Numbers

Here are three nasty and unexpected ways to die:-

a) A car accident
b) A mother giving birth
c) Murder

Here are three rates per 100,000 of the population:-

i) 1.3
ii) 8.2
iii) 5.4

Which fits which?

Was, Is Now, And Evermore Shall Be

I have quoted this before, but it is just as compelling today:-

A dog's obeyed in office.
..........Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear;
Robes and furr'd gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks:
Arm it in rags, a pigmy's straw does pierce it.

Sentence Construction

If you ever doubted that sentencing is as much an art as it is a science, just run your mind over two recent sentences that have hit the news. A teenage schoolboy protester, high on adrenalin and low on common sense, dropped an empty fire extinguisher from a tall building. Reckless, stupid, dangerous; the act was rightly described as a moment of madness, conceived and executed in a brief few seconds.

A member of Parliament systematically and cynically cheated the taxpayer out of £20,000 or so, taking months if not years to do it.

Both were of previous good character, both pleaded guilty. The student handed himself in, the MP was exposed by a newspaper.

The former was jailed for 32 months, the latter for 18 months.

Judges are no fools and construct sentences with great care. There are arguments in both cases for a sentence to deter others, just as it could be argued that custody is useless and, in the case of the young man, damaging.

18 months or 32 months; if it had been the other way round, would it have been fairer? Or should both have had 18, or both 32?

Not easy, is it?

Spot On?

This sentence looks to be about right. Despite previous good character and guilty plea custody was unavoidable, the term long enough to make the point without being excessive.

(by the way - this is what commenters made of it. Hats off to those who were there or thereabouts, smelly bananas to the others).

Seriously Bad Idea

The Bristol murder enquiry that we have blogged about recently has taken a new twist: the police have banned a major news organisation from their press conferences because they do not like the questions they have been asking. (I understand that the police have now backed down, but no matter - the principle remains).
This investigation has not, so far, shown the press in a good light, as the (admittedly vague) rules on pre-charge reporting have been trampled in the dust, but for a police force to ban a specific news-gatherer because it doesn't like the questions they have asked is an outrageous step that overshadows the press misconduct that I have already criticised. This is England. We have a free if imperfect press. Anyone with the tiniest grasp of history will know that a free press is a vital part of a democratic state, and that the police are there to serve that state and that democracy. If Teresa May knows her job the Chief Constable of the force concerned should be standing in the next few days before her in her splendid office receiving the all-time tongue-lashing, and a sharp reminder of his duty and the limitations of his powers.

Not As Expected

Today was my first sitting of the New Year. I was in the remand court, and as it was the first day after a long holiday we were expecting the usual crammed list, with a finish well into the late afternoon. Instead, we had a light list, plus numbers of extras that trickled in over the morning, leading to an early-afternoon finish with a last-minute Mental Health warrant to pick up a patient who was causing worries by not taking his medication as he should and refusing to answer the door to health workers. The police declined to attend without a court order, so that is what we were asked for.
We were constantly surprised. A man charged with drunken misbehaviour in the bus station who went on to abuse police officers until he was finally arrested looked pretty unhappy.His body language suggested that he found the whole court process beneath him, and we kept a careful eye on his behaviour. When it came to entering his plea he was polite and compliant, pleaded guilty and said sorry. Then we saw a multi-handed street robbery case combined with Section 18 GBH, ABH and a bit of drug possession. This was all well above our pay grade, and had to be sent to the Crown Court, a so-called Section 51. We sat back to await a string of bail applications, and were surprised to find that they were all on unconditional police bail and the CPS were happy to leave it that way. An alleged Fail To Provide slipped down-tariff when the CPS accepted that the woman in the dock was in charge rather than driving. That made disqualification discretionary rather than mandatory. Not for the first time we saw the legal aftermath of a Christmas office party grope that went wrong. It didn't happen today, but sometimes a drunken fumble lands the groper on the Sex Offenders' Register, and that's not a very good addition to your CV.

Open-Says Me

The entirely predictable orgy of vandalism at Ford open prison has spurred the yahoos who comment on tabloid websites and some who write for the papers to question the raison d'etre of the open prison system. Let's leave aside the issues around plentiful booze and a relaxed regime and look at the system. The 80-odd thousand prisoners who are currently inside range from seriously dangerous psychopaths to clever violent and cynical professional criminals, to pathetic addicts and losers, and to the bank clerk who couldn't resist diverting a few quid into his own account, or a bent councillor. They are all different and they all need a different approach.
The top-end nasties need to be kept away from society. Open prisons are unlikely to see many of them. Long-sentence prisoners (say five or more years inside) should, in any sensible system, be eased back into society; that means a gradual relaxation of the regime, and, as in the best open prisons, placement in paid or voluntary work on the outside. The tabloids sneer at the 'soft' conditions, choosing to ignore the basic facts that:-
Nasty prisoners have to be constrained in high security - as humane as practicable, but above all, secure.
Long-stretch prisoners have either learned their lesson or they have not. The law prescribes their release date, so it makes sense to try to coax them back into society.
Open prisons are open because 85 per cent of inmates realise how much they have to lose by playing up. 15 percent are immune to reason.
The proverbial dodgy bank clerk is no danger to anyone in open conditions.
TJNML - there's just no money left. Thus, some unsuitable and intractable inmates are put into open nicks where they take the piss.
POA - Whatever happens in a prison the POA say it's due to shortage of staff. Read 'not enough overtime'.
Why waste lots of money in a secure nick banging up the likes of Jonathan Aitken?


What happened at Ford was the result of bored and mostly antisocial men getting pissed up for New Year and doing a bit of recreational criminal damage. It is probably true that too many Cat D men are cynically down-classified, to free beds and save cash. It was pretty stupid not to anticipate trouble on New Year's Eve, knowing that plenty of booze was on offer.
I am not trying to justify what happened, but neither do I think that it calls the open regime into question.

Here is a piece by someone who knows what she is talking about.

BRISTOL MURDER - LATEST ON MR. WEIRDO

The Sun has more background on dodgy blue-haired possibly gay well theres no smoke without fire is there suspect in the Bristol murder case.

Er - hang on, he's been released on police bail.

Ford Runs Out Of Escorts

Do you think that this has anything to do with this?

Happy New Year

Last year was full of surprises, 2011 is full of challenges.

Here's the best of luck all players in the justice system.