Thursday, August 23, 2012

Here We Go (1)

There has been a considerable furore over the recent 'guidance' issued about blogging by Judicial Office Holders. Many people think that the senior judiciary were badly advised before they issued the document, and both the Magistrates' Association and the National Bench Chairmen's Forum face some searching questions from their membership about their respective Chairmen's nodding through the decree in a "Magistrates Liaison Group" that even insiders did not know existed, and without any attempt at consultation or discussion.
This blog has received a large number of emails and phone calls offering support, with the common themes that the 'guidance' is both arbitrary and unnecessary, and that the blog has never in its seven years' existence published a single post that has called into question the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary at any level. Many people have said that it is a valuable resource (even being recommended reading for a number of degree and 'A'- level courses) that has helped to dispel  myths and ignorance about the courts, and has been instrumental in persuading a considerable number of people to apply to join the bench. It was one of The Times '40 blogs that really count'.

This is a responsible blog  however, so a few changes have been made today. It is now written by a team and all posts are signed by the team, and not any individual. Its mission remains to inform, to argue for improvements to justice, and occasionally to amuse.
The Guidance says, inter alia,
 
Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, officer (sic) holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary.  
Done
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.  
Will continue as before - never have and never will
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.
Noted
Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith.
The blog is confident that no such material  exists. It is simply not practical to search through well over two thousand posts written over seven-and-a-half years , not to mention tens of thousands of comments. 
Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action. It is also recommended that all judicial office holders familiarise themselves with the new IT and Information Security Guidance which will be available shortly. 
Noted. We shall study the guidance as soon as it is made available. 


45 comments:

  1. Simple simon from shrewsbury23 August 2012 at 19:21

    First........


    I bet you'll still clamp down on this game!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just for today - okay it's a nice cross-reference

      Any more, and you're out on your ear -capisce?

      Delete
    2. Simple Simon from Shrewsbury24 August 2012 at 08:41

      Oh all right! I'll play nicely from now on...

      Delete
    3. Good boy. Or girl. Or whatever.

      Delete
  2. Congratulations on continuing, I think this is a valuable tool for the courts, even if they don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "even being recommended reading for a number of degree and 'A'- level courses" - indeed, cited in a recent bibliography for a PDP (personal development plan). Viva Bystander's Team

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm shortly to start sitting as a magistrate and have found the blog invaluable in gaining an insight into the culture and variety of the world I'm about to enter, which I'm very much looking forward to.

    I feel a lot more confident knowing there is an impartial source of information which helps get under the skin of the judiciary and gives me an insider's perspective.

    Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  5. As someone who's enjoyed the insights provided by this blog, it's great to hear that it is able to continue operating with only a little administrative fiddling.

    This is terrible news in general, though, because it means no other blogs of the same sort are able to start up publicly expressing a genuine person in the field's views. These are useful, since they give someone like me in an area of work entirely unrelated to the law an idea of the mindset of people in different lines of work.

    I hope they retract or "clarify" these guidelines fairly soon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Despite all the furore, and above everything else, I love the slight shifting of the apostrophe in the blog's title. Just hope it will not be taken to mean the the blog is only for magistrates (but that's probably unfair, it is just a nice Bystander touch - subtle, unremarked, literate and pointed).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for that! I recommend my Law students at Cambridge to read this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If the other team members have your touch we're in for a treat as the blog kicks up a gear. Here's to a long and influential future.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I imagine that we will find the quality of the responses from the rest of the team Indistinguisable

    ReplyDelete
  10. Of course there is nothing to prevent a team from being of size one. Or for one member to do all the writing, while the other is a silent partner. And many other dodges that will instantly occur to the lawyer-minded.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Let's not be too clever-dick here. The team is small at the moment but I have people in mind and a few volunteers in the pipeline.
    The house style will hopefully remain the same, but will not necessarily be delivered by the same people as before.
    We are looking forward.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Huzzah for Team Bystander of course.

    One still trusts that all parties will visit the ill-thunk and ill-kempt Blogging "Guidance".

    ReplyDelete
  13. I for one am not in the least surprised by the acquiescence of the MA or NBF and they are going the same way as the JCO. What I suspect is really behind the edict is the Government's attempt to control everything including the courts. As Magistrates are not salaried this seems to be the only way round it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you for finding a way to keep going.

