management hearings were scheduled a few weeks in advance of many trials to iron out any possible foreseeable impediments to their going ahead as listed. That procedure was dropped, at least in my court, about a couple of years ago except for those within the context of domestic violence and even in those cases a CMH is no longer automatically scheduled. Presumably it was thought by those self described big brains in Whitehall, those with non existent ears, that speedy, swift, sure, summary, or justice of whatever description would no longer have to be impeded by case management hearings and so £hundreds of court and legal time would be saved. They were so wrong as have been many similar decisions at the Ministry of Justice. But the limp bureaucratic press office nonsense responses to the situation are of a different order as can be read in this report about trial non performance at Boston Magistrates` Court. The Taxpayers' Alliance also should shut up complaining about a situation of which it has total ignorance.

The Magistrates` Association rarely voices criticism of government actions and in the rare event it does it does so diminuendo. Until judges as a group speak openly about the ever worsening situation in the magistrates` courts I fear that the decline in efficiency will continue.

With all the ballyhoo over the running, jumping and diving that is going on in East London there had to be a story somewhere in England where a reprise of the sending of young offenders to the Caribbean for rehabilitation some years ago was proposed. The location was Hull and the suggestion was less of an affront to the law abiding majority of that city.

The idea was to offer those convicted of alcohol related offences free passes to a gymnasium in the hope that some sweat on the brow would assist in changing their behaviour. Needless to say there were objections. Who said we had left all that nonsense behind when TB resigned the premiership?

Another day another sitting……..August is probably the month when, for obvious reasons, there are more two person benches than usual. Also two courts were closed. But the frustrations inflamed by the current financial situation are now obvious from the remarks by J.P.s and legal advisors alike. At that sitting a two person bench was in court for precisely 15 minutes between 10.00am and 3.00pm when my two colleagues had finally had enough of enduring the excuses and inefficiencies of a system at creaking if not yet breaking point. For reasons not worth explaining in detail and owing to errors and/or omissions by a prison governor, SERCO, a court listing officer or officers, an overworked L/A and the witness care unit they decided to wait no longer to perform the duties for which they had been rota`d and against all their years of willing dutiful compliance declared themselves released and left the building completely disillusioned and demoralised. My own court to a lesser degree was subject also to the chaos which has become routine. The upshot was that the sitting closed at 6.40pm with our L/A seething. She had been in court until 7.00pm the previous day and was thoroughly exhausted. She had of course about one hour of paperwork and form filling to complete before she too could go home. She told us that if flexitime had been approved which it hadn`t matters would not have been so bad. As it was she hinted that the time was not far off when she and her colleagues would be pushed too far. None of her or her colleagues` additional hours is paid for. It is not unlikely that a work to rule will be imposed on a permanent basis by our legal advisors. Previously it has been a short show of defiance. Having their numbers reduced by 10% and dealing with the problems caused by similar inefficiencies lower down the court food chain and elsewhere is sapping their tolerance and their moral. If they were to go on strike within the next twelve months it would be no surprise. I have no doubt that the vast majority of my colleagues would be in full support. But it would not simply be about money. I hope that before that day arrives the bean counters in Whitehall will wake up to the reality of the situation they have created in the name of an austerity policy which is coming apart at the seams.

It is gratifying to note that amongst the hysteria of gold medals at the Olympic circus damning observations of courts` efficiencies or lack of them are becoming increasingly frequent. This will cause a certain discomfort where it is overdue. It has taken two years for the inevitable daily problems in our courtrooms of which every court practitioner is only too well aware to become the stuff of media comment and once again the Guardian is out there ahead of many of its rivals in bringing the bad news from Ghent to Aix and other places nearer home.

The oft repeated comments by the government and its lackeys that reducing inter alia police numbers, courts, legal aid provision, CPS lawyers and interpreter services as a result of a 23% budget cut could be overcome by increased efficiency has been shown for what it is; a rash decision with no consideration for the future of our justice system.

Current problems are only the beginning of the decline in judicial services still to come. Anybody who thinks otherwise is in for surprises or shocks depending on their support for current austerity policies.

It might not be even indirectly related to the magistracy but a ruling at the High Court this morning that a government back to work scheme was not contrary to Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights banning slavery should surely be welcomed by all those who consider that with rights come responsibility; in this case the right to welfare benefits carries a duty alongside. Or perhaps that reptilian brain which equates effort and reward is more active in the generation which remembers the swinging sixties than that of those born of a later epoch?

The interface between social concern and the justice system should be fairly clear. I well remember a trainer during my weekend induction to the magistracy telling us that we are magistrates not social workers. However in the last decade or so new terms have entered the justice vocabulary eg rehabilitative justice……not “rehabilitation” which for a century has been one of the pillars of the system.

The Guardian has often had a lot of well written articles on crime, criminology and justice generally. Yesterday`s article on the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre is no exception. In principle I don`t agree with the philosophy of HH Mr Justice Fletcher and it seems that this so called progressive step in our treatment of offenders is going to end owing to its inefficiency and not just to unforeseen costs. One thing for sure…..Nick Herbert that arrogant Minister of State for Police and Criminal Justice will not be missed if he fails to make the cut in the forthcoming cabinet reshuffle.

It appears that the project to replace courtrooms with video equipped police stations has begun in Kent. It was tried in Camberwell Green in 2009 but abandoned after not being cost effective. It is therefore not a foregone conclusion that this is the money saver the government is claiming. But apart from that consideration this is a reprehensible “initiative”. A police station by its very purpose is no place for defendants and witnesses to appear in a trial situation. Just some of the quotes in the BBC report are enough to sum up this sorry day for justice in this country.

Even at its most authoritarian the previous government was not as hell bent on eroding justice at least in the lower courts as is this collection of people trying to please all of the people all of the time. We are slowly being conditioned to expect terrorists under every stone and cash savings to be made by discarding principles which used to be held up as an example to the world. It seems that justice and low level offenders can be compared to the fortunes of John F. Kennedy and other American Patrol Torpedo Boat servicemen in WW2. They were expendable.

As widely predicted the first hearings of Olympic related offences was presided over by a District Judge[MC] at Stratford Magistrates` Court. Perhaps colleagues in other London courts might offer their input as to their involvement if any?

This is just another example of the refusal of our society to cope with addicts who inflict misery on others. What in heaven`s name is an ASBO or jail going to do for him or those living nearby?

There are few more peaceful and pleasant suburbs in north London than St Johns Wood. It has an art deco tube station typical of that period in the 1930s when the middle classes were comfortable in their insularity from the trials and troubles of a desperate working class recovering from mass unemployment. And to cap it all there was Lords Cricket Ground home of the MCC since 1814.

A friend yesterday had reason with many others to be walking past the high walls of the famous temple of cricket which was hosting heats of the Olympic archery competition. Aside from the enthusiastic volunteers in their purple vests and sponge fingers pointing to the Ground`s entrance the street was being patrolled by two of the Met`s finest with their Heckler and Koch sub machine guns in a state of readiness. My friend is not of the gung ho hang `em high brigade. Indeed according to his own description he is a passable imitation of a pacifist. But, and here`s the rub; he told me he felt no unease and being a stranger to London had no hesitation in asking for directions, just as he has done previously in other towns, of a local bobby on the beat. And what`s more he was answered with the consideration and politeness he had previously associated with times past.

Although at the last properly conducted poll of police officers fewer than half were in favour of a permanently armed police force is it not inevitable that for good or for ill the era of the unarmed British police officer is rapidly coming to an end?