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.
Have you been asleep Bystander? No posts for a week, then you run with something that came out in December and featured in a number of national newspapers at that time. Stay awake in the back row.
It was bizzare that we were supposed to cost the same as a DJ - seems they included a notional 'what we would be doing if we weren't in court' charge against us per hour when HMCTS analysed the data... Now a much more realistic conclusion. MF JP
It simply confirms what I have always thought, namely that someone costing £150,000 a year was almost certainly going to result in a higher overall cost than three people being paid zero per year but perhaps claiming about £10 for lunch and £20 for petrol, per session.
I'm not suggesting it would swing the stats the other way but a proper look at the costs would include the "whole life costs" of JP v's DJ, e.g.:
- training - recruitment - appraisal - rota management [admin time] - committees / management meetings - time spent preparing appeals etc. - "IT" systems / support - even the "pro-rata" cost of "chambers" etc.
Who paid for this rubbish? The palin fact of the matter there is a mixed bench, whether for control or otherwise. however, I doubt Djs are "contolled" as suggested.
Rather than the constant sniping, it is about time we all worked together and try and make the system work.
I'm afraid the MA seems to be living in a different world to most people and constantly harping on about this will get nowhere.
If the powers that be want to change the way thecourts work- which is highly likely ,they will do it no matter what the MA say.
There is a good case for a complete overhall of the whole system from top to bottom- whoc do you think will hold more sway the MA or the LCJ?
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.
Not the sort of answer that our Lords and Masters would wish to see?
ReplyDeleteHave you been asleep Bystander? No posts for a week, then you run with something that came out in December and featured in a number of national newspapers at that time. Stay awake in the back row.
ReplyDeleteIt was bizzare that we were supposed to cost the same as a DJ - seems they included a notional 'what we would be doing if we weren't in court' charge against us per hour when HMCTS analysed the data... Now a much more realistic conclusion. MF JP
ReplyDeleteIndeed. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteKate Caveat
It simply confirms what I have always thought, namely that someone costing £150,000 a year was almost certainly going to result in a higher overall cost than three people being paid zero per year but perhaps claiming about £10 for lunch and £20 for petrol, per session.
ReplyDeleteThe DJ versus lay bench has has always been a matter of control rather than cost
ReplyDeleteBeaky
I'm not suggesting it would swing the stats the other way but a proper look at the costs would include the "whole life costs" of JP v's DJ, e.g.:
ReplyDelete- training
- recruitment
- appraisal
- rota management [admin time]
- committees / management meetings
- time spent preparing appeals etc.
- "IT" systems / support
- even the "pro-rata" cost of "chambers" etc.
Who paid for this rubbish?
ReplyDeleteThe palin fact of the matter there is a mixed bench, whether for control or otherwise. however, I doubt Djs are "contolled" as suggested.
Rather than the constant sniping, it is about time we all worked together and try and make the system work.
I'm afraid the MA seems to be living in a different world to most people and constantly harping on about this will get nowhere.
If the powers that be want to change the way thecourts work- which is highly likely ,they will do it no matter what the MA say.
There is a good case for a complete overhall of the whole system from top to bottom- whoc do you think will hold more sway the MA or the LCJ?