    Is there any prospect of a review of said guidance, maybe now the MA realise that they have members who are interested?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The MA Chairman posted a statement on the Association's website for the attention of members over a week ago recognising the concern expressed by many members, asking them to email him in person with their views, and undertaking to report back to the Liaison Group on the outcome of those soundings. He will no doubt then report back to members. The subject of the SPJ's edict has generated very considerable interest on the part of members, with the great majority of those I have discussed this with voicing considerable concerns about the ill-thought through appearance of the Guidance, the inconsistencies and anomalies with positions taking by other members of the senior judiciary and, perhaps above all, genuine consternation at the absence of explanation, reasons or even substantive indications about what sort of issue had "provoked" the issuance of this so-called Guidance (which is devoid of any workable structure). It is probably important to remember that the Guidance was not directed specifically to the magistracy, but to the judiciary as a whole, and it is to be hoped that once the initial (entirely understandable and indeed legitimate) indignation dies down, the various components of the judicial family will engage in a more evidence-based, reflective and coherent reassessment of the situation, looking at the risks, and how they can be 'managed', as well as the benefits of public engagement. I would be very surprised indeed if this didn't result in an in-depth rethink, which can only be for the good. In the meantime, I am delighted that Team BS is back, and would hope that we can all give each other enough room to find our way through the thickets of both bureaucracy and also of due democratic process - which means seeking views, formulating draft positions, consulting thereon, and then (it is to be hoped) trying to persuade others to change their minds. Like others, Bystander and his team will have to feel their way forward, and I know I'm not alone in being keen to read his promised duly considered thoughts on the situation.

      Delete
  15. How do you get around this.....

    "Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, officer (sic) holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary."

    .....f you're constantly talking about the stuff you have to deal with in court? It's not like you're a court reporter or a visitor - you talk about being on the bench, deciding sentences, asking questions, chairing etc, etc - ie the interesting stuff of the job and the stuff most people want to hear because they can't get it anywhere else.

    Commenting on whatever legal nonsense appears in the news from time to time is OK, but we can get that in other places....commenting on the job of a JP is unique.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This expresses a slight concern I also have about the change of stance of this blog. It will significantly blunt the impact of the blog if it no longer quotes concrete examples of cases heard and decided or no longer comments personally and directly on issues affecting magistrates in their judical capacity.

      I very much hope that the ill-considered 'guidance' from the Senior Presiding Judge will be withdrawn. In the meantime, as Bystander knows, I have expressd stong support for this blog on my own blog - http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com

      Delete
    2. Just see how we get on Martin. We are all learning here, and I am treading the fine line between my intellect and my innate cussedness.

      Delete
  16. Dear Team Bystander, I'm a JP in the East Midlands and have followed the blog for about 2 years now. I have infrequently posted comments, having mostly been happy to see other people's views but given the dismal, ill-considered 'guidance' I think that more action is required on my part so I would like to apply to join the team please. How would one go about doing so? Or are all vacancies now filled? If it helps to persuade you not to dismiss my request out of hand, I do make tea and lovely cakes ....... damn, does that give away my gender? Now they have my location, my profession and a possibly an idea that I may or may not be a woman. I'll be expecting a knock on the door very soon now ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's an email address above.....

      All are welcome (up to a point of course)

      Delete
  17. I sit as a JP on a rural bench in the frozen North and I have been an avid reader of your blog for several years. I have always found it to be informative, enlightening and educational and I have never doubted your integrity nor have you to my mind ever damaged the magistracy. Many of your links (eg. the recent speeding/"sharp practice" comments) have been extremely interesting.
    This heavy handed attempt to clip your wings borders on pathetic. Long may you continue soaring.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Did you take advice before forming this team? Maybe from Nick Freeman in how to handle this matter?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think it a great shame that you have made any changes. It suggests that the guidance was justified and appropriate. Many would not agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it does not. Wait and see what happens.

      Delete
  20. As both a serving Jp and a 'blogger' I'm appalled at this so-called 'guidance', especially so the the MA has connived in it's issue.
    Has no-one taken note of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights or of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, which states that:
    "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
    When did becoming a Justice of the Peace mean abrogating one’s rights to free speech?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect that our right to free speech has always been qualified if we choose (as I may or may not have done) to sit as JPs.

      And I also suspect that this is entirely reasonable.

      What I am not at all sure of is whether an absolute statement that we cannot talk about being JPs (as I may or may be)on the internet is entirely legal.

