Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Beware of Stealth Lawmakers

This report is worrying, particularly in view of the shifty way in which the Criminal Courts' Charge was sneaked through Parliament at the eleventh hour before the election forced a halt. Now I do not have the time nor the inclination to pore through this stuff, especially as my dear granddaughters have taken up so much of my time over the last week.

Let us remain vigilant against sneaky rules made by the same bunch of Sir Humphreys who have served us so badly for so long.

Is there a single civil servant out there who can, granted anonymity, explain what is to happen with the pile of cash that has been imposed (if not collected) by the appalling and callous CCC?

I thought not.

19 comments:

  1. They're Tories, desparate to hang onto power. Sadly 36% of the electorate who voted, voted for them. We'll be on our knees in five years ... but never mind the courts will be busy dealing with the effect of poverty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We call the process democracy. The electorate decided who they wanted to govern us just as the electorate will again at the next general election. Get over it.

      Delete
  2. Rather intriguingly, we have Judges making law too. The point is that Parliament is there to make Laws, whether you like who is in government or not, at least they have some democratic legitimacy (agreed: not total), but Judges have none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they interpret laws. In the UK, Parliament is sovereign.

      Delete
    2. False. The unelected European Commission is now sovereign.

      Delete
    3. That is some top-quality argumentum ad ignorantiam. Apparently you are not using the same definition of "sovereign" as most people.

      Delete
    4. 03:04 If you think that the automatic enactment of Directives and Regulations from the European Commission is democracy, then I am afraid you have been as conditioned as deeply as Junker himself.

      Delete
  3. Yawn.. same old same old.. time to think of something else to write, or try and get a guest spot in the Grauniad.

    What about all the fines that criminals never pay, perhaps you can send a few down for non payment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds easy, doesn't it? Have you seen the number of steps that have to have been tried/considered before resorting to custody for non payment?

      If you set out in a Fines Enforcement Court actually wanting to send people down, you'd return home frustrated most days. Those who ARE send down for non payment, in the main, want to take that easy way out. Result: happy punters, more cost to the country, and fines wiped out.

      Don't blame the Magistrates; they pretty much have to work within previously set down case law on such matters.

      Delete
  4. Thank goodness the writer of this blog does not speak for all magistrates. If he (or is it they) represent us, then it may not be such a bad thing that we are being replaced or at least sidelined, by DJs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. District Judges are dependent on the Government of the day for their future prospects and financial wellbeing. Unlike other criminal court Judges they can - sitting alone - determine a defendant's guilt or innocence. What equips them to do that any more than a Lay Magistrate? As human beings, we all have our preconceptions and prejudices and no amount of legal training can remove that.

      No, give me a group of lay people who (whatever their faults) come to it with no personal interest every time. DJ(MC)'s have their place, but they are a necessary evil - and certainly not a blueprint for the future.

      Do you really think that the CCC would have been withdrawn so quickly if the bottom tier of the Criminal Court structure was entirely comprised of DJ(MC)'s?

      The writers of this blog do not claim to represent anyone but themselves. At least it shows we are human beings who are cognisant of the issues and connect with the communities that we serve. We are not glorified civil servants and the public should be pleased to see that whilst we will always do our duty under the law, it doesn't mean that we always agree with it or are happy to do it.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. Moreover we are supposed to be representative of the community at large, admittedly a goal we fall short of. Nevertheless we are at least not a band of identikit social conservatives forever baring our teeth at the poor, hopeless and inadequate who stumble under the wheels of the establishment juggernaut.

      Delete
    3. Three cheers for the hopelessly out of touch identikit Pollyanna pretend lefties we have instead then!

      Delete
    4. Hibbo, I think you (perhaps deliberately) misunderstand Briar here. He/she, I think, refers to the popular perception of magistrates rather than any actual political alignment.

      My experience is that the politics of individual Magistrates has little or no bearing on their standpoints in retiring room discussions. A socialist is just as likely to take a "hard" line as a capitalist and the corollary is also true.

      Others may have different experiences, but these are my genuine observations over the last 20 years.

      Delete
  5. In the old days... When we had a fines' court we sent the first person downstairs rapidly. The rest then paid without a fuss. Then by some miracle the bloke downstairs found the money - we got paid and we all went home happy. Nothing wrong with that approach methinks...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I sat in those days too. Yes it worked, no there wasn't much wrong with it as long as the first person was carefully chosen (Ushers were of great assistance). Long gone, I'm afraid. We now have to jump through the hoops set out in https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015-08-17-Adult-Court-Bench-Book-May-2015.pdf Pages 113-128 and summed up in the flow chart on Page 129.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sadly, some years ago, our practice of having them turn out their pockets in open court was stopped. I remember asking one def. what would fall out if we had him turned upside down- our legal adviser was not best pleased.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A civil servant here - you will no doubt be surprised to know that they are people (and magistrates, some of them). The courts charge was intended to fund the courts, hence the name, so all money paid (about £300,000 by October 15) has gone into the general budget of the court service to do that. This was stated in MOJ Circular No. 2015/01, the MOJ's Fact Sheet on Gov.uk, and several other documents.
    District Judges like other judges, have tenure and can only be removed for misconduct by a panel made up of members of the judiciary and lay members. They are not allowed to hold political office so are not susceptible to pressure from government. If Anonymous DJ Hater is a magistrate, they are a very ignorant one. There is a strong case for magistrates, but trying to discredit the judicial system by making up twaddle about the salaried judiciary doesn't make it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Civil servant, magistrate, and solicitor here. DJs are as independent as the rest of the judiciary: in a sense they seem more so because they are not going to get promoted whereas Circuit Judges can go to the High Court and High Court judges can go to the Court of Appeal and members of the Court of Appeal can go to the Supreme Court - not that I am suggesting that the prospect of such promotion affects their judgment.

    DJMCs are essential for longer cases and also for those heavy on the law. What irks me is when I see cases which are neither of those but involve a high-profile witness or defendant listed before a DJ. No need for that at all.

    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.