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

Sometimes there is such a surfeit of information and news that deciding which comments I might make are least likely to bore my reader is rather difficult. The musings which constitute today`s post are mostly self evident and need little or no commentary.

A consistent criticism of police disciplinary procedures is their secrecy. As far as I am aware there is no other public body which wraps itself in an invisibility cloak as surely as constabularies. The police might have justifiable complaints against the proposals put forward by Tom Winsor recently appointed as Her Majesty`s Chief Inspector of Constabulary but they will not secure or recover the public`s trust until they are seen to eliminate the rotten apples in their ranks.

There are now 310 District Judges(MC) and Deputy DJs sitting in the magistrates` courts. That is about one per court. There are more awaiting appointment. It is inconceivable that the magistracy will be functioning as it currently does by the end of the second parliament from now.

Conviction rates of those defendants who choose jury trial in either way offences cf those convicted of similar offences at a magistrates` court are, to my knowledge, not available. I wonder why not? The nearest I could find is this parliamentary answer of 2001.

Although I am not inclined to believe every or any statistic thrown around by those involved in any aspect of crime or criminal behaviour I do take seriously the latest figures of the Crown Prosecution Service when the subject is rape. For all too long this minefield has been carefully cultivated by feminist groups with a single agenda. It seems they are still there pouring scorn on the subject by careful manipulation of the numbers.

For those who argue every which way about sentencing outcomes here are 54 pages of delightful information contained in the Proven Re-offending Statistics
Quarterly Bulletin July 2010 to June 2011, England and Wales.

In a triumphant announcement of which Sir Humphrey would be proud Courts Minister Helen Grant merely adds to the failure of the government`s decision in ignoring the quality of the cloth and considering only its width when it appointed Capita plc to serve our courts with interpreters` services. That such incompetence is allowed to continue without sanction is beyond belief.

Once again national statistics assure us that crime has decreased. With continuing controversy of various out of court disposals including community resolutions study of criminal statistics is akin to a faith as opposed to a science.

A few years ago I commented that the Met Police`s policy of recruiting officers only after they had served as Specials for a year or more or as PCSOs was a wise move. It was in effect an apprenticeship scheme which served both employer and prospective employee. Four years later and it is history. Such is an example of public policy.

We now know by a parliamentary question and answer on 23rd April that in the magistrates` courts of this country in the year 2012/2013 in 23,885 cases the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence at trial. That is about 1.53 cases per week per court. Perhaps someone will help me decide if that ratio is one of which the CPS should be proud or ashamed.

And finally the conviction rate at magistrates` courts has been constant at 86% for the last three years. Conclusions please???

P.S. Police Oracle now requires registration to read its content. It is a good source of information which I have used for quite some time. I recommend it.

It is beyond dispute that the understanding of relatively simple mathematical concepts both in theory and practice has been shown to be beyond the ability of many people however well informed they otherwise might be. When secondary school maths teachers do not require any maths qualification beyond A levels it is no surprise. When it comes to statistical analysis deviously constructed statements leave the vast majority of the population floundering in a morass of uncertainty. Even relatively simple propositions eg the question for the Scottish referendum; "Should Scotland be an independent country?" are negotiated by the interested parties seeking etymological advantage. Therefore how much more does loose journalism or deliberately misleading journalism contribute to the public`s uncertain view of events?

On April 24th I commented upon the Howard League`s own misleading statements of magistrates` sentencing patterns. This was not an elemental error by a minor institution. It was a calculated misuse of statistics and it achieved its aim of widespread publicity in the local press nationwide. Not content with repeating that press handout the Berwick Advertiser went one step further in its coverage. It offered praise to the local magistracy for being amongst the country`s lowest in custodial disposals.

This newspaper therefore assumed that the local bench`s statistics were judicially and socially preferable to those of others with higher levels of custodial sentencing. This is an opinion certainly but no more. There are many arguments to the opposite. There was also an assumption that higher levels of custody are not in line with the local public`s preferences. I do not know. But I do know that such statements in newspapers should be confined to their editorial pages and not their local news pages under “Local Headlines.”

