Nine Years is a Long Time

The late, highly respected Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, made a speech in 1997 that to many of us was a model of informed and civilised opinion about crime and punishment. It is here.

When he made the speech the Labour government had been in office for a few months. Then, the speech seemed magisterial. Today, it would be denounced as soft and woolly. In particular, he makes a point that is in flat contradiction to the Government's intention to bring in prison for drivers who kill by pure accident. Times do, indeed, change, do they not?

Mind Your Language

The Department for Constitutional Affairs has produced a guide for its staff with the catchy title:- "Eliminating Inappropriate Language in the Workplace". It gives a fascinating insight into the bureaucratic mind. Now I am not obsessed with using or not using "appropriate" language, and I am quite happy to avoid giving offence, but some of the lists in the booklet are eye-opening. Expressions deemed "not acceptable" include:

Old, middle-aged, young, girl, young lady, boy, lad, young man, part-timer, the disabled, the blind, the deaf, black mark, black sheep, black list, black look, Black Monday, coloured, half-caste, West Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Chinese (used as a catch-all (sic) phrase), British (referring to whites), immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, gypsies (used negatively) Gyppos, Ethnics, Jesus Christ (used as a curse) Jesus freak, bible basher, Jewish (acceptable to some) gay (as a noun) manning the phones, manpower, policeman, chairman, spokesman, fireman, foreman, workmen, lady doctor, woman judge, male nurse, male secretary, love, pet, dear (used in a derogatory way)

This is produced for DCA staff, and is not directed at the judiciary (just as well, in my view). It's going to be difficult to hold a conversation with the girls in the office - whoops!

Oh Dear, Gordon.

Two unpleasant BNP (a far-right party that majors on race) members were today acquitted of stirring up race hatred. That is the jury's verdict, and it's good enough for me.
Gordon Brown is quoted in the BBC article thus:-

Chancellor Gordon Brown said race laws may have to be tightened. He said: "I think any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country and I think we've got to do whatever we can to root it out from whatever quarter it comes".

Two points, Mr.Prime-Minister-Designate:- Firstly, there is something deeply improper about a senior Minister reacting to a verdict that he (and I, for that matter) find obnoxious by musing on how to change the law so as to have better luck next time; and secondly, why should it require the power of Parliament to forbid something that will

"offend mainstream opinion"?

In a democracy someone is always going to be offended. They, and Mr. Brown, need to learn to live with it. Argue, dispute, debate if you will, but as for using the Parliamentary sledgehammer - forget it, Gordon. You want to be a statesman. You can do better than this.

Panorama

I have just watched the BBC Panorama programme that raised some frightening issues about serious criminals who are sent to bail hostels at the end of their sentences. On the face of it the programme seems to show dangerous offenders who were reverting to their bad old ways while nominally being supervised in the community. The bottom line is simple in my view, and turns on a few self-evident truths.

1) A minority of offenders are beyond any hope of reform (especially with the limited resources of our prisons) and should probably be kept under some form of physical restriction until age and infirmity have rendered them harmless. There is no reason why that restraint should not be humane and civilised.
2) Identifying those people is not an exact science.
3) Most people would err on the side of caution while that remains the case. That raises issues of justice and human rights.
4) Prison is an expensive and limited resource. Its punitive effect is obvious, but only lasts for a while. Its deterrent effect is debatable, certainly for second and subsequent offenders. Its one undisputed strength is that it incapacitates inmates from further offences against the public.

From this I draw a couple of conclusions. The first is that prison is too precious a resource to waste on drunks drug addicts and petty offenders, many of whom are mentally ill. The second is that if we can clear the mad and the sad out of prison we can ask the professionals to sharpen up their handling of the truly bad, and to work towards a less flawed system of assessing who might be suitable for release, and who should be kept under control, if necessary for ever.

At the moment the prison service has been reduced to warehousing inmates, its Victorian ideals overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers. There may be a better way, but I fear that there is no prospect of a politician with the courage to put it forward.

Oh, by the way: I have seen many thousands of offenders in my time on the bench, and I have seen fewer than a couple of dozen whom I thought were truly dangerous in the longer term.

Wise Words (That Will Be Ignored Again)

I have blogged more than once about the 'Sun' inspired legislation providing for prison sentences for causing death by careless driving, an offence that requires no intent, merely a human error. Here is a letter to The Times from a former Attorney-General.
This legislation encapsulates everything that is wrong with the Government's tabloid-led populism. It is being rushed in, it will be unfair and unjust, it will establish a dangerous principle, and it won't save a single life.

