Occasionally the language used in witness statements leads one to suspect that the police officer taking it down has imposed his own literary style on the work. I did see one though, many years back, where the officer had meticulously recorded the words of the interviewee, so much so that the flavour of the conversation shone through.
Roger was helping the police with their enquiries (now whatever happened to that phrase? It seems to have gone the way of blunt instruments) and when officers asked him to open the boot of his car they found a considerable quantity of the very stolen goods that they were looking for. The conversation was recorded as:-
Roger: "Oh. Fuck me. Look at that". PC: "Is that your property?" Roger: "Course it ain't. You know what it is. Just my fucking luck, ain't it?" PC: Did you steal them?" Roger: "Nah. I'm only the driver. Talk about unlucky. D'you know, if I fell in a barrel of tits I'd come out sucking me thumb".
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
All in the Same Boat
I mentioned a while back that we had so far received no training of any sort about the Serious Organised Crime And Police Act (hereinafter referred to as SOCA) which makes sweeping changes to powers of arrest and search warrants among other things, and which has been in force since January 1st. Well, according to this policeman most police officers are no better informed than we are.
This is typical of the flood of ill-thought-out and hastily-introduced legislation that has been rushed through Parliament in recent years. If the Government spent a bit of time and money telling the police and the courts what their new laws meant, it would be really helpful.
This is typical of the flood of ill-thought-out and hastily-introduced legislation that has been rushed through Parliament in recent years. If the Government spent a bit of time and money telling the police and the courts what their new laws meant, it would be really helpful.
That's Telling Them
I am grateful to solicitor Richard Miller for the following:-
(The Court of Appeal recently had to interpret some of the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003).
Thursday, 8th December 2005
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE ROSE, MR JUSTICE CRANE, MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
- - - - - - -
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (CLAIMANT) -v- SOUTH EAST SURREY YOUTH COURT (DEFENDANT)
paragraph 14 of the judgement is a cracker:-
That's judicial frustration for you - beautifully expressed too!
(The Court of Appeal recently had to interpret some of the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003).
Thursday, 8th December 2005
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE ROSE, MR JUSTICE CRANE, MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
- - - - - - -
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (CLAIMANT) -v- SOUTH EAST SURREY YOUTH COURT (DEFENDANT)
paragraph 14 of the judgement is a cracker:-
"So, yet again, the courts are faced with a sample of the deeply confusing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the satellite Statutory Instruments to which it is giving stuttering birth. The most inviting course for this Court to follow, would be for its members, having shaken their heads in despair to hold up their hands and say: "the Holy Grail of rational interpretation is impossible to find". But it is not for us to desert our judicial duty, however lamentably others have legislated. But, we find little comfort or assistance in the historic canons of construction for determining the will of Parliament which were fashioned in a more leisurely age and at a time when elegance and clarity of thought and language were to be found in legislation as a matter of course rather than exception."
That's judicial frustration for you - beautifully expressed too!
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Judicial Independence? Pah!
There is an article in today's Sunday Times complaining that there is no mechanism for disciplining judges:-
There is no red card system or judicial sin bin for blundering judges who time after time let serious criminals off too lightly. There should be. Repeat offenders should be banned from the bench — by their own colleagues in the Court of Appeal — for extended periods.
Curiously, the writer makes no complaint at all about judges who sentence too heavily, and have to be put right by the appeal court - her indignation is reserved for those bewigged old softies who feature so often in the tabloids.
I got to the bottom of the article, and I found:-
Katherine Raymond is a former special adviser to David Blunkett
Now why does that not surprise me?
Oh Goody, Some More Changes!
The latest issue of '‘The Magistrate'’ trails some of the legal changes that are expected in 2006. As usual, the list is a long one, and includes implementation of Acts that are already on the statute book as well as new legislation.
The remaining sentencing provisions of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act will be implemented. Magistrates'’ sentencing powers for an either-way offence will increase to 12 months from the present 6. Where there are two or more such offences the aggregate maximum goes up to 15 months. All prison sentences of less than 12 months will be replaced with Custody Plus, for a minimum of 28 weeks and a maximum of 51. The court will take a pick-and-mix approach, and part of the term will be served in custody with the balance in the community, subject to whatever requirements the court thinks appropriate, in the same way as we now impose suspended sentences with conditions. We will be given new guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council on the type of case that should be committed to the Crown Court for trial, but defendants retain their right to elect jury trial in either-way cases. Magistrates will no longer have the right to commit to the Crown Court for sentence, except where the offender comes within the '‘dangerousness'’ provisions. This is completely new ground and we will need to rely on our clerks'’ advice for the first few cases until we get a feel for it.