I am a football fan. I was about 11 years old when, along with two or three pals, I attended my first league game. Hail, rain or shine we enjoyed the freedom to shout our feelings from the terraces with no adults about to tell us to be quiet. I now have the purchasing power to sit in almost weatherproof comfort and watch some of Europe`s greatest players in action.

1995 was a memorable year for Premier League footballers using violence to express their frustrations. I had not yet been appointed to the bench when Duncan Ferguson, then playing for Everton, was sent off and subsequently jailed for assaulting an opposing player on the field by head butting him. I remember thinking at the time that some of the antics I saw on the pitch as a young school boy by the same reasoning would have warranted transportation at least. Perhaps the most high profile footballer to be convicted for actions during a game was Eric Cantona of Manchester United who used a martial arts kick on a spectator. He too was convicted of assault.

In all contact sports there is a fine line to be drawn as to when an aggressive and/or viscious action breaches the boundary between a matter for the sporting authorities and the criminal justice system. I have twice witnessed tackles so unnecessarily potentially dangerous that two young international players were out of action for months having suffered broken legs. The offenders had momentarily lost control but it was obvious they had no intent to cause such injury and immediate red cards followed by bans imposed by the Football Association did not seem unreasonable recognition of the offences. But the case of Luis Suarez is in a different category as it appears from slomo T.V. images. His biting of an opponent`s arm had nothing whatsoever to do with playing the game hard; it was gratuitously intended to injure. At the very least it expressed Suarez`s frustration of the moment. Since it appears that the police will not be charging him with assault just what level of violence on the pitch would bring about such a reaction? In what way was Suarez`s assault any less worthy of charge than Ferguson`s. Perhaps the Uruguayan will find his style of play will be more tolerated back in South America or Italy or Spain?

Blog analytics show that among the most visited pages on this site by what I assume are non legally minded viewers are those concerning entry warrants by utility companies or, as often is the case, by bailiffs appointed by them.

As a newbie magistrate I was concerned at the rubber stamping of such applications without so much as a cursory inspection of the warrants` terms or inquiry in any individual case. To a certain extent that situation has improved and more of my colleagues are taking an inquisitorial role in their questioning of such applications. There is no doubt that since the requirement to send out “human rights” letters many utility companies consider that there is no other investigation required on their part prior to an application to install a pre payment meter for those who have an outstanding debt. Searches here will produce many previous posts on this subject. I had thought that the “message” was beginning to get through to the companies and their representatives; this court applies the principles enshrined in the “Good Practice Guide” for utility companies. I have been over optimistic.

A bailiff before our bench not so long ago was simply that; a bailiff. Unlike the companies who employ their own staff to make application and who have visited every address on their list of warrants this person had absolutely no knowledge of any individual case except that some were domestic and some commercial and that each owed a certain amount which in one case was less that £150. She had no knowledge of when any previous payment had been made, denied that a person opposing in person a warrant being applied for on the grounds that she was making arranged payments to clear her account had indeed been on a payment arrangement scheme, All she had to support her applications was an address, sometimes without an occupant’s name and an uncorroborated outstanding amount. In addition the warrants` wording was such that an application to cut off supply not exclusively on health and safety grounds was included. After some brief discussion we scored through the offending words where required and returned unsigned about half the applications.

I would hope that colleagues throughout the country are being thoughtful enough about individuals` rights to be strong enough to consider carefully such warrants even in the face of some legal advisors` impatience to get on with the morning`s list.

The Howard League must have been rather pleased with itself at the coverage their latest “shock” news brought to local press country wide; headlined as a post code sentencing lottery a term first used to describe activities within the NHS. 3.9% of all those sentenced at magistrates` courts in the year ended September 2012 received an immediate custodial sentence. The numbers have been reducing over the last decade. The Howard League would wish that figure to be zero. It is a campaigning organisation pure and simple. It has its own agenda. Two conclusions arise from their stated goal; such offences for which offenders are liable to custody in magistrates` courts should be removed to the crown court or the sentencing guidelines should preclude custody for those offences.

