Monday, September 10, 2012

All In a Day's Work

I came across an old court list from last Spring while tidying my briefcase (writes a team member) and thought that the cases might cast an  interesting light on a day's work that is not necessarily typical, but that most magistrates would recognise.

Male, 34, Produce Cannabis, plus breach Conditional Discharge
Male, 22, Theft of metal (to be sentenced after guilty plea)
Male, 50, Theft of camera
Male, 39, ABH and Threats to Kill
Male, 19, Using unlicensed and uninsured mini motorbike  
Male, 39, Various sexual offences (Touching but no penetration)
Male, 27, Theft and Cannabis posession
Male, 39, Theft, plus breach Con. Dis x 2
Female, 28, Possess CS gas spray
Male, 59, Proceeds of Crime Act seizure application
Male, applies to have driving ban lifted
Male, 19, Possession of Class A with Intent to Supply x 2 plus Class B x 1
Male, 48, Class A drug smuggling
Male, Proceeds of Crime Act forfeiture application
Male, 24, Theft, Possess knife, Burglary
Male, 22, Criminal Damage
Male, 22, Assault by Beating  (domestic context)
Male, Proceeds of Crime application
Male, 36, Assault by Beating
Male, 57, Deposit Controlled Waste (multiple summonses)
Male, 30, Assault by Beating, racially aggravated ditto, shoplifting

On top of this there will have been anything up to a dozen overnight custody cases on which a bail decision will need to be made.

Each case will take from five minutes to all day, depending on pleas, and other factors. 


  

39 comments:

  1. Simple Simon from Shrewsbury11 September 2012 at 09:22

    Yep, that is the usual rag bag of cases. We tend to have one or two Drink/Drive's to add to the bundle, as well as a group wanting entry warrants first thing in the morning.

    I bet your very pleased that I haven't used the word "first" somewhere in this reply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can I be the first to point out that the correct abbreviation of "you are" is "you're", not "your"?

      Regarding the actual post: my main impression is that the criminal justice system is obsessed with sex and age. Why isn't it...

      Person, produce cannabis
      Person, theft of metal
      Person, ABH

      etc?

      Delete
    2. Nationalist: (i)No. Trivial typos and misspellings are of no account here. It's what people say that matters. (ii) Age and gender don't usually make much difference to a case, but the facts help people to picture what the day looked like from the bench.

      Delete
    3. With the advent of the 'new style' Sentencing Guidelines (beginning with assaults, and continuing with burglaries, drugs, et al), the 'maturity' or otherwise of the offender has, for the first time, become an explicit factor to be taken into consideration by sentencers (whether in the magistrates' courts or in Crown Court). This is something that appears to be causing some disparities in interpretation (confusion may be too strong a word), and it might be helpful for the Sentencing Council to issue further guidance on the matter.

      Delete
  2. In a list like that any time per case would of necessity have to be short otherwise court personnel would be shifting cases around all day !! There is no way only one of those cases could be permitted to take all day. Far better, in my view, to have about half that number of cases and open two courts. But thereby hangs a tale .....!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a full list - two courts out of four were trials-only

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought the ratio of male to female defendants was high, until reading that only 5% of the prison population are women.

    http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/statistics.php

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is uncontroversial to note that women commit less crime therefore appear on court lists less, hence get convicted less and so make up a smaller fraction of the prison population than men.

      If I were to write a related paragraph about blacks or muslims people would probably get huffy.

      Delete
    2. 'tis also to do with intelligence. The bell-curve for female IQ across the population is a lot narrower than for men; that is there are far more very intelligent men than women, and conversely far very thick men that women...

      Delete
    3. And some of those men can even compose a coherent sentence.

      Delete
    4. Good for you mate, you spotted that I'd missed out a word ("more") and also typed a "t" instead of an "n", and by jove you jumped on it. Well done!

      Delete
  5. DataProtectionDave11 September 2012 at 21:01

    Since court lists include a fair amount of protected personal information, standing practice in most areas is that they should not be taken away from the courthouse, and certainly not left trailing around for months on end in an often unattended briefcase. In addition to the first and family names, home address, d.o.b. and other details of the alleged offender, they can, by way of example, include the names of alleged victims, inter alia of alleged sexual assaults etc. The alleged victims may be minors too, who would immediately made subject to reporting restrictions by the bench. The Bystander Team member concerned really ought to notify his/her Justices' Clerk and Bench Chairman of this regrettable breach of data protection rules, happily without apparent adverse consequences, and they should take all necessary steps to ensure that such flagrant breaches are avoided in future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice idea. Since you are suggesting that Bystander (sorry - "'s team") is at fault, your comment will soon be deleted.

      Delete
    2. Fair comment. But then this apparent list has been "anonymised and composited" (in other words it's a complete fabrication!), so I wouldn't get your knickers in too much of a twist, Dave.

      Delete
    3. Nevertheless, the point being made, namely that the original list from which the one above has been concocted, should not have left the courthouse, is a valid one. From such apparently innocent oversights spring headlines like "Top secret file left on tube by MI5 agent.

