Undue Deference

There has been a furore about the latest piece of yobbish behaviour from the retreaded Top Gear. According to some reports the local authority gave permission for stunt driving on public roads, in Central London including screaming power slides and spins. Top Gear has access to a disused airfield at Dunsfold in Surrey, which leaves even less excuse for using the highway.

The cringing deference that too many in authority show towards famous stars when cameras appear is distantly redolent of the Savile case when fame caused people to suspend their judgment of a serial offender.

Quite apart from the extraordinary driving (skilled as the drivers may be) that would count as Dangerous Driving in any court, I very much doubt whether the souped-up machines featured would pass the Construction and Use regulations. Finally, some film that I have seen shows a car sliding perilously close to un- marshalled spectators: something that would never be allowed in a properly organised motorsport event.

Trying to out-yob Clarkson is a tough call, and the BBC should not do it.

Do The Shuffle

We had to reshuffle our JPs between our five courtrooms today, two of which had to sit with a bench of just two.

My list featured three trials this morning and one in the afternoon. One defendant simply did not appear, so we issued a warrant without bail to get him in. In the next the defence put in a late Defence Case Statement that changed the whole basis of the defence, so in all fairness we had to allow an adjournment to give the prosecutor a chance to have a think about it. Two down, one to go.
Number three was actually effective:- a Domestic Violence case that turned on a row that ensued when the ex-boyfriend of the victim (and the father of her daughter)  rang her up. The volume of threats increased and the victim rang the police. Lover boy threw the phone either to her or at her, and grabbed her, as he claimed, so that  he could get past her to leave. The whole business came down to he-said/she-said, and we concluded that we could not convict beyond reasonable doubt. The protagonists left hand in hand, leaving me in little doubt that we shall see them again.

This afternoon's case was, incredibly, a simple possession of Class B but the papers hadn't been copied, and the CPS copier was hors de  combat while there was a queue for the one upstairs in the office. We put the case off and called it a day, when I was happy to get my car heater blasting hot air, as the courtroom and retiring area were freezing. Oh yes, and the coffee machine has vanished, and we now have a cheapo kettle and sundry jars of instant coffee for our comfort.

Happy Chappy

I wrote a few weeks back about a friend who was breathalysed at Christmas, and decided to run a Special Reasons argument that would allow the court not to disqualify him if the Bench agreed.

 Well, he kept his licence, with six points, and a fine in the low hundreds plus costs. He was impressed by the performance of the solicitor I recommended and is a happy boy.

I think that justice was done. and the system worked as it should.

It's McKenzie Again

The powers-that-be have decided to have a look at McKenzie Friends.

Funny, that. You would almost think that someone Up There reads this blog.

Now That's What I Call a Correction

My son has pointed out the following Correction issued in the last few days: Unbeatable.

Exemplary

The official websites are giving increasing prominence to judges' sentencing remarks in complex cases, or those that cause public concern. In a recent judgment, DJ Deborah Wright (whom I know well as our sittings often overlap) sentenced the protesters who blocked off a Heathrow runway   to show how cross they are about the proposed new Northern runway.

Her remarks are Here and I think that she did a good job.

A Glimpse of The Mob

Like most middle-class people I lead a sheltered life (in a relatively peaceful Buckinghamshire enclave) so it is especially shocking when I come up against really offensive behaviour.
I spent last Friday night in the A & E department of a big hospital (think Jimmy Savile). There was nothing too bad wrong with me, but I am at the age where medics like to run the full range of tests just to be sure. Not too far round the corner from my cubicle was a group of apparently drunken young men, who were hurling foul mouthed abuse at hospital staff, ripe with indignant profanity. By about 11 p..m. police arrived from time to time, but the noise continued unabated. I asked the nurse who was taking a blood sample if this was a usual event and he said that it was about the norm for a Friday night.

I have always regarded misbehaviour in and near hospitals as seriously aggravated offences, for reasons that  do not need to be spelt out, but this opened my eyes to the reality that hospital staff can face.

Very nasty.

For Which Relief Much Thanks

Those of us who were beginning to despair at the flat-footed callousness of Chris Grayling's tenure at the MoJ are starting to look with wide-eyed wonderment at the systematic dismantling of the Grayling legacy being carried out by Michael Gove. Only a couple of weeks ago I had a quiet chat with a decent, respected and hard-working defence solicitor who could see no glimmer of light in the darkness that was enveloping the defence profession. There were credible plans to remove many well-run firms from the Duty Solicitor scheme, and to pare the fees of the remainder to the unsustainable bone. Small firms had become unsaleable, their owners unable to retire with any security.

Let's take a deep breath, and survey where we are now, resolving to find a solution that will aim to restore fairness while keeping a wary eye on the costs involved.

A New Viewpoint

A couple of weeks ago, I went to my local court (in which I have never sat as a magistrate) as a McKenzie Friend..

An old friend of mine was arrested over Christmas and charged with drink-driving. So far, so bad, and he was anxious to plead guilty straight away, and take his punishment and ban. I went along just to be certain that he understood what was going on, and had the weird experience of standing next to him in the armoured-glass dock. The front of house court staff were very helpful and polite, and not at all fazed by my presence. The seats were hard but the coffee machine worked, and the ushers were on the ball, introducing the Duty Solicitor, who was also friendly and informative. The bench listened carefully to what my friend had to say, and he came across as sincere and frank. After he had said his piece (guilty plea,  apologies, and so on) the bench went into a huddle and called up the legal adviser.
What the bench was considering was whether the circumstances of the offence might have allowed a Special Reasons argument. I could see their thought process, and then the chairman went on to explain the situation clearly. They put the case back, to allow time to consider, so in a quiet moment when the bench was out we approached the Clerk and said that we would like to give Special Reasons a run. We were give a date six weeks hence in another town, and my friend was bailed to then.
I can't go into any detail at this stage, but the bottom line is that the defendant has little to lose (apart from costs) and a lot to gain if he escapes a ban.
When booking the new date, the clerk checked that I understood the issues, which I did. The CPS prosecutor gave me a sideways look and said that one of his colleagues had recognised me from my home court, so yes I probably did understand..

Let's see how we get on.

Bail - The Least Understood Thing We Do?

There has been a bit of huffing and puffing about the (possible) Jihadi star of a grotesque snuff movie, who jumped bail to go to the Middle East a year or two back. Of course some will ask why he was on bail, but there seems to be no realisation that the law prescribes a right to bail . Every JP is aware of the exceptions, which, simply put, amount to a substantial fear that the defendant will abscond, interfere with witnesses, or commit further offences.

The commenters in our more thick-ear newspapers, seem to prefer the idea of locking up anyone who finds himself under suspicion. Quite apart from the principle of incarcerating the unconvicted, what would that do to our swelling prison population?