Whether or not there is a definitive answer as to which disposal has the “better” outcomes....so called justice in the community or prison.....it is rather uncomfortable to attempt to ride two horses simultaneously. The slight variations in custodial disposals which have been joy for the headline writers are just that...”slight”. The mean figure is 3.8% as shown in the table. Remove the top and bottom four figures and the average is 3.9% As a basis of argument this non statistician considers this spurious exercise just another way to grab a headline. It has no meaningful significance.

Section 152(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides:

“The court must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.”

Humans are individual creatures with long and varied individual histories and experience which as J.P.s they bring to the bench. How narrow should Howard League focus its criticism? Should every individual bench decision be tabulated to separate and control the “hangers and floggers” from the “do gooders”? That of course is a rhetorical question. Quite simply the magistracy is being pulled and pushed, buffeted from all sides and funnelled into a system of ever increasing control from the vested interests which pull the financial and political strings of justice. It is as well that the fumbling incompetency of the previous chairman of the Magistrates` Association has been replaced with the provincial tones of John Fassenfelt who is very capable of putting magistrates` opinions into the cauldron of public opinion on the basis of our being representatives of the communities in which we dispense justice and that that justice includes immediate custody when the offence is so serious that only custody is appropriate whether in Cumbria or Caernarvon.

We`ve had two walk outs by unionised legal advisors in the last year. Now their brothers in arms on the northern circuit of the criminal bar have shown in no uncertain terms that their tolerance of the government`s salami slicing of both financial ends and the middle of the justice sausage is just one slice too many. Considering that many (a majority?) of those self employed juniors are currently paid less than plumbers or other skilled tradesmen I offer them total support from one who is in current parlance a Thatcherite but nevertheless is in despair that no senior members of this cabinet seem able to publicly criticise the Secretary of State.

“Useful Information for Magistrates” by the Ministry of Justice has been published in its latest edition. One would have thought that it might have given the editorial board an opportunity to re-visit its guidance on blogging but apparently not. Indeed the “guidance” is repeated:-

Guidance on blogging and the use of Twitter was published by the Senior Presiding Judge and Senior President of Tribunals in August 2012. It said: “Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, judicial office-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.”

On the other hand the Good Lord Leveson has decreed that small blogs such as this will be outside his proposed regulatory scheme.

A few days r `n r for J.P. means a few days without updates. I`m off now!

A recent sitting was in the breach court. I find the prosecution at my court to be of a high standard. All evidence seems to be available with the only chink in the armour a reliance on computer print outs of the chronology of the case; print outs which sometimes raise more questions than answers. It has been admitted in open court more than once that the reliance on probation workers recording accurately every interaction with the clients has to be weighed against the number of clients passing through the system and the numbers in the office dealing with them. I have ceased to be over critical in my comments.

There is one trend in pre sentence reports that I do find difficult to tolerate and an example presented at that recent sitting. We were being asked to revoke and re-sentence. The offender had been convicted of a relatively low level offence and had been sentenced to a medium term of unpaid work in the community. We had therefore in front of us the PSR based upon which the defendant had been sentenced previously and which he had breached twice initiating the request from the prosecutor who read out an addendum from the officer concerned. Apparently he recommended that he now be “sentenced to a Suspended Sentence Order with additional work hours requirement imposed. My words to the prosecutor were, “ Are you telling us that the report writer now considers that the defendant`s substantive offence is now so serious that only custody is appropriate?” To make the point I continued, “To suspend custody one must firstly cross the threshold that only custody is appropriate before considering whether there are considerations which warrant suspension.” We did not follow the proposal and the prosecutor assured us he would report our comments to the officer concerned.

I am inclined to think that such muddled thinking in probation offices is not confined to my court.

I doubt that many of my colleagues have not sat in court at 10.00am awaiting the appearance of a prosecutor of, or on behalf of, the CPS. I would also wager a tidy amount that many have wished to dismiss charges laid against some or all of the defendants awaiting their day in court when there is no sign of said prosecutor`s presence and only the vaguest information when such presence is to be expected.

The routine incompetence of the CPS owing to mismanagement, reduced staffing and inefficient systems is no longer an unusual feature of the magistrates` courts. Undoubtedly there are some magistrates whose frustration at that organisation`s shortcomings lead them to overly critical considerations of applications for adjournments etc. Thanks to CRIMELINE here is reported an appeal against just such precipitate actions by the bench at Stafford Magistrates` Court. It is required reading for those including this blogger who might be too quick to use the CPS as a whipping boy for all the iniquitous decisions being taken which are resulting in an apparent irreversible reduction in quality of our system of summary justice.

