According to the BBC the Government is about to announce its plans for criminal justice reforms. Inevitably, one of the proposals is to introduce tough community punishments - yeah right, just like the last dozen announcements did, and with similar effect.
It's interesting that there are plans to introduce a money limit on Theft charges, so that magistrates will lose the option to send small thefts upstairs to the Crown Court, but - and here's the catch - the defendant retains the right to elect jury trial. Hemmed in as we are by guidelines, magistrates very rarely send thefts under a few thousand pounds to Hizonner, while quite a few defendants decide to try their luck with twelve good men and true and accept the risk of a heavier sentence if convicted.
So the changes will make a negligible amount of difference.
As for changing court hours, the pinch point at present is the shortage of legal advisers. If they work nights, they can't work days. Simple as that, so again, little or no change.
"Mr Herbert denied it was "gesture politics" and told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The whole point of these reforms to ensure swift and sure justice is about putting the victims first. There is no need for unnecessary delay in our criminal justice system."
ReplyDeleteJustice is about 'Putting the victims first' ? This bloke is delusional.
Another gimmick.I'm still busy marching drunks to the cashpoint.
ReplyDeleteJaded
I retired just in time to miss my training for SSSJ. Where did that go?
ReplyDeleteI see part of the plan is that cases for TV licences will be heard by a single justice (good news) sitting in a community hall (medium news) diverting a legal advisor from a courthouse to the village hall (bad news).
ReplyDeleteHo hum
Making TV licence non-payment a civil matter would be even better news.
DeleteWhich it should be.
DeleteWhich it should be.
DeleteI'm starting to have resigning thoughts about twice a week as the latest ideas materialise. Wouldn't dream of contributing to the political debate, of course.
ReplyDeleteBaldybeak
....which is exactly what they want!
DeleteJust do not expect any good ideas from any of them and you wil not be disappointed.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gibson
Aren't you lot doing away with juries? Flood the jails with political offenders and wait for the bang.
ReplyDeleteThe idiot above has found a new blog.Hooray.
ReplyDeleteA shortage of legal advisors? The cutbacks in legal aid mean that if HMCTS advertised tomorrow they would be flooded with applications.
ReplyDeleteThat's true, of course, but there is no money to pay for them. The Voluntary Early Departure programme disposed of dozens of LAs earlier this year, and there are no plans to hire any more.
DeleteEven after closing six courtrooms we are now closing at least one more every day, because the LAs who are on maternity or sick leave cannot be replaced with temporary staff.
Drunks and others who wander the streets at night ( and sometimes day) cause a lot of low level aggro. However, the D+D who appears in cout would well benefit from a few weeks on a properly controlled curfew and might give the public a bit of a rest- but you can't curfew.
ReplyDeleteRather than fannying about low level offenders should be given the task of keeping War memorials clean and tidy and other places we do not look after properly. Maybe if they took part in some decent activity they might then show some respect. Some of these hair brained probation activities help no one but probation to hit figures.
I do have 2 serious questions. (Not that remarks on the criminalization of protest are not serious. Here goes).
ReplyDelete1. Is there a genetic component to crime? You seem to get a lot of repeat business, same families turning up on a weekly basis.
2. What gives you the right to take months or years out of someone's life?
As to 1 there are numerous studies, both sociological and genetic or psychological regarding the causes of crime. There is no one simple answer.
DeleteAs to 2 - the right of the office Judges and JPs have sworn to uphold. If you have a problem with the principle of imprisonment as a form of punishment, I suggest you take it up with your MP.
Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man, opined that short people were more likely to be criminals than tall people. This would imply a genetic contribution to criminality (or maybe, a nutritional contribution.)
DeletePerhaps JPs posting here could advise us if there is noticeable shortness in the criminal classes.
1. People do not develop genetically; they develop as a product of nature and nurture. Hope you can understand that as a reason for repeat JP business.
Delete2. If you want people on this blog to take you seriously, then don't ask such silly questions.
Tony Frost, we are all the product of nature and nurture, but "nature" means genetics, and "nurture" means environment. Genetics plays a big part in behaviour; at least predisposition. Justice relies on a presumed "free will" where the accused, even if more than usually predisposed, to crime is able to censor his actions and not commit the deed.
Delete@Nationalist. Yes, I know nature means genetics and nurture means environment.
DeleteBut where are, kindly tell me, your imagined alleles, mutations, patterns of single nucleotide polymorphisms, or any other observable genetic phenomena that correlate with 'a big part in behaviour; or at least predisposition' ?
I suppose in all fairness we can identifiy clinically, if not genetically, fronto-cortical degeneration (Pick's disease), some of the more bizarre presentations of Huntingdon's or Jacob-Creutzfeldt diseases, tertiary syphilis, and other rare cases of true neurological disease. But they are not the scrots that crowd the courts.