      Delete
    4. It occurred to me that the list concerned may never have left court at all, but reflect an almost perfectly contemporaneous reality, suitably anonymised and composited.

      P.S. Interesting image - Bystander as a 21stC Scarlet Pimpernel!

      Delete
    5. DataProtectionDave illustrates the mediocre bureaucrat mentality that is truly harming this country.

      'Male, 24 theft' does not violate any privacy regulation. A court list is a public document.

      P.S. Note that 'Male, 95, theft' could have been a breach due to the sparse number of people of that age.

      Delete
    6. Petty Bureaucrat Defence League13 September 2012 at 19:07

      Anon seems to have missed the point made by DPDave. Court lists don't just say "Male, 24, theft", they give all the indubitably "protected personal information" (supposedly covered by the DPA) explicitly listed by DPDave (full names and address, date of birth, the alleged victims' names, including those of minors, etc.) and often more besides. Pointing that out is hardly justification for an accusation of having a "mediocre bureaucrat mentality" and certainly does the country no harm.

      On the other hand, not even reading the comment that triggers such an insult seems to me a more worrying characteristic.

      Delete
    7. Please try to understand: a court list is a public document. It is only the mediocre bureaucratic mind that tries to contrive an offence centred on a public document. And in any case, not even that published detail has appeared on this blog.

      This is the mentality that provokes knee-jerk reactions by LJs, and that is a harm to this country.

      Delete
    8. Court lists are not in fact public documents; a redacted court summary is made available, for example, to journalists, but the full list - with the details referred to above - is most certainly not for general distribution. The mentality that apparently provokes "knee-jerk reactions by LJs" is much more likely (since we don't actually know what triggered the SPJ's reaction) to be evidence that JOHs are unable to properly assess the available evidence before jumping to preconceived conclusions to back up positions based on prejudice or bias.

      Delete
  6. (sigh)

    Nothing is as it seems. Details are altered to protect the identity of cases. Do not take the above literally, just take our word for it that it represents a typical day.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The list oughtn't to have left the Courthouse unshredded, of course...

    ReplyDelete
  8. For heaven's sake! Why is everyone going all pompous again? Stick to the issues, and don't worry about the details.

    Harrumph!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So why not just say "this was a typical court list" rather than "this is a court list that I took away in my briefcase"? Seriously, why?

      Delete
  9. @BS They like being pompous, not reading or understanding what you are saying/doing. You will just have to live with it or exercise editorial control. This is the internet and as in olden days 'anything goes'

    ReplyDelete
  10. Quite why NorthernJP is so quick to dismiss those raising that data protection question mystifies me, as it appears to be a valid one. Is it being suggested that BS and/or BS(T) are infallible and beyond the questions of man?

    Whilst the more recent attempt to pass this 'list' of as being representative of a typical day, but not one to be taken literally, is noted, the thread starts by saying "I came across an old court list from last spring". There is nothing in that sentence, or the remainder of the thread, that makes clear the list is anything other than genuine. As such, the data protection question is/was valid and the suggestion that by raising it 'anything goes' is not.

    And note, not a single reference to the SPJ...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Enough with the navel gazing already! This is a blog not a textbook. Stuff has to be anonymised for obvious reasons. Go back to the old blog and have a look at the rubric at the top.

    "Enough facts are changed to preserve the truth of the tale but to disguise its exact source".

    Any more of this stuff will go into the bin.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Simple Simon from Shrewsbury13 September 2012 at 09:11

    Didn't anyone note my comments (which were first)that agreed that this was a common rag bag of a list with the usual spread of cases. This could be my list, or I suspect the list from any court in the land.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ah yes. In a courthouse of my close acquaintance lists are often left lying around. The justices all know not to remove them and although they should be put in the appropriate receptacle for secure shredding, reality I believe may differ. Hence old lists floating about.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's only very recently in my court that a bin has been provided for old lists. Before then we left them on the bench for the cleaners to remove or on the table in our main retiring room. In these days of cutbacks I am surprised we still see cleaners. At least we have money for them, but sadly none to replace one of our large windows which is literally being held together by masking tape on the outside.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A magistrates' court is open to the public and the media Almost everything on the list is read out or referred to during the proceedings. These include name, address, age and details of charges. There is nothing confidential about this information. And, of course, much more detail is given in open court. What are the issues here of data protection?

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry but we are not going to pick over a decision made by a bench when we do not have the same facts before us that were presented in court, which could include submissions from the Crown or the defence, and psychiatric or other reports. The court will have had to give its reasons under the Bail Act, there will have been two applications allowed followed by the chance to appeal to a Crown Court judge.

      Delete
    2. If you can afford it.

      Delete
    3. No. If your liberty is at risk, legal aid is almost certain.

      Delete
  17. On a similar note, this piece in the Telegraph has Sir Paul Stephenson's views on a day in Westmister mags:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9545415/Former-Met-commissioner-Sir-Paul-Stephenson-visits-British-court.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. The criticisms are trenchant indeed, and not all directed at the court (which was run Béa DJ(MC) it should be noted).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes, I wonder why he didn't sit in on a magistrates' court- after all, that is how the courthouse is described.

    ReplyDelete

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.