It could be said that human beings can be divided into three types and that division could be applied to any number of our predilections. Physically there are the tall, the short and the medium. Psychologically there are those who are generally happy, those who are depressed and that middle group who will tend to neither state most of the time. The list is considerable. Many facets of our life can be considered to swing between extremes with unfailing regularity. Stock markets and skirt lengths are two that come to mind. With this in mind in this modern society there is the group which prefers order and regulation, another section of the opposite bent which can tend to the anarchic at its extreme and once again a third group which might vary in its temperament from one to the other depending on the circumstances. To many of us, despite its denials, the `elf & safety fraternity is the beaurocratic manifestation of a regulatory frame of mind gone amok.

Magistrates` Courts have cells where remanded defendants are held prior to their appearance in the dock. They can hardly be termed comfortable but they fulfil their purpose and provide basic requirements for the few hours spent in them by their transient occupants. With the closure of many courts and police stations over the last three years distances travelled by regular court users have increased quite considerably in many areas. But rules is rules is rules. The good folk who administer the day to day functioning at Kirklees Magistrates’ Court who have to have one eye looking over their shoulder at the best of times to ward off the evil eye of political correctness, ensured that defendants awaiting their court appearance would not be inconvenienced by being kept in an environment which meant they might have to endure an air temperature a degree or three below that which is recommended for their situation. Thus they were kept secure at the local nick with all the unnecessary travel and hassle that followed from that decision; the whole sad story being available here.

I had thought that the pendulum of such petty regulation had swung quite far enough to begin its return journey to some sort of sanity. I was too optimistic.

This subject is becoming seriously heavy. I had intended today to recount an interesting although depressing experience at a court sitting not so long ago but the explosion of the Ministry of Justice`s output on cautions has put paid to that in the interests of being topical.

I would imagine that in times past the law was simple. Hammurabi, 6th King of Babylon, knew a thing or two about enabling his subjects to go about their “lawful” business. Indeed he impressed the Israelites so much with his legal code that a couple of centuries later a certain prophet by the name of Moses refined it for his own purposes. Of course as society became literate and property ownership was obtained by contract as opposed to the sword lawyers naturally employed their literary skills to protect their clients` interests. Criminal law similarly progressed from the biblical injunction to current times at a rate which was nothing less than overwhelming until today when we have a Court of Appeal, over which a Superior Court is there to oversee its decisions which can then be taken to the ECHR if needs be. Perhaps legal Russian dolls is a fitting image.

Since I posted yesterday`s topic the Ministry has vomited byte upon byte on “cautions”. One such document, “The Quick Reference Guide to Out of Court Disposals” goes to 24 pages. The accompanying document “Simple Cautions for Adult Offenders” extends to another 24 pages and 80 sections. There is a similar story on “Penalty Notices for Disorder”. All these and others similar can be found on the Ministry of Justice website here.

Is it any wonder that there is disagreement amongst all the involved parties on the morality, efficacy and practicality on the cautioning of offenders and other out of court decisions when these decisions have to be made fairly quickly by a station sergeant or an officer on the beat. Does there not come a time when simplicity should rule over the minutiae of legislation? Is the legal profession enjoying dancing on a pinhead with all those angels? Would we as citizens be disadvantaged if there were less box ticking and greater reliance on first principles in the application of the criminal law? In other words has the view of justice been lost within the sight of the law?

Police cautions are currently a “hot” topic. A seemingly simple operation has apparently brought into conflict the Home Secretary (and therefore the police) The Secretary of State for Justice, the Magistrates` Association and many individual J.P.s whose opinions are expressed in necessarily rather hushed tones within secure environments. The mass media of course find the topic overflowing with milk and honey or perhaps it is just food and drink to the Daily Mail. To simplify the point; at issue is on the one hand, the right of a defendant to plead innocence such a plea to be tried in court, and on the other allowing a low level offender a reduced sanction on admission of guilt to a police officer. Of course like a good stew there are many other ingredients in the pot.

