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

We all know the phrase describing apparent inefficiency of results produced by computers:- “Rubbish in; rubbish out”. However the derivation of that simple statement goes back to the dawn of civilisation and extends to the hallowed [by some] portals of Westminster. It is all too easy and often [back to Westminster again] done to ask a question in order to obtain an answer to suit the purpose of the questioner. Indeed barristers are experts par excellence in this technique. With so many lawyers in parliament perhaps that is why so many questions to ministers elicit answers where the substance is in the wanting. A perfect example is the question to the Attorney General asked three weeks ago on the costs of discontinued cases at magistrates` courts. The answer, indicating reducing numbers and therefore reducing costs of such cases, begs so many follow up questions as to be almost meaningless. Is it any wonder that politicians are the least trusted of professionals.

In my opinion the most interesting of sittings usually involves legal argument of one sort or another. One morning a couple of weeks ago a case before us was a S4 public order matter allegedly committed on a public road involving a car door being opened by a stranger against the wishes of the driver. Apparently the reason we were told for the alleged action was not, at least originally, malicious. The argument or perhaps dispute was that after the CPS had agreed a statement of facts to which the defendant had agreed to plead guilty our legal advisor said to the court that the facts indicated that this was a case which should be considered “road rage”. Defence argued against this interpretation on the basis that driving per se was not the cause of the incident. CPS insisted that the agreed facts were acceptable. Our question to the lawyers was to define what constituted “road rage” and whether we could, from the facts, consider that such a scenario could be drawn.

After an hour none of the three lawyers could find where in English law “road rage” is defined. We sentenced on the basis of agreed facts.

Anything to do with policing is news. If that "anything" is in the most minor sense described as controversial the attention it receives is greatly increased. Perhaps that is because historically at least the unique practice of British policing by consent has had the full confidence of most people. Unfortunately over a generation or two this has led to complacency by those who were in place to apply supervision over police activities. This in turn allowed disgraceful practices to develop amongst a minority of police officers at all levels of seniority. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the number of deaths in custody. Between 2000 and 2010 5,998 people died.

Interestingly enough this week has seen the opinions of three different observers on this important subject: specialist lawyer Susan Freeburn gave her views at the second annual Custody Seminar, organised by the Police Federation Sergeants’ Central Committee and held in Stoke-on-Trent Staffs. At the same conference it appears that ACPO was similarly putting forward its views. Considering the Custody Seminar was in Stoke perhaps it was not a coincidence that yesterday saw the publication by Nick Hardwick Chief Inspector of Prisons and Dru Sharpling HM Inspector of Constabulary of their report on police custody in Staffordshire. However over the last couple of weeks a most enlightening fly on the wall documentary series on custody in Kingston-upon-Hull “The Lock Up” has been screened on BBC. A picture is worth 1000 words is a phrase first used about a century ago. A television series is worth 10,000 words when considered with some thought.

Just when this blogger thinks that further mismanagement by the coalition on the basis of “austerity” should become a less frequent occurrence since all parties are now gearing up for 2015 another example comes along. I am personally convinced that the expansion in the numbers of PCSOs was a sop to the public insofar as it put on the streets poorly paid uniforms filled by many with low educational levels but uniformed bodies nevertheless and we know how much the public respond to jumped up little busybodies even without quasi military uniforms. Well it now seems that in Wales the money ostensibly provided to pay their wages might now have to be used to pay their early redundancy packages. Well....every little helps....doesn`t it?

New ministers at the Justice Dept and the “we`re going to make sure community sentences are tough” sloganeering is back with us. It`s a little akin to the first cuckoo signalling that Spring is upon us. Irrespective of the damage done to the Probation Service, this week another new minister repeats the mantra. Heaven preserve us!

Supposedly a million vehicles have been taken to the pound by police since the powers given to them have allowed this intelligent sanction against drivers with no insurance. According to this report by a large insurance company......so no vested interest mmmm......70% have presumably been returned to their owners. I find that hard to believe considering the owners have to have paid their insurance to get their cars back. Cases before me and presumably others usually involve youngish drivers with little cash and cars often worth less than the fine never mind the insurance premium. Who knows………?

I have been unable to source how many of Scotland`s 5.2 million people have a driving license but I can state that there are 2.7 million vehicles in the northern kingdom. Assuming 2 million are cars or vans and eg 2 million people have a driving license 5.08% or more than 100,000 of them have been ticketed and had penalty points for using a mobile phone whilst driving. This is the highest percentage in any police authority area. The lowest is Thames Valley at 0.33%. A factor of 15 difference seems to this non statistician rather significant. Perhaps Thames Valley police haven`t the time to get away from arresting drug dealers, robbers, shooters, murderers and arsonists unlike their Scottish colleagues?

