Mile High Club

The Daily Mail has done a good job today in reporting the acquittal of a woman charged with drunken and indecent behaviour on an aircraft. Unlike other papers the Mail goes into the legal reasons for the acquittal; the location of the aircraft was critical, since the illegal acts had to happen over the UK for an English court to have jurisdiction. My understanding is that if the aircraft is registered in the UK then British courts have jurisdiction wherever it may be, but foreign-flagged aircraft have to be in our airspace.
There was a case a decade or more ago when a drunken American kicked off on a Pan Am flight from the Middle East to the USA. The captain landed in the UK to offload the idiot, who was arrested and held in custody. He was, if I recall aright, fined a lot of money that had to be returned to him when it was realised that with an aircraft travelling at about 600 mph nobody could be sure where it was when the trouble started. Pan Am had the last laugh though, because they sued in the American courts for the very high cost of diverting the aircraft, together with the hotel bills of the other 300 passengers.

Told You So

A couple of years ago I mentioned the impending problem of there being insufficient resources to assess prisoners on Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPPs). The situation was explained to me by a Circuit Judge who sits on a Parole Board; he said that only about a third of prisons had the resources needed to decide whether a prisoner was safe to release, and that prisoners who had passed the fixed part of their sentence would be pretty fed up if bureaucratic delays left them lingering in prison. Here's the story from the Independent.

Pass The Port Seamus

Magistrates are well used to countersigning documents and witnessing signatures; it's part of the job, and a lot of people don't realise that a JP will often do for free (outside the courthouse, naturally) something that a professional will charge for. I was asked to assist with a couple of applications for children's passports at the weekend - so far, so normal, but these were Irish passports, the father being a Cork man. The forms were a nightmare, asking for the same information to be re-entered time and again, and the accompanying instructions had the feel of having been translated from Gaelic into Serbo-Croat, then back into English by a Mongolian. The whole job took ages, and at the last we read that official stamps were required from the countersignatory, so I shall have to take the forms to court with me on my next sitting and get someone to stamp them. I remember from my youthful reading of the Colditz books as well as the other POW yarns that officialdom in most countries bows down before a really impressive rubber stamp. Sadly my court's stamps are desperately unimpressive - no royal ciphers, no fancy bits. It's a bit of a let down really.

Lucky Dip

I am due to sit tomorrow; it is not a day on my normal rota, but I have offered to to replace a colleague who is unavoidably absent. What will I see? Not a clue, guv. All I know is that I shall have the middle chair and that it is a criminal court. Traffic? unlikely, as we don't do a lot of that. A trial? Possible, and if so it may well be alleged domestic violence, since we do see a lot of those. Remands? Also possible, and if so a non-stop series of bail apps, adjournments, and all sorts. But as ever there may be a joker in the pack; a cash forfeiture, a bit of Health and Safety, a neighbour dispute, or whatever. I shall report for duty at 9.30 tomorrow, grab a coffee, and join my colleagues to see who is doing what.

Sam and Boris

Boris Johnson, politician and classical scholar, writes today of his namesake Samuel. It is an affectionate piece, and rightly so.

One quotation struck me particularly:-

"How small of all that human hearts endure
That part which laws or kings can cause or cure."

That gets to the nub of so many of the complaints that I and others have about this Government's legislative legacy. Many of Her Majesty's subjects while living, on the whole, a better life than anyone who has occupied this island in the past, suffer upsetting and sometimes devastating problems, most of which cannot be cured by the passing of a law or the promulgation of a Statutory Instrument. Parliament could not pass any law that would come close to improving the lot of those at the bottom of the social heap because their problems arise mostly from an internal, moral and spiritual vacuum.
It's a big subject, and there is no easy answer, but the good Doctor spotted many of the questions for us.
I am often accused by those who imagine themselves to be of the of the retributive tendency of being a 'bleeding-heart liberal'. Of course they do not know me at all; I have long subscribed to Dr. Johnson's view that

If a madman were to come into this room with a stick in his hand, no doubt we should pity the state of his mind; but our primary consideration would be to take care of ourselves. We should knock him down first, and pity him afterwards

Now That's Dedication

A pal of mine who sits on a nearby bench surprised us in the pub the other week by ordering, in addition to his usual pint, a glass of Guinness with a shot of pastis in it. He asked for our opinion of the odd cocktail, and we all agreed that it tasted horrible.
It turned out that he had recently heard a drink-drive case in which the driver ran the laced drinks argument, and produced someone who claimed to have put several large Pernods in his pal's Guinness (risky - he might be charged himself). The driver said that he hadn't noticed the funny taste, but the bench didn't believe him. Having tasted the doctored drink, we agreed that it would be impossible to miss the adulteration.

