Musings and Snippets from a recently retired JP. I served for 31 years, mostly in west London. I was Chairman of my Bench for some years, and a member of the National Bench Chairmen's Forum All cases are based on real ones, but anonymised and composited. All opinions are those of one or more individuals. JPs swear to enforce the law of the land, whether or not they approve of it. Nothing on here constitutes legal advice.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
An Odd Story
This story (all right, it is from the Daily Mail) seems a bit odd. Those of us who preside in court are usually pretty chary about delivering words of advice to those we sentence, although I confess that I have been known to point out to people who have caused extensive damage after a night on the booze just how expensive that night has turned out to be. Nevertheless, there must be something more to this than meets the eye. We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Magistrates Association message board indicates that her comments were made not in court, but in a subsequent Press interview. JP's do sometimes give homilies or mini-lectures to defendants in court - and also, sometimes, words of encouragement when someone has made a real effort to turn their lives around - that's OK by me if it's not ladled on with a shovel. But JP's referring to their personal experiences, in court and particularly to the Press, is absolutely not on.
ReplyDeleteBystander repeats the advice we should all have received. In pronouncements the Court Chairman should confine him/herself to the sentence and the Court's reasons for imposing it.
ReplyDeleteIt is absolutely common practice, well it is in my court cluster, to talk to youths about the effects on them and others of the crimes they commit, so why should that stop when their age is 18 plus a day?
ReplyDeleteIf her words were spoken outside court, isn't MIC doing just that and if we tell personal stories whilst on an MIC activity and it has the desired effect of reducing criminal activity, all to the good. I guess it depends on precisely what words are used.
There must be more to this.
ReplyDeleteI note that there were complaints from "three retired magistrates". That can't simply be about a homily.
Unlike BS, however, I don't think that 'we shall see'; sadly, I think the story may die.
Hmm BS may be right on this. I don't believe persons dealt with by JCO are normally seen by JC and Liaison Judge.
ReplyDeleteAt face value, the story is that the powers that be did not see whatever she said and where she might have said it as truly egregious, given the mere reprimand. It was the locals that then hounded her out. Could that be an example of the nearly-lost concept of locally-appropriate justice ?
ReplyDeleteIMHO whilst I think appropriate engagement is excellent, lectures are pointless. As for giving interviews to the press - I'd have thought everyone knew that was a no no for a magistrate.
ReplyDeleteI have occasionally wanted to tell a card kiter that in medieval France the standard sentence for currency fraud was being boiled alive in public. If I ever get fed up with being a JP perhaps I will give in to temptation. If I do, hopefully it won't only be cover by the Wail.
ReplyDeleteReferring to his own experiences may have given the impression that he was not impartial.
ReplyDeleteThe key to this would seem to be that the magistrate chose to resign, rather than standing her ground. Neither the Justices' Clerk nor the Liaison Judge could have compelled her to do do. Only the LC/LCJ can remove a magistrate, and even the Advisory Committee can only recommend such a course.
ReplyDeleteBut if she had stood up to them, would she have found that she was no longer rostered to sit, or maybe not as often as before?
DeleteI imagine her position could have been made untenable. She may have realised this, and so opted to resign.
But, as BS has indicated, there may be more to this story than meets the eye. Were there perhaps other issues somewhere in the background?
If the lady was not rostered to sit then that would amount to suspending her, which the local judiciary or JC do not have the power to do. That power lies only with the LC/LCJ, so such a course would have been quite wrong.
DeleteBystander says "Nevertheless, there must be something more to this than meets the eye". He is absolutely right on that and this official story merely skims the surface details. I would merely caution observers not to jump too quickly to any conclusions.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous [17:17] implies that he/she has more knowledge about this, but does not enlighten us. That's a pity, because the whole tenor of the story echoes back to the days of less openness. However, on the facts as published, the magistrate in question resigned and did not fight her corner, which would surely have been defendable, given that the original issue had been dealt with by the appropriate authorities.
DeleteTo my mind, the disturbing feature of this case is that the Office for Judicial Complaints investigated the situation and the outcome was the LCJ (and LC) issuing a reprimand. It was reported that the JP attended a 'back to work interview' at which, she alleges, she was pressured to resign.
ReplyDeleteIf that allegation is true then the question to be answered is why those local people did that rather than abide by the official decision of the Head of the Judiciary (the LCJ).
There is an official process and in this case it took almost a year. The outcome ought to be respected. There should be no room for local bigwigs and others substituting their views for the official decision.
I can't believe that the powers that be thought this was so serious to warrant the boot;there must be something else.
ReplyDeletePersonally using an example of how the conduct in from of the court , if unchecked or altered can ruin a life is something that is useful as the whole idea is to stop it happening again. Drawing on personal expericence can be useful and over the years I've heard many Red and Purple judges do just that.
Where is the independece of the judge to do the right thing? It makes you weep that someone who seems to have given 14 years loyal service should be treated this way.
I think this was just the latest issue, and the excuse for removal.
ReplyDelete