The Cold War which effectively ended in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall originated in 1919 12 miles from the Champs Elysees in a suburb named Versailles. There the victorious allies of the Great War ordered that Germany make reparations to the value on current prices of £24 billion. Almost exactly two years ago that debt was finally paid off by the German government. In the intervening 90 years it had been a direct cause of the rise of the Nazis, the 2nd World War, the Holocaust, and the deaths of half a million U.K. citizens. The results of the French determination to make Germany pay for the killing of over 4% of the population and the ruin of the north and eastern parts of the country brought about consequences which at the time were inconceivable. The facts above are nothing to do with a magistrate`s blog but the underlying sequence of unintended consequences has a bearing on many facets of individual and government actions.

The recently departed Secretary of State for Justice made great play of his wanting to establish workplaces in prisons. One does not need to be a liberal leftie to appreciate that giving prisoners real work with real wages is a no brainer. Forget the inconvenience that few of Her Majesty`s penal establishments have the facilities or staff to cope with an incarcerated workforce; the prospect has or had merit. Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop. What better way to rehabilitate or at least attempt to rehabilitate recidivists is there? Certainly a full day`s work with a semblance to a full day`s pay would be an improvement on “anger management” and similar group therapies. Released prisoners would depart after completion of their sentence with some cash in their pockets; sufficient perhaps to keep them from law breaking for enough time to try and get back on their feet. But that is not to be. The Justice Ministry in tandem with the new totem of the system, “victims”, is taking from the pittance that prisoners earn and handing it out in aid of victims. This is such a myopic policy one wonders how it can possibly be an enhancement to any prospect of rehabilitation. Did those who approved this nonsense do so owing to their belief in its appropriateness or were they bullied by others from the Chancellor downwards to cut the cost of victim support projects. It would not be the first time government has turned on its head the purpose of certain policies. When John Major established the Lottery he stated publicly that the proceeds were to be used over and above any government spending and specifically not in place of such spending. Such weasel words, as we now are all too well aware. A broad consensus emerged which said that if the Lottery were to be of benefit then there had to be a clear separation between Government funding and Lottery funding. In essence the Lottery should enable new things to happen that wouldn’t have been possible without the additional support. In order to help allay these concerns the Major government developed what was known as ‘the additionality principle’ – a supposed guarantee that no government, now or in the future, would use Lottery funds in order to make up for cuts in central or local government expenditure.

The principle was laid out in the White Paper that paved the way for the creation of the National Lottery:

41. Under standard conventions, the disbursements of a national lottery will be classified as public expenditure in the national accounts. The Government does not intend that the money provided from the lottery should substitute for that provided in other ways: the proceeds will not be brought within the planning total, and the Government will not make any case by case reduction in conventional expenditure programmes to take account of awards from the lottery proceeds.

When next the do gooders cry out for fewer custodial disposals and increased efforts at rehabilitation with prime concern for victims let them contemplate this latest policy designed for short time headlines to propagate a cheapskate approach to being tough on criminals. Remember Versailles.

Very rarely is the great British public allowed to see our leaders in the raw; in a position where their words and actions can be taken for what they are and not for what they want us to hear or see. Andrew Mitchell`s outburst was just such an action. Anger is a primeval emotion and the swearing that often accompanies it inflates an already adrenalin inflated body. That is why those who continue to swear at police officers after being told to desist will be arrested before their anger leads to violence. Andrew Mitchell revealed his true self if the words recorded in police notebooks are to be believed and I believe them. This true self holds himself above the level of a common cop doing his job.

It seems that the Cabinet Secretary is not going to order an inquiry. No surprises there then; he is covering his master`s back. The Superintendents` Association is calling for an investigation into the whole business. Heaven only knows what pressures are being placed upon the police officers whose integrity by default has been impugned. But the attitude of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner who is supposed to be apolitical…..who believes that?...........is rather odd. He has ordered an investigation into how the contents of the officers` notebooks reached the Sun. But he too is not going to make further inquiries [so we are led to believe] into the substantive matter. After the recently revealed scandals including the revelations at the Levison Inquiry one would have thought that the Met in particular would want to demonstrate that all its laundry is white and clean hanging out to dry. But “yes Prime Minister”, whilst there is no smell there is an unpleasant whiff in the air.