      Delete
    2. With respect your worships (or not), I refer to my previous comment under the post "Further And Better Particular Required:

      I consulted my old bench book last night, in particular the guidance on working within the HRA. Where a possible breach of a qualified right is suspected (Article 10, for instance), the court must ask itself, re the alleged breach
      Is the interference prescribed by clear and accessible UK law?
      Does it pursue one of the legitimate aims set out in the article?
      Is it no more than is necessary to secure that legitimate aim?
      To my rusty judicial brain, it seems that the SPJ's 'guidance' falls at each stage. I'd be interested to hear counsel's opinion.

      Delete
    3. Why, and by what statute, is the right of JPs to free speech qualified, as Biker asserts?
      I'm with payasoru on this, the diktat of the Judicial Office is a clear breach of Article 10 of the HRA and the convention that underpins it.
      Further, by Law (the HRA) all legislation, and I suspect 'guidance' would also fall within that framework, must be written and/or interpreted, so as to comply with the Convention.

      Delete
    4. Article 10 of the Convention makes clear that "freedom of expression" is what is known as a "qualified right." Paragraph 2 of that article sets out a number of what are known as "legitimate aims" for interfering with the right in question. The last of those listed relates specifically to "maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." But as payasoru has again rightly reminded us, any such interference has to be substantiated, and must moreover be based on formalities, conditions, restrictions and penalties that are "prescribed in law" and (setting the bar even higher) have to be "necessary in a democratic society." Whether the SPJ's so-called Guidance meets the requirement of being "prescribed in law" seems to this outsider at the very least open to question, and its necessity in a democratic society even more so. Those are questions that go far beyond my competence to determine, but they are ones I should, nevertheless, like to see addressed, and it is most helpful that payasoru has recalled the basic tests. As another commentator has observed, there already exists a very comprehensive set of principles and indications in the form of the (recently revised) Guide on Judicial Conduct. There is a pretty fundamental difference in approach between that finely tuned document, which emphasises the fact that what lies at the core of such matters is the issue of judicial independence, and the frankly crude, clumsy and clunking nature of the new "Guidance".

      Delete
    5. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

      Delete
  21. Like it or not, the guidance is quite clear, you have to remove the whole site. The whole point of your blog is telling us that you are a member of the judiciary and advertising this to the world is now going to get you more than three points and a telling off. Or you could choose not be a JP anymore but I am sure that would distress you more.

    Your bigger problem is clearing out all the stuff you posted on pprune. Now in my humble opinion that is where your more interesting posts about how the lay magistracy works are to be found, and with the guidance given you really should be deleting that too. How you are going to do that now that Danny has flogged it to the Yanks is your problem and not mine, but if you want to hang around on the bench that is something you really need to address.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thank you for your advice. I shall spare no time in adopting it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'We' surely?

      Delete
    2. The team have already agreed that when writing posts or comments the first person singular is acceptable, while signifying the collective view.

      Delete
  23. Interested Party25 August 2012 at 04:47

    "The Team is small at the moment but I have people in mind and volunteers in the pipeline"...

    That sounds like a Team of 1?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We aren't going to play that game. The number and identity of team members will remain undisclosed, and any speculation will fall foul of the Delete button.

      Delete
    2. After reading this blog for seven years, I, for one, trust Bystander to tell it the way it is.

      Delete
  24. The future of legal blogs is still in doubt. Legal bloggers will stray beyond the boundaries, even inadvertently, then the risk all law based blogs disappearing is probability.

    Eventually rules will be made regarding all government blogging and writings in the fields of medical, teaching, etc will be history.

    It won't be a blanket ban, more a list of restrictions so severe there will be too much to lose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, the law Society have produced effective guidelines on social media which show few signs of doubt about the value and validity of legal blogs in general - http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/productsandservices/practicenotes/socialmedia/5049.article The great majority of professions (justices included) already have codes of conduct which are an adequate guide to what might be 'over the line', and which provide for disciplinary action against those who transgress. Justices were already covered by the thoughtful 'Guide to Judicial Conduct' http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/productsandservices/practicenotes/socialmedia/5049.article . Why wasn't that deemed to be sufficient?

      Delete
  25. I have not read the ^comments^ on this topic.
    Can anyone NOT connected with 'the judiciary' please explain what defence Counsel 'might' say if a Bench returned a verdict of "Probably Guilty of something naughty but as yet undefined - and we bind you over to stop right away doing whatever it eventually turns out to be."

    ReplyDelete
  26. What happens if a member of the public (who is not a JP) publishes a blog that is a work of fiction and claims to be a magistrate ?

    How does the MA go about reigning in said fiction-mongerer ?

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.