A spat appears to be developing between the Magistrates' Association and the National Bench Chairmen's Forum. John Fassenfelt, the MA Chairman, who is due to retire this year, to be replaced by Richard Monkhouse, (a good man, whom I know fairly well) has issued a letter expressing differences with the NBCF over some bits of higher politics that are of no interest at all to anyone outside the organisations concerned. The relationship between the MA and the NBCF has long been an uneasy one, as the younger body was formed as a reaction to the perceived ineffectiveness of the MA. The MoJ and the Courts Service go through the motions of consultation but some of us have wearily concluded that they will do what they want anyway. It's all a bit redolent of the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front. I'm just waiting for someone to cry "Splitters!"
I was amused to see that the MA is claiming to be more independent that the NBCF because the latter uses offices that are provided and staffed by HMCTS. I am quite sure that this has no influence at all on the NBCF's views.
I joined the MA when first appointed because I thought it was a representative body for magistrates and that it had some teeth. Over the years I came to know that it was toothless and sadly my branch did nothing year after year save having an AGM at which the presented accounts were always a joke. I am now, like many others I know of, saving my membership fee.
ReplyDeleteAnd now thw MA website is down. I do hope that all is well at Fitzroy Square.
ReplyDeleteAnd oddly the last exchange on the MA's forum concerned this very subject, with Bystander expressing typically trenchant views on the subject. You couldn't make it up!
ReplyDeleteKate Caveat
Although you yourself may be rapidly approaching the Bibljcal threshold of three score years and ten, Bystander, I think you'll find that John F will be standing down at the end of his term of office rather than retiring.
ReplyDeleteYes, quite. John is about to retire from the chair of the MA (sigh). As for my rapidly approaching the age of 70, may I point out that we are all of us approaching that age at the same speed: one day at a time.
DeleteWhen the original Bystander reaches the statutory retirement age, will this blog cease, or will the remainder of the team ensure its continuation? No prizes for guessing which we would prefer.
DeleteLet us cross that bridge when we come to it.
DeleteThe spat between the MA and NBCF - real or imagined, serves only one purpose - that of the MOJ: Divide and rule - its a traditional British establishment tactic!
ReplyDeleteI noticed that as my own bench was diluted via successive amalgamations, there was a directly related dilution of the interest of successive bench chairmen in listening to members of the bench, and instead an increasing preference for listening to what came from MOJ and telling JPs at the sharp end that they would simply have to accept whatever nonsense was the prevailing flavour of the month. Did anyone else have this experience?
ReplyDeleteHOW, if at all, does the NBCF consult magistrates? Ask the famous Tony Benn questions: What powers do you have etc.
ReplyDelete@Obiter J It doesn't, and nor is designed to (which was precisely the aim of those who lobbied for its creation). According to the MoJ, it exists rather "to give chairmen a voice" (i.e. not those on their benches). This may go part of the way to explaining the current tensions.
ReplyDeleteEach bench elects its chairman, and it is his job to keep his finger on the pulse of bench opinion. Bench Chairmen are far more representative of the rank and file than MA reps who often remain the same people year after year. Attendance at MA meetings is usually pathetically small.
DeleteThe creation of the NBCF arose in circumstances somewhat more complex than the posters above have understood. Before the creation of HMCS, local responsibility for the management of Magistrates Courts was in the hands of Courts Committees, composed of magistrates and with a magistrate Chairman. They were like a Board of Directors. Nationally, the interests of these committees was the responsibility of the Central Council, members of which were the Chairmen of Local Committees. The Central Council dealt directly with the civil service separately from the MA. The Chairmen of the Benches were different people from the Chairmen of the Courts Committees. The central and regional bureaucrats mainly dealt with the Chairmen of the Committees, whilst the Bench Chairmen had a more parochial and pastoral role. The creation of HMCS led to the abolition of Courts Committees and the Central Council. However, it was soon realised by the bureaucrats that they had abolished an authorative point of contact with the body of magistrates at local level. Hence they very quickly turned to Bench Chairmen to fill the gap. It soon became apparent to the Bench Chairmen at the time, that they needed their own organisation to discuss issues and agree joint positions - to avoid a divide and rule scenario. There was some discussion about being a sub-committee of the MA, but this was dismissed as impractical because of potential conflicts of interest. Whilst Bench Chairmen continue to be consulted on parochial, regional, or national issues they will continue to need a body to assist and support them. And remember, all Bench Chairmen are elected by their Benches.
ReplyDeleteTimes today-- Top Magistrate??? My ar**. Who does this bloke think he is. He is not top anything
ReplyDeleteThis comment has appeared on the Times article, and I can't do better:-
DeleteMr Fassenfelt is not "the country's top magistrate". He is Chairman of the Magistrates Association to which many, but by no means all, magistrates belong. He is elected by the members of that Association.
All magistrates are equal. There is no top magistrate, and there is no ranking structure within the magistracy. Mr Fassenfelt is therefore not even "a top magistrate". After selection and training, magistrates can take on and train for extra responsibilities such as court chairman, youth court, family panel, or appraiser, but when they sit they are still all equal. The author of the article has displayed, or has chosen to display, a woeful lack of understanding of this.
I am mentioned above, so may as well respond with my own voice and not as an anonymous grumbler. I also know Bystander as well as he knows me and the sentiment is reciprocated.
ReplyDeleteThe MA and NBCF (and I have been a member of both at national level) work together on many issues and need to. There may be the occasional spat and difference of approach, but what good marriage doesn't have one or two of those. We will continue to work together for the good of the magistracy despite any body's (corporate or individual) attempt to drive a wedge between us. This will continue while I am chair of the MA.
I am not a top magistrate, and John F would be the first to agree with this sentiment, but just an ordinary magistrate with the same frustrations as the rest of us, but maybe a better chance to do something about it and I would ask those with a similar aim to let me have your ideas, either from within or without the magistracy or within or without the MA, for that matter.
If I have a mantra it is Solutions not Problems. People are tired of us whingeing on about the same old problems and it's about time we started to provide solutions before others provide them for us, which we may not like.
Welcome to the blog, Richard. Consider yourself free to comment when and how you choose. Any article written by you will be approved as swiftly as my mouse will allow.
DeleteAnd good luck with the job. You have my support, and I hope that you never need my sympathy.