ADDENDUM 26/09/2012

The police officer`s log reported today in The Telegraph adds fat to the political fire

What a week it is for police in the headlines. Hillsborough will forever tarnish all good cops with the smell of South Yorkshire`s senior officers` 23 year cover up. The apparent deliberate ambush and murder of two police officers in Manchester just because they were police has yet to be explained in open court. A government minister tells us that he did not use the word “pleb” when mouthing off against police officers doing their job in performing security duties at Downing Street where an open gate is a threat. I cannot imagine why two officers would use that particular word in their report if that report were not correct. After all there are many more commonly used epithets around they could have fabricated. And finally in today`s papers the apparent inaction of the same South Yorkshire Constabulary in the face of evidence concerning the grooming of young girls by Pakistani Muslims is disturbing. Certainly it is a mixed bag of police headlines

I`m a collector or perhaps hoarder is a more accurate description the result being that I never have enough space to put away all my bits and pieces. It was whilst I was searching this morning for some documents from the 1990s that I stumbled across the learning log supplied when I attended the weekend induction course to the magistracy. The third entry written on December 31st at the end of my first year on the bench describes my thoughts and I copy it word for word below.

“Legally two cases stand out. The first at the beginning of the year; a case of two black defendants being accused of causing harassment, alarm and distress to two police officers with three other officers as witnesses. We decided there was no case to answer. This was my first trial. It was a rude awakening to how the police can operate against “short tempered” innocent blacks and how the rules governing the threat to use CS gas were disregarded. I wonder if the defendants considered that a white, middle class middle aged bench believed their story to the exclusion of the police evidence and whether it was a topic amongst their friends or family that might indicate that the courts were not biased against them”.

The above sitting was prior to the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Six months from now courts will be operating under new guidelines for “domestic abuse”. These words are written with quotation words because the meaning of the phrase, to paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, is what the writer intends it to mean. There is no absolute. It has a totally variable connotation. It originally described violence by men against a wife or intimate partner. The US Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) defines domestic violence as a "pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner". The definition adds that domestic violence "can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender", and can take many forms, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional, economic, and psychological abuse.

The women`s movement of the 1970s witnessed the beginning of attention paid to violence against women within an intimate relationship. The term Domestic Violence was first used in an address to the Parliament in 1973. Even at the close of the last century police were still often turning a blind eye to such violence. However about ten years ago the Metropolitan Police in a policy change announced that all such accusations would be investigated and charges laid even without the victim`s co-operation. Other constabularies swiftly followed. Specialised courts for DV trials were established and all J.P.s sitting in such courts underwent specialised training.

Notwithstanding the realistic limitations of intimate or family relationships in domestic violence situations the definition has expanded somewhat. I have sat on a DV designated trial where the accused perpetrator was the distant brother in law; his wife`s sister`s husband, the alleged victim; the families living in different towns.

Next March the new definition will be:- Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass but is not limited to the following types of abuse:

Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.
Coercive behaviour is: an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”

By widening the net to bring more defendants to court it is likely IMHO that the ratio of not guilty to guilty verdicts will increase.

Magistrates are in the privileged position of being given access to offenders` records on the Police National Computer. I think I can state that not one of us has been surprised at the serious offences which have been disposed of by a caution of one type or another. Indeed after many years this government has finally tightened up procedures and asked police to be more circumspect when considering such out of court disposals. How sincere and effective such appeal is remains to be seen because of course it is so much easier and cheaper when court action is avoided. Justice is definitely not the first consideration.

It appears that the inspectorates for the police, probation, prisons and prosecution services have got together to produce a report. I am completely ignorant as to whether such co-operation is usual or unusual. The results, according to a report in The Telegraph, are a cause for concern. It seems that 12% of cases dealt with by police were dealt with by way of some form of “restorative justice”. I treat this phrase with the same contempt I treat the phrases “community penalty” or “care in the community”. They are the civil service equivalent of Newspeak. As an example the historically named lunatic asylums…literally places where mentally afflicted people could find place of refuge……near my childhood home and my current address have both been converted into luxury flats whilst those poor souls with major psychiatric conditions are out and about without the supervision they need and often desire. But I digress.

Quarterly figures from the Ministry of Justice show that 151,131 people over 21 were cautioned, 36,823 aged 18 – 21, 29,547 teenagers 15 – 18, 13,476 aged 12 – 15 and 1,209 children between 10 and 12; a grand total of 232,186. These and more statistics can be found here.

The very useful website fullfact.org has a slightly different slant on this topic on 2011 based figures. There is no analysis of the various unofficial actions taken by police officers. Whilst there is still confidence in the integrity of police (and much current sympathy) generally every example of police misconduct which reaches the public domain, and the majority does not, reduces the trust in which the institution is held.

Restorative justice and “putting victims first” is merely smoke and mirrors. Government only gives populations what they want when it suits its purpose. Capital punishment and E.U. referendum are two prime examples.

