A Mixed Day

I was down to chair a trial, a matter of domestic violence, listed for 11 am. Before 11 we dealt with a couple of POCA applications, where the police applied to detain cash that they had seized in suspicious circumstances. What we heard was suspicious in the extreme, with suspects first denying having any cash, then changing their mind, then giving an explanation, then changing that. We granted the orders to detain the money rather than to seize it, as seizure applications will be dealt with in some months' time. These proceedings were civil rather than criminal, which meant that we were working on the Balance of Probability, rather than our usual Beyond Reasonable Doubt criteria. A side effect of this is that Legal Aid will not be available, and we often see people who are struggling to understand what is going on.
We then dealt with a few committals to the Crown Court, that were put before us because we had a proper Crown Prosecutor, rather than the Designated Case Worker who was in the Remand Court. DCWs can't do committals, at least not yet, but as the system continues to dumb down and take the cheap option I expect that these 'Lawyer-Lite' types (soon to be renamed 'Associate Prosecutors') will end up doing everything that qualified lawyers now do, at least in the lower courts.
A quick coffee, to allow the lawyers to sort out some details, and it was time to start the trial. Or not, as it happened. The victim and a witness had each made withdrawal statements some time ago, and the CPS had responded, as per policy, by obtaining Witness Summonses for them to attend. Attend they did, but once in the Witness Service suite they made it clear that there was no way they would come in and give evidence. That was stalemate, because they had successfully called the CPS' bluff, since no court, at this level of offence, would punish a victim for refusing to give evidence. The Prosecutor made the best of a bad job by giving a full explanation of the reasoning behind what had happened, before offering no evidence. Case dismissed. The defence solicitor applied for his client's (modest) costs, but we refused, on the basis that the defendant had brought the case upon himself.
That, after a couple of bail applications, was our list so we had some more coffee while the staff looked around to see if we could help other courts.
"The next case is Mr. Levy, sir" called the usher. Straight away I thought: 'Daniel Isaac Levy' a regular customer who committed his first offence the year I was sworn in as a JP, and whom I have seen on a regular basis ever since. He is a 69 year old alcoholic, with a basketful of mental health issues. Inevitably, he is on an ASBO, and equally inevitably he has breached it eleven times, resulting in nine prison sentences. He has committed over a hundred offences since 1990. He is on remand, and is applying for bail. The application is quite hopeless because he has a long history of failing to surrender, breaching bail conditions and offending on bail, so he doesn't look too surprised when we refuse. Lunch beckons, and the clerk doesn't think that we will finish too late.

And He Marched Them Up To The Top Of The Hill...

And he marched them down again. Hard on the heels of the publication of the new Sentencing Guidelines, the fruit of a number of years' work by a distinguished committee, the Government proposes to bring in a Sentencing Commission to make sure that the judiciary do not get too excited and pass a lot of nasty expensive prison sentences, rather than really really strict community penalties or really strict fines. Ah yes, fines! They bring in money, they don't need the panoply of Probation and prisons - that's the way to go, chaps!

A French View on Prison Discipline

The estimable Éolas has a piece here about prison discipline. I'm afraid it's in French though.
The last couple of paragraphs would not go down at all well with the editors of Britain's tabloid papers:-

Et pour ceux qui ont un coeur désespérément sec, et qui estiment qu'il n'y a pas à pleurer sur le sort de délinquants et criminels qui ne savent pas bien se tenir en prison, une petite suggestion. Prenons un de ces mauvais garçons, au comportement violent. Enfermez le 45 jours dans un tel cul de basse fosse. Imaginez vous 23 heures d'affilée avec 4,15m² pour marcher, dans des conditions où si vous mettiez un chien, vous seriez vous même un délinquant ; ce pendant 45 jours.

Et pensez au jour où ce type va sortir de prison, peine purgée. Vous croyez qu'il sera calmé, assagi, devenu citoyen modèle, ayant mûri par cette expérience ? Le jour où vous le croiserez, j'espère que tel sera le cas.

Dans le doute, puisque vous n'avez pas pitié des autres, ayez pitié de vous.

Here's a (very) rough stab at a translation:- (any better efforts welcome)
And for those whose hearts are desperately hard, and who won't shed any tears over the sort of offenders who won't obey the rules in prison, here's a suggestion. Take one of these bad boys who has a violent temperament. Lock him up for 45 days in a cell. Imagine 23 hours a day of being locked up with 4.15 square metres to walk around, in conditions that would be illegal to keep a dog in, for 45 days.
Then think of the day when this fellow comes out of prison, sentence served. Do you think that he will be calm, wise, turned into a model citizen, having been matured by his experience? When you cross his path, I hope that turns out to be the case.
Since you don't feel any pity for others, at least have pity on yourself

J'ai Survécu, Monsieur

I have had a phone call from a colleague who has just heard of a domestic violence victim who was described in court as a 'survivor'.
My colleague was very cross, rightly so in my opinion. After all, nearly all of the people involved in violence survive, be they perpetrator or victim.
It will not help victims of domestic cruelty to Orwellise what has happened to them, not least because Eric Blair chose his words with care that is not usual nowadays.