It is public knowledge that police are ambivalent on this subject. Therefore it is interesting to read the views of an unknown number of police officers polled on an unknown question(s) by Police Oracle. An “official” police opinion was reported here by the same publication.

Just over twenty years ago the Dangerous Dogs Act became law propelled into legislation in great part by a media frenzy over a few tragic child victims in the years previously who had been savaged by dogs out of control. Prior to that Act many cases were brought to court under an Act of 1871. For each family an incident involving injury or worse by an out of control dog was an overwhelming tragedy for those concerned but as was predicted at the time hasty law does not necessarily make good law and so it was proved. Amendments have been made and more are being considered. It is arguable that a similar pattern of legislation involving out of control men subjecting women to violence is taking place.

For centuries in England the law and religion were an effective combination which effectively ensured women were second class citizens. Under that umbrella of protection many women suffered mental and physical harm that is as foreign to us nowadays as slavery. It is to the shame of humanity that such attitudes still pervade societies where “enlightenment” can be construed as treason. It is to the shame of some within these shores that such attitudes (and practices) have not been yet eradicated. But are current events sufficient to broaden the concept of “Domestic Violence”? For whatever reason our legislators have not attempted to introduce an actual offence of DV preferring instead to tinker with the constituent parts of broader law already in place. No more than a generation ago most police forces did not consider the pursuit of a charge of assault by a male against his female cohabiter within the marital home worth the effort until the results became tragically such, that action was unavoidable. Time has moved on and so has society`s tolerance. The term “domestic” has widened to include even once removed family members and it is reckoned that about 90% involve traditional male to female violence, the remainder mainly but not all female on male violence. From March 31st the term “violence” has been widened to include acts of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour by offenders. And for the first time the definition of “violence” will include psychological abuse meaning that domineering men who torment their partners but do not assault them. and who take control of a spouse’s finances, could all count as acts of domestic abuse.

For Justices of the Peace who preside over a majority of allegations of assault in a domestic context judgements will have to be made within these new parameters. As a consequence no doubt there will be a noticeable increase in the number of convictions being taken to appeal at the Crown Court in the next twelve months.

I would imagine that every single one of my colleagues has sat on a case of common assault and after hearing all the facts wondered why a more serious charge was not brought. Very often the defendant has pleaded guilty to the lesser charge when offered a plea bargain by the CPS. And that happens for two main reasons; the facts lie on the cusp of the considerations applicable to a charge of causing actual bodily harm and the evidence is strongly against the defendant or the evidence is not considered strong enough to proceed with the more serious charge and the defendant is induced to plead to the lower level offence. Of course there are myriad other considerations eg previous history, legal arguments, availability of witnesses on the day etc etc. The CPS functions under a very severe straightjacket of considerations. Three such, Actual Bodily Harm, Unlawful Wounding and s.3 Affray are available as examples. That tick box procedure has since been refined but is still essentially a tick box exercise. Ten years ago Guidelines were introduced in an attempt to offer some uniformity in sentencing.

The real world of charging and sentencing continues hundreds of times every day in CPS offices and Crown and Magistrates` Courts throughout the country. For the observer they are condensed into very detailed statistics provided quarterly by the Ministry of Justice but they do not convey the realities of the events which encompass ordinary people both victims and defendants. Underlying the whole process is a 23% reduction in the Ministry`s budget fixed by former Secretary of State Kenneth Clarke almost three years ago. Other factors which are common knowledge are the government`s aim to reduce the prison population, an increased emphasis of “community” involvement in sentencing and rehabilitation and a determination to reduce the availability of state financed expert legal counsel to defendants. Unless lower level ie summary or more commonly either way offences are appealed on conviction and/or sentence the only knowledge available to the casual observer is by way of truncated local reporting a facet of our on line society which is surprisingly in decline. Quite simply most people are not interested.

Three recent matters of assault have been reported in Skegness, Exeter and Maidstone involving a District Judge(MC), a Crown Court Judge and a Recorder respectively. Although the reports are necessarily relatively brief this blogger questions whether the aforementioned guidelines have made a positive contribution to charging and sentencing.