This latest revelation is merely another example of our criminal justice system being driven by cost saving and to hell with the consequences.

In a properly funded justice system the operating of magistrates` courts at weekends would be judged on increasing the efficiency of the whole process. There would be a positive cost benefit analysis and there would be near certainty that the demand was there in the first place. In a situation where absolutely nothing but cash saving is involved despite protestations to the contrary there can be no confidence that any other factor is being given due consideration. In other words there is no longer any credibility in government announcements and proposals. When the Deputy Prime Minister and his second in command have more or less admitted that pre election pledges on university fees were made to garner votes from a new generation of voters with no thought that they might be part of a government which they knew would be unable to fulfil that pledge there is ample evidence that the coalition has lost much of the credibility it had two years ago.

Lawyers in Liverpool have made their feelings quite clear when faced with virtually a fait accompli to open the local magistrates` court at weekends. Of course there are already some courts operating a long established Saturday morning sitting where demand was clear and supply of staff was agreed and presumably effective in terms of pounds and pence. I doubt that the co-operation which existed twenty years ago remains. When legal advisors are still in my court building at 8.00pm completing their paper work for no additional remuneration or time off in lieu the days when they will sacrifice their family life for yet another government “pilot” are over. If the Liverpool lawyers are as single minded as their football supporting co-citizens were over the events at Hillsborough this project will be still born and rightly so.

ADDENDUM 26/09/2012

Even monkeys learn not to bang their heads against a brick wall. A proposal to open Birmingham Magistrates` Court on weekends has been put where it belongs.....in the rubbish bin. Just who are these idiots at the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service who are continually putting forward policies which are clearly ill conceived and inappropriate?

How to get your name in Hansard.......use a legal title long since replaced by District Judge or state the bleedin` obvious.

I have blogged here more than once that I consider the current eligibility rules for jury service unsatisfactory especially the fact that no quantifiable understanding of the English language is a requirement for sitting in judgement over one`s peers. The overwhelming stampede for so many aspects of our life to be “representative” has IMHO superseded common sense; itself a term which some would consider in itself unrepresentative insofar as what is common to one group might not be so to another.

That some of those with {controlled} mental issues of one sort or another equate their lack of equal opportunities cf physically disabled individuals is a non sequitur. Deciding after hearing all the arguments whether or not the guilt of a defendant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt is an intellectual exercise; if intellect is impaired the task with all its requirements is also impaired as might be the conclusion. A writer in the Independent disagrees.

Another article raises a much more interesting point; whether an admission by a potential jury member of prejudice against certain classes of people constitutes a contempt of court. As almost everyone including magistrates is prejudiced against something or other we can all relate to the individual concerned in spirit if not in practice. As magistrates we are trained to put aside any prejudice we might have when we enter the court building and of course for all the activities we undertake in our position. Failure to do so is probably as serious as it gets. The judge in this matter had before him an intellectual problem of more importance than many of the judgements before our highest courts which are so distant from the ordinary citizen as to be applicable for a man from Mars .

Everything to do with the magistracy per se is as political correct as far as that terminology can be found anywhere in my limited experience. Nothing exposes this outlook on the world more than the use or non use of the word “chairman”. This is not the time nor place to delve into the etymology of the word but for those who are curious this site might be of interest.

My own curiosity in the wordform was awakened a few weeks ago with an invitation to attend later this week a training session for “chairtakers”. This was my first awareness of this form of address for those approved to sit in the middle chair. Perhaps I lead too quiet a life and should get out more.

From time to time this blog has demonstrated or tried to demonstrate the shortcomings of the system in which magistrates` courts operate. These short comings are often the result of management systems both within Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service and agencies inputting to courts` functioning not being fit for purpose. Inefficiencies seem to be tolerated or accepted as inevitable. I have mused that until the result of such inefficiencies leads to newspaper headlines of a very bad outcome as a direct result of gross error the likelihood of government to pay attention will be zero. He might not have made headlines but former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson in yesterday`s Telegraph has exposed some of the shortcomings at Westminster Magistrates` Court in a session presided over by a District Judge[MC] which Justices of the Peace face daily and about which are unable to comment publicly. Admittedly his background has coloured his comments but the article is worth a few minutes reading time. I would just add that at a training session last year a District Judge told us that in our area 60% of police officers and 57% of witnesses attending were not called to give evidence.

So at long last the Magistrates` Association has decided to ascertain the views of its members on the infamous Guidance published by the Senior Presiding Judge a month ago. From his announcement copied below it can be seen that our august chairman is enmeshed in that civil servant jargon language known as Mandarin English.