This, thanks to a commenter, is the text:-

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2006 The Times

Sir, Rushed legislation leads to injustice. This week will see a bad example.

The Road Safety Bill provides for sentences of up to five years' imprisonment for careless driving if a death is caused. Never before have we legislated to send people to prison for ordinary negligence. Its ramifications if carried to other areas -education, medicine, commerce and industry -would be very serious.

The House of Lords has twice rejected the principle after full debate, firstly in January 10, 2006, at third reading, and again last week. But because of a technical slip in January, noticed by no one at the time, this potentially deeply unjust measure will become law.

Normally the mistake would have been corrected, or other options considered, but this part of the Bill was only introduced on report. It had no second reading in the House of Lords and no committee stage.

Dangerous driving is more than 20 times more likely to lead to death than is careless driving. At present the distinction between dangerous and careless driving is clear. The prosecution must focus on what it has to prove in each case, and the defendant knows the case against him, one of the fundamentals of natural justice. In future all this will be blurred.

When the Government consulted, all too briefly, last year it was warned strongly of the risks to justice by the Lord Chief Justice, by the Council of Circuit Judges and by the Justices Clerks Association. The courts have emphasised repeatedly that, while the consequences must be considered, the level of culpability must be the key factor in sentence.

There are 34 million licensed drivers in Britain.

If a driver is proved to have driven dangerously, prison should certainly be available, perhaps with a long sentence in bad cases. But if ordinary negligence which sadly happens to lead to a death is to send yet more people to prison, the tragedy of the death will not be undone. It will simply be compounded by injustice. And injustice resulting from bad law starts to undermine the whole system.

LORD LYELL OF MARKYATE, Attorney-General, 1992-97

Copyright (C) The Times, 2006

The Sun Says (Again)

A WELCOME new era in sentencing will be launched this week.
Paedophiles, rapists and thugs will lose the automatic right to parole after half their sentence. And crooks will no longer get a guaranteed third off their jail time just for pleading guilty.
Home Secretary John Reid’s announcement was sparked by our campaign against liberal judges.

I am sorry to say that the last sentence is entirely true.

Parole - An Insight

Tonight on BBC2 from 9 to 10 p.m. is the first of three programmes about the work of the Parole Board, There is a piece about it here. I for one won't miss it.

Racial Aggravation

If you have a look at the Bench Book you will see that offences such as harassment and common assault move a step up-tariff if they are racially aggravated. I have no problem with that, but occasionally those responsible for charging take things just a little far. The latest was a contretemps involving a railway ticket collector whose ancestors came from the far side of Offa's Dyke, and who was called a 'Taff wanker'. The defendant was quite rightly charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence, but with the Racially Aggravated version. Strictly speaking that was correct, but compared with some of the nasty racist stuff that we have heard the words were pretty mild.
Sensitive souls would be well advised to stay clear of the forthcoming Rugby internationals, where the Taffs and the Micks and the Jocks will do battle with England, and the crowd may occasionally lapse into the sort of comments that would give some prosecutors a fit of the vapours.

Osama Bin Fawkes

As I sit here, a glass of Australian Cabernet Sauvignon to hand, (oops - now it's gone, I see it was Merlot - very good though) my neighbours are putting on what sounds like a re-enactment of the Battle of the Somme.

It would make first-class cover for any of the nasties among us to try out weaponry and explosives without drawing attention to themselves.

How long before some fool tries to ban the whole Guy Fawkes thing?

Money

More than once we have seen comments on here and elsewhere implying that there is something dishonourable about defence solicitors being paid for their work - why they should be different from anyone else is is a mystery. In fact Legal Aid solicitors' pay is among the lowest in the profession, and many young barristers too are living from hand to mouth. The newly qualified lawyer in a police station at 2 a.m. is probably earning a lot less than the Custody Sergeant.
By contrast the City firms pay very fancy money - I am grateful to RollOnFriday.com for this table of what the Magic Circle of top law firms are paying for someone with three years' Post Qualification Experience

Allen & Overy £88,600
Slaughter and May £81,500
Linklaters £76,800
Clifford Chance £77,000
Freshfields £77,000
Herbert Smith £74,000

Mind you they really work their people hard, and long hours are the norm. Nevertheless, it's good money, isn't it?