The Road Safety Bill is likely to pass Parliament, and we are expecting to see:-
Mandatory re-tests for repeat drink-drivers
Speeding to carry 2-6 points in a sop to the Mr. Toad lobby
Camera detectors will become illegal
Using a hand-held phone while driving will become endorsable
A second conviction for using a dangerous vehicle will carry a six-month ban (I haven'’t seen one of those for at least five years)
Failing to provide drivers'’ details and careless driving will have increased penalties.
The granting of Legal Aid will be taken away from the courts and given to the Legal Services Commission, although for the time being they are likely to delegate the powers right back to us. The means test that was abolished some years ago because it cost more to administer than it collected, is being reintroduced. This is known as the Grand Old Duke of York syndrome.
The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 may or may not be brought into force, but the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, with its nasty add-ons including the ones about the power of arrest almost certainly will.
As you would expect there are considerable reservations about Custody Plus, not so much with the principle but with the question of resources. The new setup will be complex and expensive, and will be dropped into the lap of a Probation Service (now merged with the Prison Service in an unlikely blending of cultures) that has been under pressure for some years. If it isn'’t properly funded, it isn'’t going to work.
The remaining sentencing provisions of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act will be implemented. Magistrates'’ sentencing powers for an either-way offence will increase to 12 months from the present 6. Where there are two or more such offences the aggregate maximum goes up to 15 months. All prison sentences of less than 12 months will be replaced with Custody Plus, for a minimum of 28 weeks and a maximum of 51. The court will take a pick-and-mix approach, and part of the term will be served in custody with the balance in the community, subject to whatever requirements the court thinks appropriate, in the same way as we now impose suspended sentences with conditions. We will be given new guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council on the type of case that should be committed to the Crown Court for trial, but defendants retain their right to elect jury trial in either-way cases. Magistrates will no longer have the right to commit to the Crown Court for sentence, except where the offender comes within the '‘dangerousness'’ provisions. This is completely new ground and we will need to rely on our clerks'’ advice for the first few cases until we get a feel for it.
The Road Safety Bill is likely to pass Parliament, and we are expecting to see:-
Mandatory re-tests for repeat drink-drivers
Speeding to carry 2-6 points in a sop to the Mr. Toad lobby
Camera detectors will become illegal
Using a hand-held phone while driving will become endorsable
A second conviction for using a dangerous vehicle will carry a six-month ban (I haven'’t seen one of those for at least five years)
Failing to provide drivers'’ details and careless driving will have increased penalties.
The granting of Legal Aid will be taken away from the courts and given to the Legal Services Commission, although for the time being they are likely to delegate the powers right back to us. The means test that was abolished some years ago because it cost more to administer than it collected, is being reintroduced. This is known as the Grand Old Duke of York syndrome.
The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 may or may not be brought into force, but the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, with its nasty add-ons including the ones about the power of arrest almost certainly will.
As you would expect there are considerable reservations about Custody Plus, not so much with the principle but with the question of resources. The new setup will be complex and expensive, and will be dropped into the lap of a Probation Service (now merged with the Prison Service in an unlikely blending of cultures) that has been under pressure for some years. If it isn'’t properly funded, it isn'’t going to work.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Unkind Cut
We occasionally see prosecutions for animal cruelty instigated by the RSPCA. Court action is usually a last resort, and in most cases rescue of the animals is the first priority. Where cruelty comes to light in time it can be gratifying to hear evidence of some mistreated cat or dog that doubles its body weight in a few weeks once properly fed and given the attention of a vet. We usually impose fines and costs, and the latter can be very high once kennel fees and vets bills are factored in. We also have the power to ban someone from keeping animals for a specified time.
Rarely, there is a case that has to be treated more seriously, as when a dog-fighting ring was uncovered. Men were betting large sums on dogs pitted against each other in abandoned farm buildings, and the evidence included disgusting photographs of walls spattered with blood to a height of several feet, as well as vet's reports on injuries to the dogs that had been seized. My colleagues decided on a deterrent sentence and gave the organisers six months apiece in a judgement that received a lot of local publicity, and we haven't had any recurrence for a long while now.
The oddest RSPCA case that I have seen involved a man who disposed of an unwanted litter of kittens by the traditional method of putting them in a weighted sack and dropping it into the canal. Rather than being charged with animal cruelty he was summonsed for breaching the law against polluting the waterway. Some of my colleagues felt that was somehow rather insensitive to the memory of the deceased felines, but it was certainly a lot easier to prove than a cruelty charge.
Rarely, there is a case that has to be treated more seriously, as when a dog-fighting ring was uncovered. Men were betting large sums on dogs pitted against each other in abandoned farm buildings, and the evidence included disgusting photographs of walls spattered with blood to a height of several feet, as well as vet's reports on injuries to the dogs that had been seized. My colleagues decided on a deterrent sentence and gave the organisers six months apiece in a judgement that received a lot of local publicity, and we haven't had any recurrence for a long while now.
