Just For The Record

The papers this morning carry reports such as this one about yet another rich person buying his way out of a speeding ticket (that would have been his fourth). I have no comment on the judgment as I didn't hear the evidence and I don't know the minutiae of the law involved, but one thing that I did notice is that the news gathering machine has ignored, as it usually does, the fact that the appeal bench was made up of three people - a circuit judge and two magistrates - and that deliberations are on the basis of one-man-one-vote.

What Are The Odds Against This?

I have a teenage nephew who does a paper round. A few weeks ago he was out delivering his papers when he came across an unaccompanied tortoise, making its unhurried way along the road. He is a kind and helpful young man, so he picked up the tortoise, and approached a nearby policeman whom he asked what to do. The officer suggested that the lad took the creature home, and said that if it was not claimed within a number of weeks, he would be able to keep it. So home the tortoise went, and it now lives with my brother-in-law and his family.
Now as to the odds:- the chance of walking along in the suburbs of a large Midland city and finding a tortoise strolling along must be at least 5000 to 1. But the chance of finding a policeman nearby? More like 50000 to 1.

That's What I Call An Overrun

Thanks to Anonymous Prosecutor for pointing us to this Guardian story about a huge overspend on the CPS website. This is on a par with HMCS' genius a few years ago in paying over £3,500 each for laptop computers, plus a thousand per unit per year for maintenance.

Caveat Emptor

A Court of Appeal judgment caught my eye this morning for a couple of reasons (as well as the fact that it is printed in today's Times). The case of R v Burns reported here settles the significant point that your right to eject someone from your home using reasonable force does not extend to your motor car. The case was seen as being sufficiently important to be chaired by Lord Judge, no less.
The unfortunate, or should we say incautious, Mr. Burns, apparently struck a deal with a 'sex worker' to pay £50 for what my more vulgar friends would call a 'blow job' but which the delicate souls in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division prefer to call 'oral sex'. Unfortunately Mr. Burns' ardour cooled when he got a better look at his rented partner; I infer that a feeling of 'Oh No!' induced rapid detumescence and prompted him to sling her out of the car there and then. The rest is in the report.
I have no idea what sentence was imposed, but I do not imagine that it would have been too severe. Two more thoughts arise; the lawyers' way of referring to significant cases is simply to use the defendant's name, so Burns is likely to join those of Turnbull and Aramah, and Povey and myriad others that are quoted day by day in our courts. It's immortality of a sort, but a sort that I could do without. Secondly, what reaction does he get when he walks into the Dog and Duck for a pint? And what did his missus think? perhaps she will buy him a torch for his birthday.

Surcharge Update

A Parliamentary answer from the then MoJ minister Lord Bach revealed some up-to-date figures on the iniquitous surcharge:-

The victims’ surcharge raised £3.8 million in 2007-08,
the year of introduction, and £8 million in 2008-09. All
of the money raised from the surcharge contributed
to direct non-financial support for victims and
witnesses of crime. Funding was committed as follows:

2007-08/2008-09/2009-10
■ £3 million/£2.6 million/£2.6 million to fund
independent domestic violence adviser services.
■ £3 million/£2.6 million/£2.6 million to the Crown
Prosecution Service as a contribution to the cost of
providing witness care units.
■ £5.6 million/£7 million/£6.2 million to the Victim
Support National Centre to fund enhanced
services to victims and witnesses.
Additionally, £1.75 million was allocated to the victims’
fund each year. There are currently no plans to pay
compensation to victims of crime from surcharge
funds. The explanatory memorandum accompanying
the enabling legislation for the victims’ surcharge
makes it clear that surcharge money should be used to
fund services helping victims of crime and witnesses.

Well, well, well. Guess what? Something like eight million quid has gone to the CPS. Not a red cent has gone to any victim.
The surcharge remains what it was; an unfair and arbitrary tax that funnels cash into quangos that have the sense to include the 'V' word in their name.
Its day-to-day application produces continuing unfairness and occasionally ludicrous outcomes. Fining a large company for environmental offences last year I announced fines totalling some £35,000, costs in the region of £15,000, and a £15 surcharge. On the same day, in the same building, bedraggled and disorganised single mothers from the rough estate down the road were fined for not having a TV licence, and ordered to pay the same £15 charge. Director drives his BMW while over the drink limit - fine £800, surcharge £15. Student evades a £2.80 train fare - fine £75, surcharge £15.
Realistically, given the Government's financial woes, nobody is going to put the abolition of the charge very high up on their list. But it's still a rotten and unjust idea.

What Do You Make Of This?

The Soaraway Sun carries a story that has alerted my well-tuned bullshit antennae. What do you think?
Unfortunately, if the story turns out to be rubbish, it will hardly improve the morale of "Our Boys" who are so enthusiastically supported by the paper.

Disappointed, Or What?

I took a call last Friday, late in the afternoon, to ask if I would step in to sit today. As befits my eminence and seniority (ahem!) I was asked to take the Remand Court.
The list was a pretty standard Monday one, with nothing much to catch my eye other than a brothel-keeping charge.
Wow! In two decades on the bench I have never so much as seen the kind of person known to the Met as a 'tom'.
What would she look like? Would she be a matronly Cynthia Payne type, or an Eastern European glamourpuss? What services were on offer?
At eleven o'clock my bubble burst. For technical reasons we had to swap a couple of benches around, so I went off to another courtroom, while a colleague took over my chair.
So I still haven't dealt with a sex worker, working girl, or whatever you want to call her.
Oh well, another day perhaps.

Sits.Vac.

An impeccable source reports:-

A selection exercise to identify a new Senior District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) will be launched on Thursday 10 June 2010. Serving District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) are eligible to apply for appointment. The closing date for applications will be 1 July 2010. It is anticipated that selection interviews will take place on 27 August 2010.

Time to polish up those CVs. The Chief Magistrate has, apart from the task of leading the District Bench, special responsibility for terrorism and extradition matters. The pay is a good bit more than the run-of-the-mill DJ(MC) gets. but so is the responsibility.

Refreshing

The horrible events in Cumbria need no comment from me, other than to say that I have countersigned many applications for shotguns and for firearms , none of which has gone wrong - but it's a bit to do with judgement and a bit to do with luck.

One thing stands out - the Government says that it wants to have a look at the facts, and doesn't want to legislate in haste. A decade or so ago, the then Government would already be planning its latest tabloid pleasing, illiberal and useless measure. For which relief, much thanks.

Next Generation

I sat with one of my youngest colleages today - due to someone going sick we had to sit as a bench of two in a court that was handling rather humdrum business.
We both learned something.
My colleague found, in the vagaries of the list, some important decision-making that required a return to first principles, in the absence of a settled guideline.
I was reminded, not for the first time, that routine downscale cases can really test a bench and force it to confront some irreconcilable difficulties that must, all the same, be reconciled.
Over the lunch break we chatted about his experience of his first year on the bench, and I was chastened to realise that on the day of my first sitting he was in nappies, aged one year. The good news was his thirst for knowledge and experience, and his eagerness to learn the many technical aspects of the job. Best of all was his telling me that on joining as the new kid, decades younger than some of us, he had been deeply impressed by the way in which magistrates can spend time 'out the back' in good natured banter, but focus in a totally professional way on the job in hand once the court resumes sitting; and also by he way in which people from totally different backgrounds can work together as a team, focused simply on justice.
Once we old sweats have moved on to the great appeal court in the sky, I think that we shall leave the court in good hands.