This post from Bystander N
An interesting snippet
from the recent Law Commission consultation on contempt of court. One of the
points, admittedly the very last one and the only one to use the word
magistrate is:-
“If anything, the disparity
serves to illustrate that the maximum sentence available to the Magistrates’ is
too low, and particularly if Section 12(1)(a) of the Magistrates’ Court Act
were amended to include threats”. A
senior member of the judiciary is actually suggesting we have too little
sentencing power!
I have never been on a
bench that has held anyone in contempt, not just because in fact it happens
quite rarely, but also because sadly in, these days of courts with no ushers,
security staff who do little more than operate a metal detector at the court
entrance, and few if any police around, it is very difficult in practice. Picture this:-
“The gentleman, or lady,
in the public gallery. I have warned you
before about your offensive language and what it might lead to, and we now hold
you in contempt of court. Will you
please be so kind as to sit down for a while whilst we try to rustle up someone
who can come up and take you to the cells for us? Hang on a minute. I see it’s 13.05. Very sorry but security has just started its
lunch break. Would you mind awfully
hanging around until after 14.00 and they can do it then?”
Contempt is not as rare as Bystander N seems to think. It certainly happens from time to time in courts local to me, and is normally dealt with by way of a demanded apology. If that is not forthcoming, or the contempt continues, then the bench can use its powers to send the miscreant down to the cells, or (more usually) to be confined to the precincts of the court for a set period: eg you will stay in the foyer and not leave the building until 4pm. It doesn't hurt to warn them that escape from custody carries a maximum of live imprisonment.
ReplyDeleteSounds better than dead imprisonment...
DeleteA court with no ushers?! Beats me how that works as we all know they are the key part of the team that makes the whole thing work!
ReplyDeletethere is normaly at least one police officer in the court building, PLO etc.
ReplyDeleteMost will be sitting there for at least 8 hours waiting and waiting for their chance to to be told that their evidence will be read.
We have had it from time to time, but usually from detainees who dont want to come down to court, alleging some slight or other by the cell staff. They just stay there for longer. Their cases are automatically put back to the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteJim, this certainly used to be true, but more and more courts are held with a skeleton staff, and there are often no ushers on duty (let alone probation cover). It's much rarer these days to have police officers kept hanging around, and rightly so. Courts will always challenge both defence and prosecution at the case management stage as to whether police evidence needs to be live. As regards rex's comments about slights by cell staff etc., that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, as that is all too possible, but an alternative approach might be to indicate that the bench intends to hear the trial in absence if the defendant really doesn't wish to come up (or down) from the cells, which gives them the choice of removing themselves from the source of the aggro or facing the music.
ReplyDeleteThe only time I have seen this was waiting to give my unnecessary police evidence (seriously if all they want me to do is read out an interview, what is the point of making me go to court? Why can't the clerk or CPS lawyer say it? Or better still everyone can just read a copy or listen to it)
ReplyDeleteA man had annoyed the judge to the point that he summoned any free constable and ordered me to put him in a police cell until the following day. Getting that prisoner into the court cells until I could arrange transport was a thankless task. I came close to losing my temper with court staff, not the man found in contempt. The security staff couldn’t comprehend that a PC could possibility put someone in their COURT cells. I had to point out the judge ordered it so you can’t say no. Also I’m due to give evidence in about 10m so bloody well take him. Someone will come and collect him and your precious cells will be vacant again.
This site is getting very boring. its a constant whine about this or that.
ReplyDeleteIt was far more interesting when actual cases were the thread headers, giving lay people an idea of what actually goes on in Magistrates Courts..
At this rate one can confidently expect a thread about such sunjects as the bolier in the court having broken down or that the windows have not been cleaned.
In which case I will refrain from posting the fact that one of the windows in our retiring room is held together with masking tape.
DeleteIt seems justice is more of an illusion than a reality. The only time a court really has any leverage is when the D is already in custody, so you can have him "taken down", much else is really impractical. Security staff are thin on the ground and even if you were able to secure compliance unless there is an admission the case has to go off to another bench. At times the whole thing is bornering on the farcical.
ReplyDeleteits a lot better in the Crown court with all the security about but generally unless it is absolutely outrageous, selective deafness is the tool most employed!
On a different matter. Is Bystander planning to join the approved regulator? This blog certainly doesn't fall into the category of 'small scale' that could justify exemption. It appears that such a step would mark the end of the authors' anonymity, which would not be compatible with membership, nor with the 'get out' claim to be subject to US libel law rather than UK law (which must after all be logical for members of the judiciary).
ReplyDelete