For the record, I have pinched this from JWP Solicitors' website:-

The defendant must show that his drinks were laced, that he did not suspect his drinks had been laced and that had the lacing not taken place then he would not have been over the limit. In our experience a laced drinks argument is rarely successful without the lacer attending court to give evidence to confirm that the drinks were laced and it is usual for an expert biochemist to provide a report on behalf of the defence to confirm the mathematics of the defendant's argument.

Yes - But Why?

Those of us who have been magistrates for a couple of decades or more have seen far-reaching changes to the law and to the management and organisation of the courts. Quite often changes are sprung on us (and on our legal advisers) at short notice, but we listen, learn, and get on with the job.
When I was sworn in I was appointed to HM Commission of the Peace for Middlesex. I was shown the Commission document, with the Royal seal and signature on it, and told that this gave me authority to act in the Queen's name. Eventually all these old Commissions were swept away and replaced with a single Commission for England and Wales. We all thought that this would simplify things and make it easier for JPs to move between courts as needed, while still being allocated to a 'home' court. In particular it facilitated the practice of cross-bench appraisals, whereby a proportion of regular appraisals would be carried out by a suitably trained colleague from another court, giving a perspective untainted by familiarity. But something has gone wrong. In the unending stream of new law it seems that changes have been made to the rules, and that cross-bench sittings may not be okay unless authorised by the Lord Chief Justice or some other grandee. Now the LCJ is a busy man, so I can't see him getting involved with whether or not I should appraise a colleague at a nearby court. Urgent talks are under way to sort things out, and the Justices' Clerks Society has recently issued guidance that amounts to leaving things be for the moment until the situation is clarified. The problem is in the operation of Section 10 of the Courts Act 2003 (below, in italics). It is clear, however, say the JCS, that the issue potentially goes beyond appraisals.
The Act says:-

10 (1) Lay justices are to be appointed for England and Wales by the Lord Chancellor by instrument on behalf and in the name of Her Majesty.
(2) The Lord Chief Justice
(a) must assign each lay justice to one or more local justice areas, and
(b) may change an assignment so as to assign the lay justice to a different local justice area or to different local justice areas.
(2A) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that arrangements for the exercise, so far as affecting any local justice area, of functions under subsections (1) and (2) include arrangements for consulting persons appearing to him to have special knowledge of matters relevant to the exercise of those functions in relation to that area.
(3) Every lay justice is, by virtue of his office, capable of acting as such in any local justice area (whether or not he is assigned to it); but he may do so only in accordance with arrangements made by or on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice.
(4) Rules may make provision about the training courses to be completed before a person may exercise functions as a lay justice in any proceedings or class of proceedings specified in the rules.
(5) Subsection (3) is subject to section 12 (the supplemental list).
(6) The functions conferred on the Lord Chief Justice by subsections (2) and (3) may be exercised only after consulting the Lord Chancellor.
(7) The Lord Chief Justice may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise his functions under subsection (2) or (3).
[Courts Act 2003, s 10 as amended by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Sch 4.]

No doubt this will all be sorted out, after a great expenditure of time and effort. Mercifully, it won't be my job. But why all this tinkering? What has been gained? What is the strategy? It's hardly as if the Daily Mail or the Sun have been on about the subject, and they are the main drivers of criminal justice reform these days.

Another Sackful of Issues

This story is one with which I have only the most passing acquaintance, but a cursory reading seems to invite a question or two.

Why do the headlines speak of 'Straw Pardons...'? I thought that was the Queen's job.
Why now? The case seems to have a bit of a history, and the 'Justice' secretary has previously refused to let the man out.
We all understand the rationale behind prisoner exchanges that allow those convicted to serve out their sentences in their home country's prisons. It is humane, especially for the convict's family. Does the agreement between Governments transfer judicial as well as custodial power? If not, will any country in future trust the UK to keep its prisoners locked up until the original sentence expires?
When the Lord Chancellor and Minister of Justice refers to this man as "morally and technically innocent" how does that fit with English law? Morally? Technically? What would a jury make of that?
In the wake of the Biggs and Megrahi cases, was this decision taken on its own merits?
Will the Labour vote in Liverpool be affected at next year's election?
Truly, we live in interesting times.

One For The Memoirs

I have recently finished a fascinating trial that is unfortunately impossible to blog, as it had enough unique features to make the case instantly recognisable. The prosecuting counsel was of a very high calibre, as the case was considered important enough by the prosecution to get in a top man, and to pay his hefty fees. All of the preparatory work was carefully done, and the thick folder of exhibits was carefully paginated and indexed. The defence case was desperately weak, and the two defendants were ill-advised to take things to trial in my view. Watch this space, and I may be able to tell you about it in a few years' time, or, as hinted above, I will save it for my explosive memoirs.

No Surprise There Then

The Daily Mail has come out with one of those stunning apercus that it does so well. Apparently talking to a pretty lady can turn a man's brain to mush.

I could have told them that a very long time ago.