The oddest RSPCA case that I have seen involved a man who disposed of an unwanted litter of kittens by the traditional method of putting them in a weighted sack and dropping it into the canal. Rather than being charged with animal cruelty he was summonsed for breaching the law against polluting the waterway. Some of my colleagues felt that was somehow rather insensitive to the memory of the deceased felines, but it was certainly a lot easier to prove than a cruelty charge.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
It's Nothing New
The previous post, along with a few others on the blog, talks about people who have got themselves into lots of trouble, driven by their sexual instincts. Coincidentally, the newspapers for today have a story about a doctor who was sending sexual material to a young girl, and who now faces disciplinary action from his profession.
As usual, a well-known West Midlands playwright was spot on , about 400 years ago:-
As usual, a well-known West Midlands playwright was spot on , about 400 years ago:-
The expense of spirit in a waste of shame
Is lust in action; and till action, lust
Is perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame,
Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;
Enjoy'd no sooner but despised straight;
Past reason hunted; and no sooner had,
Past reason hated, as a swallowed bait,
On purpose laid to make the taker mad:
Mad in pursuit, and in possession so;
Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;
A bliss in proof, and proved, a very woe;
Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream.
All this the world well knows; yet none knows well
To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Double Bluff
This job throws up some bizarre tales occasionally.
Michael, a married man, was taking part in an Internet chatroom for teenage girls, not as himself, nor even as a young lad, but posing as a lesbian girl. He made contact with a 14 year-old American girl, and over a while their correspondence grew more and more steamy and explicit. Eventually, his female alter ego made arrangements to fly over the Atlantic to meet her '‘friend'’. At this point, the American '‘girl'’ who was in fact an FBI officer running a sting operation of which Michael was just one of the targets, tipped off the British police, who searched Michael'’s house and took away his computer. The search revealed an extensive computer stash of pornographic pictures of young girls, some of them well up the ‘'Copine'’ scale of seriousness. In due course Michael was charged with child porn offences. I have no idea what happened to him after that. I do know that he was one of scores if not hundreds of men in the same position.
So we had two mature men, each pretending to be a young woman, dreaming up erotic adventures for the other'’s delectation. We had Michael, with his collection of pornography, who clearly intended to move from his fantasy world into the reality of meeting his imagined friend. Even if she had existed anywhere other than in the imaginations of two grown men, what the hell did he expect to happen when he arrived in the States? I decided not to think about that.
Until this case I had been slightly sceptical about the Operation Ore brouhaha, but afterwards, and now in view of the reported activities of a has-been pop singer in the Far East, I have adjusted my view. Yes, many, if not most enthusiasts for child pornography limit themselves to sad onanistic fantasy, but there are certainly some out there who have every intention of putting fantasy into reality.
Michael, a married man, was taking part in an Internet chatroom for teenage girls, not as himself, nor even as a young lad, but posing as a lesbian girl. He made contact with a 14 year-old American girl, and over a while their correspondence grew more and more steamy and explicit. Eventually, his female alter ego made arrangements to fly over the Atlantic to meet her '‘friend'’. At this point, the American '‘girl'’ who was in fact an FBI officer running a sting operation of which Michael was just one of the targets, tipped off the British police, who searched Michael'’s house and took away his computer. The search revealed an extensive computer stash of pornographic pictures of young girls, some of them well up the ‘'Copine'’ scale of seriousness. In due course Michael was charged with child porn offences. I have no idea what happened to him after that. I do know that he was one of scores if not hundreds of men in the same position.
So we had two mature men, each pretending to be a young woman, dreaming up erotic adventures for the other'’s delectation. We had Michael, with his collection of pornography, who clearly intended to move from his fantasy world into the reality of meeting his imagined friend. Even if she had existed anywhere other than in the imaginations of two grown men, what the hell did he expect to happen when he arrived in the States? I decided not to think about that.
Until this case I had been slightly sceptical about the Operation Ore brouhaha, but afterwards, and now in view of the reported activities of a has-been pop singer in the Far East, I have adjusted my view. Yes, many, if not most enthusiasts for child pornography limit themselves to sad onanistic fantasy, but there are certainly some out there who have every intention of putting fantasy into reality.
Hanwell
One of the people to comment on the birthday thread asks me to go easy on Hanwell. I grew up in West London and what is now Ealing Hospital was, in those anything-but-mealy-mouthed days, known as Hanwell Asylum or, colloquially, the Loony Bin. We used to peer over the wall from the top of the 607 trolleybus and try to imagine strange goings-on among the disappointingly normal-looking people walking in the grounds. Many was the mother, exasperated by the antics of her post-war baby boom children who would cry:- "You'll have me in Hanwell, you will, if you don't stop that!"
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Birthday Boy
The first post on this blog was one year ago tomorrow. We have had around 175,000 visitors, although I am sure that quite a few found us by accident and pushed off into cyberspace as soon as they realised that we were not a firm of solicitors in Hanwell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)