@Tony Frost, if you know nature means genetics why are you saying that, "people do not develop genetically"? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
DeletePlease read instead of asking repetitive questions. They develop as a product of nature and nurture.
DeleteAre you Ed (not Bystander) as a rose by any other name, by any chance ?
No, I am the one and only Nationalist. And your statements do not make sense (to me.) You say people develop as a product of nature and nurture; then you agree nature is genetics; but then you say people do not develop genetically! Your statements are self-contradictory.
Delete1.Yes
ReplyDelete2.The law.
Is Ron Broxted an alias for Ed (not Bystander) ?
ReplyDeleteNo. Wash your mouth out.
DeleteMy goodness me. Ed (not Bystander) finally said something different.
DeleteBut still not edifying.
DeleteI wonder what sort of sad little creature doesn't even have the balls to pick a pseudonym. What's wrong, terrified of the idea of even that accountability for your verbiage?
Delete@Ed(notB). Zoologically, I am sure you would find lots of what you would regard as sad little creatures without balls. Your gratuitous, unthinking, repeated offensiveness is what's wrong. So stop wingeing when people respond in kind.
DeleteP.S.: Watch out Ed not B. Any more of that and they'll have you as discriminating against women, for saying sad little creatures don't have balls.
DeleteI shall reply here if I may. Environment as a factor, I was going to add that some notorious families produce bright well adjusted kids.
ReplyDeleteHeight? I saw many tall folks in the dock.
"Office" and "uphold" are rich white folks words. Law. Which law? The one for rich or poor? The August uprising sentences were not justice they were vindictive and a sign of fear.
Don't encourage him,he's a complete idiot and he will blog on here with many aliases.He will then talk to himself as if he has many supporters.
DeleteJaded
Those of us who swore at the liaison judge have a duty to take note of the rants that appear here, and assess them accordingly. Just as we don't flinch at the ones we hear in court.
ReplyDeleteBaldybeak
Well, admidst all the tosh, yes, tosh...there are one or two good ideas - it admits we've got quite good at case management ( never quoted by the MA as one of the good news stories as they are so busy talking up shopping centre justice) - and at least it is a start on Crown Court levels - but if they can still elect, WHAT IS THE POINT? - and us sitting alone on some cases isn't a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteBut where is the MA input? Not all of us ( sorry, it is true) can manage sitting alone - so will this be a two level justice? And who agreed to us starting at 8.30 am and working in the evening - the papers says we are NOW - are we?
Oh no - and Neighbourhood Panels and the like are just a way to get more done by fixed penalty/ caution which is no bad thing but when you see battery and burglary dealt with by caution, you do wonder. And we do.
A lost opportunity. We could have had some real input here on how skilled we have become at managing cases, getting pleas, how we could do more Crown Court work, and perhaps sitting as one - but its mainly neighbourhood panels and out of hours work again...and we all know that comes from the brains of Fitzroy Square.
Shame...might have been something good in this. The thought was there....
"us sitting alone on some cases isn't a bad idea".
ReplyDeleteI disagree. A Bench is like a mini-jury, which gives us de facto our authority as laymen. (Does one have laywomen?).
To have us sitting alone is yet another indication that the powers that be do not understand what makes the magistracy special, and also what makes it work and credibly so.
Agree with the concept, but it requires a good magistrate. Unfortunately, we have had a rather high-visibility example of a DJ sitting alone in summary trial last week. The Chief Magistrate indulged himself in a 10+ page verdict, missing entirely the point about identifying exactly who the harassed person was, or even hypothetically who it might have been, so as to fulfill Section 5 definitions. One would have thought that consideration of the elements of the law as written is pretty basic, before even getting into nuances of whether various foul language was said with an intonation that lip readers cannot testify about. Etc., etc.
DeleteBiker...so you really need three of you to decide the fine on a TV licence evasion or lack of an MOT certificate...really?
ReplyDeleteProbably not, but in a mixed list the following case might be one that really needs three heads.
DeleteNo.
DeleteAnd as BS says, lists are rarely so simple.
And not unoccasionally, someone will turn up to dispute a TV licence evasion charge. Even MOT certificates can get a bit complex.
Three people are not needed, no. But one might also ask whether you NEED 12 people on a jury for many cases. Necessity should not be the only driving force behind the justice system.
You shouldn't need any, let alone three. Just think how much court time would be saved by dealing with them away from the courts as a fixed penalty. Before anyone mentions ability to pay, there are plenty of other fixed penalty offences and I don't hear complaints about ability to pay around those.
DeleteI don't know your level of experience, but in mine it is very rare indeed to deal with a lack of an MOT as a sole offence.
DeleteOn a related point, many false economies have been made in the last few months which will actually greatly actually increase the amount of court time that simple cases take up; the moves on legal aid come to mind.