Four days ago I posted on the inexcusable mismanagement at the local CPS owing to the non attendance of prosecutors which resulted in a morning`s list being lost at Swansea Magistrates` Court. Various apologists in such situations are prone to comment that the incident was an isolated example and add the usual euphemistic jargon beloved of “spokespeople”. I would ponder whether Grimsby area CPS has been infected with the same `orrible virus as their colleagues further to the west. There, also, prosecutors did not appear at the local magistrates` court. So yesterday there was no activity. Heaven knows the total costs of this mismanagement : not only the daily running costs of the court but the intangibles of costs to lawyers and defendants. All too frequently defendants are considered as collateral damage when courts go out through events such as at Grimsby and Swansea but also through lack of court time owing to deliberate double or even treble listing of trials.

Gradually all involved are subliminally accepting the current situation as the norm. It took two post war generations to achieve a reasonably efficient and trustworthy courts system. Consider all that has happened since 2010 and it is taking five years to ruin it.

I wonder whether, if I went for a walk in Moss Side Manchester sporting a pencil thin moustache, spats, wearing a top hat and tails and carrying a cane and was assaulted by a group who shouted as they left me in the gutter, “we don`t want toffs here; get back to Alderley Edge,” the Greater Manchester Police would register the offence as a hate crime. After all a person who chooses to wear idiosyncratic black clothing to indicate his cultural proclivity, enhances that with the odd metal stud in various parts of his anatomy, bright purple hair and white face powder is assured that if a crime is committed against him GMP will classify it as a hate crime. Is this organisation driven by its PR department? Is its PR department headed by an idiot?

Hate crime constituted by criminal activity against an individual on the basis of his genetic endowment of a skin of a certain unalterable colour, a genetic or acquired physical or mental vulnerability, a nationality, a religious or sexual orientation can truly be described as appropriate but to classify similarly those whose attire and appearance is a voluntary undertaking which demonstrates their attitude to society`s norms is truly political correctness gone haywire. By encompassing such sartorial variations within racially, religiously or sexually orientated offending the tree of hatred is lost within the wood of difference. And what is the CPS to do when presented with such charges? Will sentencers in Manchester find that guidance to follow the logic of the police recommends that violence against Goths is an aggravating feature? And what of those colleagues of mine who disagree as I do with the whole notion that is being put forward by GMP?

Is the reservoir of our collective judicial sanity being squeezed dry?

Secrecy is mark of authority and authoritarianism in its many forms reveals its secrets only when pressured. Examples of late range from Barclays Bank and the Libor scandal to the Care Quality Commission and its apparent failings. One very bright star of the previous Labour administration was the Freedom of Information Act which Tony Blair later regretted having supported. Perhaps the illumination of this legislation shone too brightly where government prefers shadows. Kicking and screaming more organisations, quangos and government agencies and departments are being brought into the public eye. One exception despite all its bravado of openness is the police. It now appears that South Yorkshire Police, that same force which for a generation covered up its misdeeds at Hillsborough, is redefining the meaning of “transparency”. Various definitions of that word include "being clearly seen through", "that which is easily understood and free from affectation", "lucidity", "full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information". That being said South Yorkshire Police are intending to publish details of officers who have been dismissed or resigned in circumstances surrounding disciplinary procedures. Only one aspect will be missing; the officers concerned will be granted anonymity.

So as Lewis Carroll in the immortal utterings of Humpty Dumpty said, “Words mean what I want them to mean”. Perhaps those involved in this endeavour at South Yorkshire including the newly elected PCC are living in their own Wonderland?

An essential purpose of a criminal justice system is the rehabilitation of those who transgress. Indeed the ongoing debate on how best to achieve such is possibly the most vociferous of all the contentious issues which have confronted and will confront Justice Secretaries past, present and future.