Stress on the Executive

The Duty Solicitor was on his feet mitigating for his small and scruffy client, who sat in the dock darting shifty glances around the courtroom. "I am pleased to say, sir, that Mr. Paton is getting on well with his community sentence, and that he has obtained employment. He is to start work next Monday as a Recycling Executive".
When I heard this I was forced to busy myself with my papers and to take a sip of water, firstly to cover up my amusement at the job description (I think it means working in a scrapyard), and secondly to hide my surprise that any solicitor could still have the front to say that his client has a job to start on Monday - one of the most tired old clichés in the book.
One day a lawyer will stand in front of me and tell me that his client started a job last Monday; then I will be surprised.

The Suspense Is Not Over

I am grateful to Glenna Robson, whom I know to be one of our readers, for the news that magistrates' power to impose a suspended sentence for summary offences has been reprieved.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill is now law WITHOUT clause 10 which abolished the SSO for summary offences. The Lords held firm and the government chickened out because they had to get the Royal Assent by the night of 8 May so that the prison officers were banned from strike action. All the sections about prostitution had already been taken out in the interests of getting the bill passed. The debates were fascinating and, in fairness, the Magistrates' Association has obviously lobbied the Lords to some effect. There are some powerful legal minds there too as well as formidable campaigners like Lady Stern and Lord Ramsbotham.

The decision not to press on with the change owes more to force majeure than to principle, by the look of it, but it is welcome nonetheless.

I had my say on SSOs here and elsewhere.

Here is some good-quality debate from Hansard.

Glad It's Not On My Patch

If this unpleasant business comes before a court, I do not envy the Bench that will hear it, since any likely sentence (and I stress that nobody has been charged at this stage) is bound to upset someone.

Web of Deceit

I walked through the town today, on non-court business. As I approached the Town Hall, with fifteen minutes in hand before my meeting, I noticed the rather shabby car park opposite that is attached to a Fitness Centre, or some such. This rang a bell, since I last saw this patch of ground on a CCTV recording being shown in a trial. I strolled past, and there, in the corner of the car park, was a white Escort-type van bearing the name of the clamping (sorry, 'parking control') company that I remembered from the trial. In the van were two crop-headed tattooed men, feet up, reading their newspapers.
Knowing as I do the modus operandi of these charmless fellows, I was irresistibly reminded of a big spider, sitting in the corner of his web, waiting for prey.
Park in their bit of space, and they will emerge from their van as soon as you turn the corner. The clamp will go on, and they will straight away call for a tow truck to take away your car. The clamp fee is £80, the towing fee £200, plus a per-day charge for storage if you cannot get to their yard before 6 pm. The clampers are paid on commission, so it's clamp or starve for them.
We all know that some drivers will park anywhere, and they need to be deterred, but unwary, often elderly, drivers may simply fail to see the notices. This is sheer extortion, sanctioned by the law. Speeding costs £60, as does jumping the lights. The raft of Blair-inspired fixed penalties goes all the way up to £100 or more, but these cowboys get away with charging hundreds.
If ministers did not have chauffeurs, this injustice would have been fixed years ago.

Loophole - Schmoophole

A cricketer has escaped from an allegation of driving much faster than the speed limit. His solicitor glories in the soubriquet of 'Mr. Loophole' but in truth there are few loopholes, just sloppy and incompetent work by the police and the CPS, who know perfectly well what the rules are, and still screw up time after time. Mr.F is well aware of the fallibility of the authorities, and makes a decent living out of it.

Good luck this season Freddie, and enjoy the fruits of your celebrity-funded success, Mr. Freeman. No sanctions will trouble those responsible for this latest cock-up. They may not be as wealthy as Freddie and Loopie, but their pensions remain safe.

This is a Times columnist's view.

Slipping From The Dock To The Bay

I have just come back from a weekend away to find, amid the usual torrent of spam, that The Guardian has borrowed the Archer/Hollesley Bay story. They have the kindness to refer to the blog as 'acclaimed', but I have little or no confidence that a cheque might be in the post.
This story points out the consequences of NOMS' use of open prisons as overflows for the crammed closed estate. I went to Hollesley Bay some time ago, and I felt then, as I feel now, that it has to be right to try to ease prisoners who have served substantial sentences back into the world of work and family. Unfortunately the open prisons will now end up warehousing prisoners like so much of the closed estate.