The blogging guidance covers all judicial post holders in England and Wales. The guidance intends to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. This is also an objective of the Association and this is why I, on behalf of the Association, agreed the guidance.

I realise that this issue is causing controversy amongst those that understand the concept of taking part in blogging. Over the coming weeks I will be seeking the views of a cross section of members about the guidance and reporting back to all members and also to the Magistrates Liaison Group.

Do not hesitate to let me have your views.

John Fassenfelt
john.fassenfelt@magistrates-association.org.uk

The convolutions of his statement are not worthy of a man in his position.

“The guidance intends to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary”. Guidance cannot intend anything. What he means is that the intention of the Guidance is to maintain etc.

“I realise that this issue is causing controversy amongst those that understand the concept of taking part in blogging”.

Generally when referring to those who are actually people the relative pronoun to follow is “who” or “whom” not “that” which refers to inanimate objects or non humans. He does not just infer that the blogging controversy is of concern to those who understand it; his realisation is of the controversy amongst those who understand the concept.....whatever that is. He has disappointed by omitting any comment about those who don`t understand.

So after committing the M.A.`s support for a nonsensical edict he now wishes to have members` opinions. Therefore I would request that readers who are members respond to the chairman noting their membership number.

Rather belatedly the Law Society Gazette has commented on the fiasco of Applied Language Solutions but to be fair it is a very well written article which goes to the nub of the whole sorry business. This is just one of a series of supposed cost saving initiatives seized upon by the coalition in its efforts to repair the leaking roof over the country`s finances. There was CSC at the Ministry of Defence, A4e at Employment Dept. and of course G4S at the circus in East London. Is there a pattern? The Private Financial Initiative beloved of Gordon Brown which is saddling umpteen hospital trusts and others with enormous re-payments for the next generation of tax payers to fund was lauded at the time for enabling Labour to fiddle the nation`s financial balance sheet whilst ostensibly providing new and improved services as if by magic.

The costs of providing the systems providing law `n order and a criminal and civil justice system cannot be compared to those of a health service or a welfare and social security service. The only two requirements for a state which must be funded by government are defence of the citizen from the threat of invasion and a justice system to protect the rights of all. It seems that because these two functions are not top of the pops in the minds of voters they are being emasculated in the same way as eg libraries being closed. There are 25,000 J.P.s. If just 1% at their next sitting or on a pre arranged day wrote to the new Secretary of State about the inefficiency they observe perhaps he will take note. Or from another viewpoint on any one day I would estimate there are about 1,500 – 2,000 magistrates sitting in court. 10% reporting inefficiencies to the Secretary on the appointed day would provide a more accurate state of our courts than any statistics compiled by the Ministry.

Now there is something useful that the Magistrates` Association could organise to justify its existence......sorry......just wishful thinking.

Not unexpectedly the news that the Hillsborough campaigners were right all along in their accusations of a high level cover up by police and emergency services not to mention suspicions that senior officials in Whitehall and Westminster might have questions to answer is both a shock and a relief. Shocking because the previous attempts to ascertain what actually happened were shown to be rigged and relief because now the truth is finally out. Whether government figures or their civil servants were beholden to the South Yorkshire Constabulary for its actions during the miners` strike five years previously and colluded in the cover up is a matter of interest and no doubt will prompt further investigation in time. As citizens of this country it cannot enhance the trust we have in government and the agencies which serve it and enhance its function. On 01/09/2012 I blogged inter alia, “A loss of trust is never easily regained whether concerning relationships with friends or families, or government and people.”

This sad story does not impinge directly on magistrates and their judicial function but the rotten apples revealed within South Yorkshire Constabulary cannot but taint the actions of police in general. As magistrates the evidence of every witness before us is treated on its merits. We consider police officers` evidence in the same fashion as that of others giving evidence. There is, however, a minority of my colleagues who, in my opinion, are reluctant to accept that police officers can and do lie under oath in the witness box. If nothing else these colleagues will have had their confidence in police integrity severely damaged. The police have more powers today than ever before. Their internal disciplinary procedures must be opened up to public scrutiny if they are to regain the trust of a population two generations on from Dixon of Dock Green.

Sentencing Guidelines were established nine years ago with the laudable aim of a reduction in sentence variation and thereby improving consistency in all criminal courts across the country. It was hoped that eg a hypothetical headline of sentences to be light in Leicestershire but heavy in Herefordshire would be unavailable for the Daily Mail and other media. Only last week a crown court judge`s sentencing remarks created exactly the furore that the guidelines were meant to avoid. The Norwich Evening News today has published information on sentencing statistics at Ipswich Crown Court. It appears that this court is amongst the most severe in sentencing for burglary. Perhaps in a rural area there is less tolerance to this activity than in the big cities. Whatever the reason it is an indication that the tick box mentality of sentencing is not the be all and end all its supporters would like it to be.

