The Magistrates' Association has never had much influence on my bench, due in part at least to the geographical layout of the MA' s archaic structure. I live in Buckinghamshire, to the west of my court's area, and MA branch meetings are held in Bloomsbury; an 80-mile round trip (for which mileage cannot be claimed).
Having been a Bench Chairman I came to know quite a few MA people, including the outgoing Chairman Richard Monkhouse, who was a member of the National bench chairmen's forum at the same time as me.
The saddest thing to have come out of recent MA elections is the voting figures:- the turnout from an electorate of almost 18,500 was a puny 3.100, or 16.8%.
This is a shame, because the increasingly authoritarian MoJ needs to be balanced by a robust body representing JPs as well as the various professional court users.
And who got this debate going? Why the MA and interviews I had chiefly with Frances Gibb of The Times. Others followed and are still going.
ReplyDeleteI put them in touch with the resigning magistrates and it has moved from there.
Without the MA's involvement this would have remained a grumble at bench level, with a lot of ineffectual tutting.
The HL acknowledged supporting our campaign.
I raised it with M Gove at a recent meeting and we will continue to push. So less of the MA bashing please.
When someone else gets off their a**e and sticks their head above the parapet, I and we will acknowledge and help.
Credit where it's due please
Richard Monkhouse (not as anonyomous as most of the rest of you!)
Outgoing chair of MA
Richard, you will know that I have stuck my head above the parapet on many occasions.
DeleteFew thinking Magistrates' have any time or confidence in the current structure, Bench Chairmen appear to be another arm of HMCTS. I am the member of a bench of less than 200, we have two vice chairmen and five, yes five deputy chairmen. I haven't got a clue what they all do.
The fact is that Lord Chancellor Gove doesn't care about your opinions, even if he could understand them.
Deleteit would seem that there is even apathy in the realms of the Magistrates Blog, either to release comments or the lack thereof.
ReplyDeleteCan my trumpet blowing be heard?
Deletehttp://thejusticeofthepeaceblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/apathy-at-magistrates-association.html
The MA's response to the introduction of the Court Charge has been deeply, deeply disappointing and their claims to have led a dynamic response just show how far out of touch they are - out of touch with the feeling of the membership and with what their priorities should be. I thought a great deal about resigning as a JP, and am far from convinced with my self-justification of the good that a well-constituted bench can achieve. I have resigned from the MA, in which I was previously active, because I found I didn't have a good answer to the question "Why should I join?"
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry Mr Monkhouse but that's just not good enough. You should have been shouting about this BEFORE the deed was done. And if you didn't know it was coming, then you should be shouting about that and seeking an explanation why.
ReplyDeleteAnd the old mantra of 'well put your head above the parapet then' doesn't wash either. YOU put yourself forward for the job, YOU have to do it properly on behalf of your members. That's how membership organisations work. The 'carping from the sidelines' is simply YOUR menbers exercising their democratic rights to have their voices heard via their representatives. I think Parliament works in a similar fashion.
Bravely said, anonymous JP.
DeleteThank you Mr Monkhouse for your comments, but the electorate has spoken or at least 16.8% have replied.
ReplyDeleteThis needs to be placed into context, a good survey ( or questionnaire, or election) for which the respondents are engaged with the subject, and keen to air their views would normally get about 50% reply. A survey for which the respondents are not very interested would normally get between 20% to 25%. I have never been involved in a survey which has got less than 20%, and I spent the last 6 years doing surveys on a daily basis.
This opens the question of “Why the response is so low”? It could be that everything is running along nicely, and the electorate don’t feel the need to rock the boat, or that the electorate are so disillusioned with the Association that they can’t be bothered to reply. One might expect that as the electorate has dropped so sharply over the last 5 years that only the keenest would be left (the disinterested have already gone), but the count belies that result.
I suggest that the vote is saying something very loud to the Association, in fact the silence is deafening.
What, if anything should be done. There are several alternatives, the classic British response of nothing – carry on as normal, but that would result is a slow death. One could put a firebrand in place – not because anyone agrees with him or her, but because they would “stir the pot”, and that in itself is not a bad thing. Or, finally, we could blame the voters for their lack of commitment
Pity we don't have a magistrates' forum where we could discuss it.
ReplyDeleteWe have, it's here: http://magistrates.today
DeletePerhaps the Magistrates Association is rather like the Labour Party, pre-Jeremy Corbyn: not much to choose between the contestants!
ReplyDeleteI would proffer the view that Mr Monkhouse's reply goes to the root of problem - simple arrogance and complacency. The MA appears to be disconnected from reality so far as its membership goes. It doesn't seem to care. It hasn't, as far as I know, explained why its memberships has fallen away. It hasn't said what it intends to do about it or even whether it thinks this is a problem.
ReplyDelete(By the way, and lest I should be censured by Mr M, I post anonymously so as to avoid incurring the wrath of the powers that be. Just thought I'd mention that since Mr M seems to regard such posters with contempt).
When I was appointed I paid up and joined the MA. I went to four or five of my branch AGM's. There were a couple of interesting speakers but the one I really wanted to hear had to cry off on the day. Apart from the AGM the branch did nothing. I soon came to understand that it was an entirely toothless organisation and I left, along with other colleagues.
ReplyDeleteIn the early 2000s the structure of the Magistrates Courts changed dramatically. The Courts' Committees were abolished which meant that the Central Council vanished. In addition, the role of local authorities in their local courts was removed, and a centralised quango - HMCS, now HMCTS, was introduced. This had a number of consequences. First, the MA, the Central Council and the LGA often worked together to advise/lobby government, now only the MA can do that, and it has no allies. Second with the loss of courts committees, the role of Bench Chairmen became more important because HMCTS needs a link between itself and magistrates. Third, Chairmen realised that they needed a voice of their own because individually they were being ask for information/opinion/advice by HMCTS. Consequently, the establishment of NBCF. This got off to an unhappy start because the MA tried to make it a sub-committee of itself. The outcome of all this, together with a fall in the number of magistrates, leaves the MA in a precarious position. It needs a really deep think about its future function in this new world. It has lost an empire but has not discovered a role.
ReplyDelete