Subsequent to the mass murderer Shipman and the case of the two little girls at Soham in 2002 criminal record checking requirements went on steroids. In a classic example of British over reaction the state pursued those who had been for years leading normal lives having left their criminal past behind them. They had been rehabilitated. But in a spirit which approached state sponsored paranoia such people were in ever increasing numbers being compelled to declare their criminal history and suffering the unintended consequences as employment prospects diminished for many who considered that they had paid their just debt to society. It seems that now some common sense is to be applied to the reporting of past criminal history. The renamed Criminal Records Bureau; The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), will be applying criteria less likely to tarnish the employment prospects of those whose previous misdemeanours were unlikely to prejudice their ability to do a job as well as the next person.

This small glimpse of daylight in our quasi extra judicial processes is to be welcomed. Would that the thinking behind it be repeated in other dark corners where the curtains are tightly drawn.

My very first post 19/11/2009 which initiated my beginning this blog was prompted by inappropriate use of police cautions which was revealed during a case on which I sat. The scandal is still with us. I will watch closely whether Mr Grayling`s actions match his rhetoric.

It is approaching three years of austerity. To most outsiders including highly respected political commentators the havoc wrought on our justice system has been of little import cf other major state responsibilities.....welfare, NHS and defence in particular. There are however welcome signs that the restrictions imposed now on availability of legal aid or more precisely the lack of such availability on civil and family matters will reach a wider audience. Those who are connected with criminal court proceedings within our justice system particularly in magistrates` courts have long been fearful of a virtual collapse of anything that could be termed a system; a definition of which is copied below:-

An organized, purposeful structure that consists of interrelated and interdependent elements (components, entities, factors, members, parts etc.). These elements continually influence one another (directly or indirectly) to maintain their activity and the existence of the system, in order to achieve the goal of the system.

Systems underlie every phenomenon and all are part of a larger system. Systems stop functioning when an element is removed or changed significantly. Together, they allow understanding and interpretation of the universe as a meta-system of interlinked wholes, and organize our thoughts about the world.

It is apparent that if the above is accepted then acceptance of the collapse of said system is, in common parlance, a no brainer.

The actual collapse of a complete morning`s court proceedings at Swansea Magistrates` Court on Easter Saturday is merely a gross example of the myriad inefficiencies within the Crown Prosecution Service. Interpreter services` failings have also reached the public domain despite official claims that talk of failure is an exaggeration. All that the current people in charge, namely the Secretary of State and Home Secretary, can offer is the putting out to private enterprise of probation services, prisons and any other functions eg the aforesaid legal aid that it is considered can show savings on a profit and loss account. The “putting victims at the heart of the justice system” the mantra of the Justice Secretary and his acolytes sounds to me as similar thinking to that of Nero when he instituted the gladiatorial contests in the Coliseum in Rome. A diversion from the problems underlying society. When it is officially considered that an impartial judge or tribunal is no longer the most appropriate method for determining the final punishment of criminals especially when they are restricted by the box ticking mentality of the Sentencing Council we lose the logical argument against eg capital punishment the reinstitution of which could at some future time be acceptable to a fair minority of people. This IMHO is the apparent inherent contradiction in the clamour for victims` involvement combined with a lack of confidence in the words of Mr Grayling. Just take a few minutes to read his speech of 20/11/2012 in which he set out his ideas for the future. Police and Crime Commissioners, Legal Aid, Payment by Results, alcohol and drug users, Prisons, Courts are some of the topics touched upon. Read his words and compare the realities. PCCs are already open to various criticisms exacerbated by their electoral procedures, Legal Aid has been covered above, PBR is virtually discredited before it has begun, addicts of alcohol and drugs will still account for 70% of all criminal activity until there are legislative changes in availability and treatment options and the courts....it has been said here yet again above.

But not to worry Mr Grayling....the long term social and financial ramifications are for 2015 and beyond and it`s unlikely you`ll be in office to take the flak.

In common with many within and without the legal fraternity I have principled reservations with s.5 of the Public Order Act. The punishment for being convicted is in the scheme of things relatively modest; a maximum fine of £1,000. Convictions can be based on proving words were insulting and likely to cause distress and it is within those boundaries than the controversy lies.

A essay by Philip Johnston for CIVITAS has a lot to offer for a dank and cold Easter Monday to those who feel that this country`s reputation for free speech is gradually being eroded. Leveson has really changed the rules of the game. Abolition of s.5 might just indicate that there are still some who believe in free speech.