An analysis of crown court sentencing patterns is available here. One cannot fail to note that it treats every sentence analysed as if from a great big national crown court; there is no breakdown of individual crown court sentencing patterns although they will probably be available somewhere for those interested in delving further.

Besides finding that writing this blog is as good a therapy to ride the highs and lows of urban life as any to be found at the pharmacy or the psychiatrist’s couch the reality of the daily functioning of a magistrates` court just cannot be found in any statistics, reports or comments from the heads of the agencies involved. Only those regular participants, J.P.s or lawyers, can show what life is really like in the courtroom. Perhaps that is why there has been pressure on those J.P.s involved to immediately cease such writing and erase any previous posts or comments which might, according to some of the legal establishment, have a tendency to undermine the judiciary or call into question the impartiality of those on the bench. A blog such as this meagre attempt would be of little interest or use if all it offered were almost unlimited praise if such praise were appropriate. It is indeed palpable that praise for the functioning of agencies contributing to courts is rare for the simple reason that it is rarely deserved. When such events have occurred I have not ignored them. Would that it were more often.

A single sitting in a remand court earlier this year ago is illustrative. There were about fifteen cases to be dealt with. Of these the C.P.S. prosecutor was missing two files and our legal advisor another two. One defendant who had been remanded in custody the previous day in order to be seen by the duty psychiatrist was not fit to be brought into court. She had stripped naked in her cell and was being very disruptive. However the bench was more concerned that, since the amalgamation, our courts in buildings separated by a few miles are still functioning as two separate entities A magistrates` court and B magistrates` court. Either building can involve either court depending on whether remands or trials are held. This particular day at the B court was not the appropriate day for the defendant who had been listed by the A court to be seen by a psychiatrist. The A court psychiatrist is present at the A court on another day only and since the B court psychiatrist had not been forewarned she was not available. This disturbed defendant had to be remanded for a further few days to be seen at the other building by the appropriate psychiatrist on the appropriate day. It does sound complicated. Apparently the legal advisor on the previous day who had adjourned to the wrong court at the wrong time found it complicated also. Our L/A told us he could not make out his colleague`s writing to identify him/her but would report the situation upwards. A pre sentence report on a prolific offender [theft] who was an alcoholic offered a twelve month supervision order and nothing else. The bench used its judgement to sentence although in the current climate of sentence by box ticking that might not be an option in a few years. An offender who had pleaded guilty to criminal damage denied he was on license. Nobody but nobody had information on his status….L/A, CPS nor his representative. Outcome is unknown as he was put over to the next sitting. Now for the praise; two interpreters turned up promptly.

Around 100 former magistrates` courts are for sale, sold or pending sale. It will be interesting if and when the Ministry of Justices publishes the sums realised by such sales. From my limited knowledge of commercial property prices across the country and various news reports I would bet a pound to a penny that there are many being sold at knock down prices to those canny enough with a few quid in their back pocket to take a flyer. Whilst the new occupants are happy for the free publicity the effects on the former court users of much increased travelling time and distances especially in rural areas are never worth a mention.

One doesn`t join the magistracy for social reasons apart from a small minority who undertake limited sittings when they are not otherwise engaged on lunching or other such middle class pursuits. However the amalgamation of benches has produced effects probably not even considered by those who did the amalgamating.

A Roman centuria was the essential battle group of the Roman army. It consisted of 100 men commanded by a centurian, equivalent to a modern senior non commissioned officer. A company in the modern army has a minimum of 100 men under the command of a captain. 2000 years of history does not negate the observation that the numbers and functions are comparable. The group size would be recognised by modern psychologists as the maximum number in which group members can feel and play a part as individuals. In other words there is an affinity amongst participants which can be utilised for the benefit of the group as a whole. My bench pre amalgamation was around 160 strong; today it is more than double that number. Whereas previously one could if one wished develop within the bench relationships somewhere between friend and colleague that is now virtually impossible when one rarely sits with the same colleagues more than once or twice a year. Whether or not this change in the structure of benches nationwide will have any tangible effects on the politics within benches and between benches and other related organisations remains to be seen except in the case of one organisation; the Magistrates` Association. This body is unfit for purpose. It is a self serving group peopled at the top by those seeking but always denying self aggrandisement. It is undemocratic in the extreme refusing to modernise an obsolete and in itself unrepresentative branch structure. It propagates roses with more urgency than it does the current issue of blogging magistrates. It is with just a few exceptions a lap dog for government proposals. It was bad enough with relatively small benches. With benches of 400 or more the concept of representation is not just a joke; it`s a disgrace.

