I spent an unproductive day in court today. My bench was listed to hear two trials, estimated to last for the best part of the day. The prosecutor was an agent, briefed at a late stage, and both defendants were represented on legal aid. Due to an error in the office our printed list told us that our first defendant faced three charges, but had already pleaded guilty to two of them. We said that we would disregard this fact, but the prosecutor went on to offer no evidence on the contested matter, that we accordingly dismissed. We then sentenced the remaining two, deciding that a hefty fine plus costs and a compensation order would be appropriate, and (of course) well within the guidelines. Even after knocking off a third for the earlier pleas the final sum that I told him he had to pay was enough to make him visibly wince. We then went out for a coffee while the prosecutor telephoned those instructing her, and the upshot of her call was that she offered no evidence on our second case. We dismissed that too, and retired again while the clerk looked for some more work for us.
We went on to sentence a chap who had pleaded guilty to a small cannabis possession , and we fined him the guideline amount, and ordered forfeiture and destruction of the drug. . Unfortunately for him, he worked as a self employed tradesman at a secure establishment, and a drug conviction, even for ten pounds' worth of cannabis means that he will now lose his security pass, and hence his job. That wrap will cost him many thousands of pounds in years to come, and hamper his efforts to find a new job.
As lunchtime approached it was decided to close one courtroom in the afternoon, so I volunteered to give my chair to a colleague from the redundant court and take the afternoon off. So that was me done for the day.
And in the meantime tens of thousands of serious assaults, including sexual assaults up to and including rape are being "dealt with" by way of "simple" [sic] or conditional cautions and never come to court at all. Only last week a new Statutory Instrument was laid (to come into effect on 8th April) that fixes the maximum financial penalty that can be charged under a conditional caution at £100 for an "either way" offence (i.e. an offence that is on the cusp between the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court, and at £150 for indictable offences, namely those offences that are so serious that they can only be dealt with in the Crown Court. What on earth do they think they're doing?! Compare and contrast with Bystander's list today, and ask where the logic is. It escapes me...
ReplyDeleteKate Caveat
I recommend The Defence Brief's post at http://defencebrief.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/police-cautions.html
DeleteFair enough. These few anecdotal examples do present a real facet of the problem, but what they have in common is that if ever those cases had come to court the outcomes would have been totally different. Defence Brief's comments don't explain away the hundreds of dwelling house burglaries dealt with by way of cautions (or the theft of well over £50,000 of materials from a building site, also dealt with by way of cautions for the two adult offenders). Their feet would hardly touch the magistrates' court floor before they were whisked off to the Crown Court.
DeleteKate Caveat
A day in the life - and a typical one at that.
ReplyDeleteJustice is not cheap.
ReplyDeletePoliticians are ....
I can well remember on one of my earliest sittings when we imposed a fine, a very wise chairman of our whole bench who happened to be the chairman of my court that day, saying to me that if the defendant winced when the fine was announced we had probably got the fine about right.
ReplyDeleteAn all too familiar string of events!
ReplyDeleteI thought the courts were overloaded!
ReplyDeleteThe courts are not always over-loaded and this tale is familiar. Many justices may find themselves with fewer courts. Perhaps that is good...perhaps...perhaps...perhaps.
ReplyDeleteThe slightly cynical amongst us might see in this the excuse to close down yet more courts and remove 'lay' justice from our system. Certainly in the last round of cuts 'inefficient use of court rooms' was the major factor in the closure of some excellent facilities which were only 'inefficient' because the staff had been removed meaning courts could not be run. By diverting so much criminal work away to out of court disposals - whether appropriate or not...usually not...once again the 'inefficient use' flag can be run up the flagpole.
ReplyDeleteThe Courts are supposed to do justice and justice to be fair has to be flexible, a lot of that flexibility has been eaten aware by 'cloned justice'
ReplyDeleteBS's example of the tradesman with the tiny bit of cannabis paying a heavy price shows just how much injustice there is. There is little balance and the consequences of minor matters having a huge effect on someones otherwise blamless life is worrying. We all make mistakes, just many of us were lucky not to be caught.
Therefore we need to punish and forgive the one off offender who does a simple stupid thing and probably will never darken a court , or police station door again. We should save the rest for those who deserve it.
Sir, the fact that he is before the court with such a small amount of Cannabis would suggest that he has received one or more cautions in the past and/or a fixed penalty notice. Whilst I appreciate that it will have a detrimental effect on his life, the prosecuting authorities may have exhausted all other options open to them.
DeleteThe fact that cannabis is illegal (and all drugs for that matter) is the real crime. The damage done to that tradesman's life is criminal. Destroy a man's life then go for some cosy coffee and lunch. Nice to know what my tax money is being wasted on. Immoral, immoral, immoral. How do you sleep at night?
ReplyDeleteHe pleaded guilty, and we imposed a modest fine as per the guidelines. The loss of his pass was an administrative matter, and nothing to do with the court.
Delete