A Bit Of Housekeeping

The comments are one of the best bits about writing this blog, but we have a small problem, which is the many people posting as Guest. I can see the IP addresses of commenters, but you can't, so I am asking you to comment in your own name or in any other name you prefer, so that we don't have to scratch our heads over which 'guest' this is. There is space on the comments box for you to put in a name - the choice is yours, subject only to common decency.

Non-Story

Here is a story in - guess? - The Mail about a perfectly routine and unexceptional bit of prison management. Only those on very short sentences are left in the big city prisons for long, because they have limited space that is needed for the rapid turnover of inmates - last time I was at Pentonville they told me that they turn over well over a hundred men every day, a hefty administrative and logistical workload. Remand prisoners need to see their lawyers and families often, hence the need to keep them within sensible travelling distance.

Those such as Gilmour who present a negligible security risk are assessed and then, if suitable, shipped out to a Cat C or Cat D establishment in a few weeks.

I get very tired of newspapers that cannot give the length of a sentence without the prefix of 'just' so many years or months, or who imply that the standard 50% remission of sentence is some kind of special treatment, and that televisions in cells are the ultimate in cosseting those who the Sun delights in calling 'lags'.

Newsflash! DPP Agrees With Blogging JP!

The DPP's remarks are in line with my emerging view of what has been going on.



Welcome aboard, Sir.

Sour Cherie Pie

A recent sentence passed by Ms Cherie Booth, has been well and truly increased by the Court of Appeal, reports The Daily Mail, falling gleefully on the chance to savage one of its main bêtes noires.



I have no comment on the sentence itself, nor on Ms Booth, whom I have never sat with (although colleagues have).



My conclusion from this is that the Court of Appeal has shown yet again that the criminal justice system incorporates a number of self-correcting mechanisms, which in this case have served to rectify an unduly lenient sentence. If that Court, and those same mechanisms, serve to reduce a few of the recent riot sentences as being unduly harsh, I hope that those who start to wail about the cases will remember that appeals work both ways.



I hope that, but I am not sure that I expect it.

The (Metaphorical) Jury's Still Out On This One

John Thornhill, the MA chairman, is quoted in today's 'Times' (paywalled, I'm afraid) as defending magistrates against allegations of 'conveyor-belt justice' and over-harsh sentencing in riot cases. Once again, he did not go out of his way to stress that magistrates had little to do with it, as almost all of these cases have been handled by District Judges, a decision taken, we are told, by the Senior Presiding Judge (Goldring LJ). The seriously heavy sentences, measured in years, were all passed in the Crown Court.



One thought occurs to me - why should I pay the MA £34.50 per year to defend the actions of the professional judiciary? Can't they look out for themselves?



The raw facts are that 64% of riot cases were heard in London, almost all of them by DJs. Night courts were exclusively DJ led. 46% of offenders were given a custodial sentence as against 12.3% for similar offences last year.



Now I can live with the decision to use DJs as they are easier to deploy than JPs and I can also live with the concept that it can be proper to sentence in the context of widespread disorder damage and theft, although it is a bit of a coincidence that so many judges had the same idea at the same time by some mysterious osmosis.



What continues to puzzle me are the bail figures - 70% of those arrested were remanded in custody against a norm of around 10%. What led to this near-unanimous decision by DJs to put the Bail Act on ice? The Act criteria are well known (especially to regular readers of this blog) there must be 'substantial grounds' to fear a failure to surrender, further offences, or interference with justice. While the riots were raging in the streets there was certainly good cause to fear further offences, but as soon as the Met put enough officers on the street the trouble ceased. Defendants with previous convictions for failing to surrender or ignoring court orders might give cause for concern but what about people who handed themselves in? Are they an absconding risk? Did the number of people giving 'serious grounds' really jump from 10% to 70%?



A few people are rubbing their hands at the possible return of swift, if rough, justice. This idea appeals to politicians at regular intervals. Margaret Thatcher wanted striking miners dealt with by hastily convened tribunals - cooler judicial heads squashed that one. Tony Blair was seduced by the idea of night courts, an experiment that threw away several million pounds and achieved nothing before it was dropped. The 'Times' says that one Chief Constable wants to see why this 'rapid, robust' approach cannot be used all the time.



I'll tell you why officer: it's because justice is too important to do in haste. If, heaven forbid, you should find yourself facing allegations, as the occasional senior copper seems to do nowadays, I bet you would want enough time to give full instructions to your lawyer, to prepare your defence, and to gather evidence or examine the other side's evidence. If that's good enough for you, it's good enough for for a hoodie-clad youth from the streets of Tottenham.

Court Clerk or Clerk Who Works In a Court?

This report gives, I hope, the wrong impression. There are many clerical employees in the courts' service, but only legally qualified people are referred to as Court Clerks. These days the favoured title is Legal Adviser.



I suspect, although I do not know, that this gentleman falls into the first category. Our Legal Advisers are not all saints, I imagine, but every one I have ever worked with has been professional and beyond reproach.

No Delay

We had finished our morning's work when a casually dressed man panted into the courtroom and spoke to the clerk sotto voce. We were asked to deal with the matter straight away and of course we agreed. The officer (for such it was) apologised unnecessarily for his informal appearance, took the oath, and handed up his Information.



It was an application for a search warrant that he described as "very urgent". I cannot say anything about it, but I expect that shortly after I signed the warrant a squad of serious policemen went to visit a place in our locality that is known for problems.



These days we have been advised that warrant applications, even if made in open court before a bench, are a matter for a single justice; previously we have looked upon it as a Bench decision, although a single justice has of course the power to grant it.



So it was my turn, and I signed the warrant with my special (illegible) Warrant signature. Well you never know, do you?

Bit Of A Bodge There, Hoskins

Cock-ups R us.

A Turnkey's View

The president of the Prison Governors Association has gone on record about the riot-fuelled increase in prison numbers.



I can understand the rationale behind exemplary sentencing for involvements in the riots, although the appeal courts will clearly need to do some tidying up of a number of inexplicably harsh sentences, but what truly puzzles me is the fact that the Bail Act is being interpreted in an unprecedented way. When the riots have died down, as they have, where are the 'substantial' grounds to fear failure to surrender, further offences, or interfere with witnesses when someone has voluntarily turned herself in to the police?



Later..



John Thornhill of the MA has chipped in. I can't understand why he failed to point out that the overwhelming majority of these disposals have nothing to do with JPs but have been dealt with by full time salaried District Judges.

Riot Update

Here are more sentencing remarks in the latest batch of riot-related Crown Court cases. As before the sentences are awesomely heavy. There are bound to be appeals, and they will set the tone thereafter.