There was an interesting discussion yesterday morning on The Wright Stuff; a topical discussion weekday show on Channel 5. One such topic debated was the possible introduction of permanent seven day trading and its effect on family life. This is a divisive issue from many directions; some obvious and some less so. One caller to the programme suggested that if Sunday opening were unrestricted the major stores would have achieved a little considered objective; namely that the shopping mall would become the town centre with many public functions brought under its roof. So goodbye to high streets with their remaining independent shops, cafes and pubs. The idea of having courts in shopping malls was mooted three years ago and was blogged here in January 2010. To his disgrace the then chairman of the Magistrates` Association endorsed it. It appears that in Kent the process has begun.

Bluewater Shopping Centre has become the home of the first police station and court to be so located. Apart from the iniquitous and controversial justification of defendants being required to plead to a video image of a courtroom from the confines of a police custody unit, suite……call it what you will………with or without the benefit of a lawyer to advise them the programme caller`s observations were right on the nail.

Without in any way being nostalgic or old enough to wish a return of a trimmed hedge and tea shop image of 1950s England is the process in Kent one would want to see replicated nationwide under the guise of creating a creating a swift and sure criminal justice system as proposed by the unlamented former Police Minister Nick Herbert?

There has been much criticism, mostly warranted, of Applied Language Solutions, a division of Capita plc, who were contracted to provide interpreter services for courts from 1st January. I have copied below the question and answer session from yesterday in the House of Commons on this topic. Readers might conclude from the reply that their own or anecdotal experience has been confirmed.

Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many court hearings have been adjourned due to an appropriate interpreter not being supplied by Applied Language Solutions in the latest period for which figures are available.

• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 6 September 2012, c388W)

Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald, Conservative)
The Department does not centrally hold information on the number of all adjournments due to an interpreter not being provided. Information is available on the number of ineffective trials in Court Statistics Quarterly.
These show that in January to March 2012 out of the 43,110 trials in the magistrates courts, 182 (3%) were ineffective due to interpreter availability. Of the 10,555 trials in the Crown Court, 10 (0.7%) were ineffective for the same reason.

The Department also published statistics about the operation of the Framework Agreement with Applied Language Solutions (ALS) in May. These show that of the 26,059 initial requests for language services 11% were either cancelled by the Courts and Tribunal Service, or the person for whom the translation service has been requested failed to attend. Of the remaining 23,234 request ALS were able to fulfil 18,719 or 81% of the assignments. However, presenting a single quarterly figure hides a very marked trend over the three months of increasing success rates for requests for translators.

During the first month (30 January to 29 February 2012) of the contract ALS were able to fulfil 65% of requests for translations services, this increased to 82% in March 2012, and increased to 90% in April 2012.

All these statistics are published on the Department's website.

I must admit I`m a little confused and not a little concerned. My confusion arises from two apparently accurate if limited reports on sentencing remarks of HH Judge Peter Bowers who sits in the North East. In June he was reported as making critical comments on the sentencers` bible AKA the Sentencing Guidelines with regard to the limitations on the sentence he could impose on a man convicted for the first time of attempted burglary. There are some metaphorical Russian dolls in all this. All sentencers have opinions on the guidelines whether as a matter of principle thereof, intention therein, content within or effect thereof. There is also to be considered the public pronouncement of the reasons why any particular sentence or disposal is imposed whether by the lowliest magistrate or a member of the Supreme Court. Within the pronouncement there is a wide choice of the manner and tone in which the words are spoken and the extent and reasons why if necessary the sentencer has departed from the guidelines. Judge Bowers seemed to have made his opinion perfectly clear.

Roll forward to a couple of days ago and the very same Judge Bowers sitting at Teesside Crown Court when sentencing a serial burglar declined to impose immediate custody and instead sentenced the offender to thirty months in prison suspended with an associated supervision order and 200 hours unpaid work requirement. His pronouncement of sentence included the reported comment, “It takes a huge amount of courage, as far as I can see, for somebody to burgle somebody’s house. I wouldn’t have the nerve. Yet somehow, bolstered by drugs and desperation, you were prepared to do that.” Not surprisingly those remarks have precipitated somewhat predictable responses from the prime minister downwards finding an unexpected opportunity to bolster his intentions to get tough on crime by his recent sacking of Kenneth Clarke.