One of the reasons that these problems arise is that the powers that be decide that Flavour of the Month ('efficiences'; budgets; asset management etc etc) will be more important than the principles of basic justice for all.
They are trying for a justice system that is i) quick ii) good quality and iii) cheap. And if they had any life experience, they would know that you can normally only ever get two of these things combined; never three.
is like a mini-jury, which gives us de facto our authority as laymen
ReplyDeleteWhat a remarkable concept.( not being ironic in the least, just envious)
Sigle person benches are apt to be unpredictable,and at times dispotic in case management and just fey in their ar -ratio decidendi- whether the single person is a layman, or a lawyer.Unfortunately they are much cheaper than panel judges, and quicker: often too quick, IMHO.
The Chief Magistrate indulged himself ...
as I understood it, judgement finds that there's reasonable doubt that JK ever really did the action that amounts to the offense,( and lip readers' evidence is quoted to show that they can't say he did) so that it didn't really matter who might have been harassed by what JK actually did?
sour,self indulgent grapes pour out of some on here like a poison
DeleteFair enough, Italian lawyer. But if so, then almost all of his 15 pages of pontifications becomes irrelevant.
DeleteAs perhaps you know, in Italy all judicial decisions must be issued together with the reasoning behind, which we call motivazione . Motivazione is the real weak point of every decision,sometimes for what is says, but more often for what it doesn't say . Because what isn't there, it can be assumed, was never considered by the judge in his/her decision. And if it can be shown to be a relevant point, then the decision's unsound and can be reversed. Or simply criticized in the press. So, I find,our motivazioni keep growing longer with every year that passes. To give you an idea, the first trial judgement in Meredith Kercher's case is 400 pages long; judgement in the second trial is about 150. Quite unusual in a case like that, where I would expect around 50 pages for a conviction, 20 perhaps for an acquittal: but it is a case under intense public scrutiny.
DeleteI suppose the Chief Judge was somewhat wary of the amount of media coverage the JK case was receiving, and meant to let it appear that it hadn't been taken lightly by the bench either.
Does anyone in the MoJ cost these ideas? We keep being told that we are to cut costs and then hear the MoJ putting forward a case that must increase court costs; bonkers. Not even sure the other justice agencies could cope; extending hours for a national emergency is one thing, but this one is crackers.
ReplyDeleteI would like a question answered. I attended a magistrates court not too far from West London. Unpaid fine. Anyhow, I was sent (erroneously) to Court Number One. I sat there quietly for an hour. The bench were 2 old ladies and an old man who let everybody off (or what seemed to be). I am tapped on the shoulder and go to Court Number X. A fool with a Scots accent is literally frothing at the mouth screaming at me that "I am that far from Wormwood Scrubs". Now then, why is there discrepancy in sentencing. Mag 1 lets us off, Mag 2 gives us heavy time. Babylonian persecution or are you just all (cont p.9)?
ReplyDeleteI have been involved with many thousands of cases over the years. I can safely say that I have never heard anyone screamed at from any bench at whatever level.
DeleteOf cousre, if it's the content rather than the nature of delivery that you don't like, you could always try paying the fine in the first place.
He was a nudnik. There was a West Indian guy next to him and Jock started shouting about "Banana boats". I was going to make an official complaint. As with Maya Evans (jailed for non payment/culpable neglect/wilful refusal) for not paying a fine after she (gasp) read out names of dead soldiers many of us have issues with you. Aug 2011 saw the demise of justice, all you dispensed was vindictiveness and fear.
DeleteDear Mr Broxted,
ReplyDeleteWe are sorry that you did not enjoy your time in Court. We must however point out that it may have escaped your notice that the alleged discrepancies in sentences are in fact a direct result of what we, the Magistracy, call "evidence", and "guilt" or "innocence".
Depending on the level of your fine, and the amount of time it has been outstanding, it's not in fact impossible that Mag 2 was speaking the literal truth, even whilst he "literally" frothed at the mouth.
Or in short, if you are not going to pay your fines dont' complain about "persecution".
Yours,
The Bench
Dear Mr Bench, Courts are not for enjoying. Indeed nearly all the folks I saw were scumbags. There is a discrepancy in sentencing - Court One had yobs smashing up cars whilst drunk and getting away with it. Fine was £325 (incl £75 to plod that they will never get) and is outstanding since 2005. I was not caught I volunteered to go and see if I could get a remit of fines (part or full). Won't make that mistake again. You seem to be just there to get money - a sign of a police state on the ropes. Yours, Ronald Urquhart Broxted, Esq, M.Litt.
DeleteDon't encourage this idiot,you won't win.He blogs from a mental hospital.He seems OK at first before showing his true colours.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this drivell getting out of hand.
ReplyDeleteWe don't mind the odd rant but can we get back to a decent converstion- or is more medication required?