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.
Monday, September 01, 2014
I Quite Agree, Your Honour
Here is part of a report of a tragic case concerning the death of two cyclists.
I can only agree with the Judge's comment about the Victim Surcharge.
There can be no 'appropriate' victim charge in a case like this - which makes something of a non-sense of the victim charge.
Another classic example was seen at work recently where the magistrates on sentencing a young man who stole his grandmother's car and wrote it off, gave him a YRO - and then ordered his grandmother (as carer) to pay the £15 victim surcharge. Something of insult to injury.
What exactly is a victim surcharge in aid of? Surely victims , or their relations, can sue for proper damages? On a different plan, I am increasingly perplexed at victim's statements, especially when they are not really from the victim, but from victim's family. Ages ago I remember the young widow of a 30 y.old man who'd been killed in a car crash dryly commenting: " He ( her late husband) always drove like a madman, he was a speed fiend." I got the feeling he'd had other flaws too, preventing him to be too deeply regretted. That was in the privacy of my room, I doubt she'd have said the same if called upon to make a victim's statement in the courtroom. But what if she had? Is a man's life worth less, if his dearest and nearest are not so very dear and near after all? What's the judge supposed to do, the day a widow will victimstate : "He was a thorugh and through S.O.B. and I'm far happier now he's gone.", give the defendant a bonus?
It is a pool of money that is supposed to go to help the victims of crime. It's interesting to note though that in the act of parliament that first brought it in it was described as a surcharge. The word 'victim' never appeared.
Something I don't understand about sentencing: what's the idea behind concurrent sentences? I see in this case Robert Palmer has been sentenced to two 7.5 year sentences, to be served concurrently, thereby giving him a sentence of 7.5 years (subject to serving half on licence, etc., etc.).
Is the theory that he committed two crimes as one simultaneous action (i.e. killed two different people by dangerous driving), and therefore should be punished for the most severe part of his action? In this case, both parts being equally serious (both resulting in death), the sentence for each is therefore the same.
Yes. How silly and insulting the sentencing tax must seem to the victims' families. I can't bring myself to describe it as a 'victim' surcharge when sentencing.
There is no such thing as a victim's surcharge- the law just refers to it as a surcharge. Apart from it being a farcical and not really for the benefit of any victim it still pervaded our courts.
Bearing in mind most of the people we are dealing with are on skid row anyway giving them another burden is sheer lunacy.
Why couldn't we just take a slice of fines and apply it to victims- would make life a lot simpler.
There seems no logic to the sentencing. A very popular member of my local community, a man fit, well and in his prime, was cycling when run over by a 7.5 ton wagon. The driver continued on his way and was only stopped when the police, alerted by a passing motorist witness, caught up with him. At his trial, he claimed he 'didn't see' the cyclist, who was originally thought not to be able to survive the accident, but 'thanks' to medical care has done so, even though left a virtual vegetable. The lorry driver got 16 months. Derisory.
You think it would be better he was allowed to continue making a living driving a truck beyond the permitted hours and risk more lives? I'm sure his family will suffer as a result of his actions. For some people that would be a deterrent to the crime. If sentencing was always relaxed to prevent disadvantaging the offenders family it would be a farce.
The purpose of the surcharge in custody cases is to generate good headlines and bad debts. I have not yet had to do it in the mags' court but when I do the form will be that "the surcharge provisions will apply" said as quickly as possible.
I can't echo enough the questions wrt the sentencing. Why not to run consecutively? Effectively the judge has given the defendant a "two for one" on killing another road user. Hardly fills me with confidence the law will take my death at the hands of a similarly reckless driver at all seriously. A fifteen year stretch on the other hand...
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.
There can be no 'appropriate' victim charge in a case like this - which makes something of a non-sense of the victim charge.
ReplyDeleteAnother classic example was seen at work recently where the magistrates on sentencing a young man who stole his grandmother's car and wrote it off, gave him a YRO - and then ordered his grandmother (as carer) to pay the £15 victim surcharge. Something of insult to injury.
What exactly is a victim surcharge in aid of? Surely victims , or their relations, can sue for proper damages?
ReplyDeleteOn a different plan, I am increasingly perplexed at victim's statements, especially when they are not really from the victim, but from victim's family. Ages ago I remember the young widow of a 30 y.old man who'd been killed in a car crash dryly commenting: " He ( her late husband) always drove like a madman, he was a speed fiend." I got the feeling he'd had other flaws too, preventing him to be too deeply regretted. That was in the privacy of my room, I doubt she'd have said the same if called upon to make a victim's statement in the courtroom. But what if she had? Is a man's life worth less, if his dearest and nearest are not so very dear and near after all? What's the judge supposed to do, the day a widow will victimstate :
"He was a thorugh and through S.O.B. and I'm far happier now he's gone.", give the defendant a bonus?
It is a pool of money that is supposed to go to help the victims of crime. It's interesting to note though that in the act of parliament that first brought it in it was described as a surcharge. The word 'victim' never appeared.
DeleteWho administers this pool and how is it spent?
DeleteA very sad incident.
ReplyDeleteSomething I don't understand about sentencing: what's the idea behind concurrent sentences? I see in this case Robert Palmer has been sentenced to two 7.5 year sentences, to be served concurrently, thereby giving him a sentence of 7.5 years (subject to serving half on licence, etc., etc.).
Is the theory that he committed two crimes as one simultaneous action (i.e. killed two different people by dangerous driving), and therefore should be punished for the most severe part of his action? In this case, both parts being equally serious (both resulting in death), the sentence for each is therefore the same.
Yes. How silly and insulting the sentencing tax must seem to the victims' families. I can't bring myself to describe it as a 'victim' surcharge when sentencing.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as a victim's surcharge- the law just refers to it as a surcharge.
ReplyDeleteApart from it being a farcical and not really for the benefit of any victim it still pervaded our courts.
Bearing in mind most of the people we are dealing with are on skid row anyway giving them another burden is sheer lunacy.
Why couldn't we just take a slice of fines and apply it to victims- would make life a lot simpler.
Hey- ho, off to court we go!
Nobody knows, it is one of those things were the money seems to disappear down a big black hole called the MoJ
ReplyDeleteThere seems no logic to the sentencing. A very popular member of my local community, a man fit, well and in his prime, was cycling when run over by a 7.5 ton wagon. The driver continued on his way and was only stopped when the police, alerted by a passing motorist witness, caught up with him. At his trial, he claimed he 'didn't see' the cyclist, who was originally thought not to be able to survive the accident, but 'thanks' to medical care has done so, even though left a virtual vegetable. The lorry driver got 16 months. Derisory.
ReplyDeleteHim being that tired makes me wonder if he was having trouble making a living, and if so what his family is going to do.
ReplyDeleteYou think it would be better he was allowed to continue making a living driving a truck beyond the permitted hours and risk more lives? I'm sure his family will suffer as a result of his actions. For some people that would be a deterrent to the crime. If sentencing was always relaxed to prevent disadvantaging the offenders family it would be a farce.
DeleteThe purpose of the surcharge in custody cases is to generate good headlines and bad debts. I have not yet had to do it in the mags' court but when I do the form will be that "the surcharge provisions will apply" said as quickly as possible.
ReplyDeleteI can't echo enough the questions wrt the sentencing. Why not to run consecutively? Effectively the judge has given the defendant a "two for one" on killing another road user. Hardly fills me with confidence the law will take my death at the hands of a similarly reckless driver at all seriously. A fifteen year stretch on the other hand...
ReplyDelete