Perhaps others can appreciate my confused state. Try as I have I cannot relate these two sentencing pronouncements. In the earlier case he was highly critical of the guidelines in which he, as many others, found himself in determining an appropriate disposal. He indicated that he was required to be unduly lenient in dealing with the offender; indeed much more lenient than he would have chosen to be in different circumstances, i.e. without having to defer to the guidelines. In the recent matter he did not merely deviate from the guidelines, as he had the right to do stating his reasons for so doing; he chose to drive a coach and horses through the Sentencing Guidelines with a wholly inadequate explanation.

And it is this combination of sentencing which is of concern to me. There appears to be a prima facia case of his remarks in combination being completely illogical in his reasoning behind his sentencing decisions. This would seem to fly in the face of official determination to end post code sentencing and the reason for the imposition of guidelines. Some, but not this blogger, might say HH`s observations indicate some confusion in his thinking. In addition I would opine that such public criticism of one of the basic tenets of the judicial system; Sentencing Guidelines……love them or loath them……..could be construed as bringing the judiciary or the judicial system into disrepute; the accusations that only a month ago the Senior Presiding Judge made with his edict on the position of blogging magistrates.

My final concern is whether or not this will be treated as merely a storm in a teacup or do our seniors and betters apply the same considerations to those higher up the judicial ladder as they do to we lowly Justices of the Peace.

ADDENDUM 05/12/2012

It seems HH has had a few words in his ear from those with longer wigs than he. Will we soon hear of his retirement to spend more time with his family provided his pension rights are not imperiled?

This is not a political blog. But it would be churlish not to comment upon the passing of certain people from their place of influence as far as concerns Justices of the Peace.

Kenneth Clarke can certainly be seen as having caused greater harm and having greater culpability. He was amongst the first, if not the first, Secretary of State in June 2010 to announce that he would be slashing his budget which he did indeed do….. by 23%. He also announced plans to reduce the prison population and reduce legal aid. He argued [in vain] to remove the courts` ability to remand in custody defendants on summary only matters. He was responsible for the closure of almost 100 magistrates` courts. I doubt that many working in the courts will regret his leaving. As for Nick Herbert, ex police minister, having been passed over for a higher level position there will be no tears for his resignation. This precipitate show of pique fits perfectly with the character of an arrogant individual who tolerated little criticism……in his public pronouncements and interviews at least, he always strove for the last word.

Perhaps for the next three years Chris Grayling will oversee policies based on what is best for our justice system and not what is most expedient. One can live in hope.

About two dozen magistrates are removed annually from the judicial list by the Office for Judicial Complaints. The original complaints can come from any number of directions; members of the public, colleagues or various legal authorities. There are numerous acts of commission or omission which can lead to erasure……some are obvious……lying on the application form or to the interviewing panel, failing to sit the minimum number of times required annually, behaving in a manner that brings the office of magistrate into disrepute are just some. I have commented here more than once. Being associated with law breakers is not such a clear example. One feature of the process is common to all complaints; the investigation is carried out behind closed doors. The rights of the “defendant” are not public knowledge as far as I know although I will be happy to be corrected on this. What and who constitute the panel in judgement? What level of proof is required? What representation is available to the accused? Is a full transcript of the hearing{s} available and to whom? There are many other unanswered questions because the whole process is conducted in secrecy. I can easily imagine that some of those involved will relish that secrecy but generally there are always suspicions concerning secret tribunals of any kind.

A member of the West Sussex Bench, Sarah McDonagh was last month removed from office. A single issue website has highlighted the story. Whilst the very rare occasion when a judge is removed will make headline news most decisions cause nary a ripple. Other regulatory organisations eg the General Medical Council and the Law Society in days not so far gone by were very reticent about their disciplinary procedures and processes. It would seem appropriate that the Office for Judicial Complaints offered a public window to its processes.

One of the major complaints about the manner in which politicians and spokesmen for national quangos treat we, the public, is releasing press statements which not only are an insult to our intelligence but seem designed to obfuscate the very matter under discussion. With the change of government two years ago it was perhaps wishful thinking to hope that the “good days for releasing bad news” mentality was consigned to history.

Recently figures were published confirming that more than half the prisons in England and Wales are officially overcrowded. And what does a Prison Service spokesman say in reply,”All of our prisons provide acceptable levels of accommodation, although some prisons hold more people than they were originally designed for."

Whether it`s doctors or Prison Service spokesmen there is need for trust. Until such examples of official double speak are ruled by those at the top of government as unacceptable the regard in which these people are held will go from bad to worse whether the subject under discussion is prisons or acceptable levels of taxation as just two examples. A loss of trust is never easily regained whether concerning relationships with friends or families, or government and people.