No, I'm Not Surprised Either

Thanks to The Times for this (don't worry Rupert, I pay a full sub)

Criminal court tech reforms 'a disaster'

Reforms to move paper-based criminal courts into the digital age have been beset by failings with lost computer discs, systems that "do not talk to each other" and "numerous mistakes", inspectors have found. Their damning report finds that despite the multimillion-pound programme to modernise the courts, many still heavily rely on paper and manual processes such as scanning documents and producing hard copy of digital images. This is to compensate for the "lack of a wholly intuitive digital capability", the inspectors say, a situation that causes wasted costs, increased risk of error and undermines the benefits that could come from full digital working. More than 90 per cent of criminal cases are sent to the Crown Prosecution Service from the police electronically but there is a "high level of user input and processes to make paper documents electronic", the report finds. "This is not wholly digital working or an efficient process for transferring case information from the police to the courts." Despite previous recommendations by inspectors that a reliable data-sharing solution is needed for CCTV, 999 records and interviews of suspects and others, it is a "disappointment", inspectors say, "to find this has yet to be established". As a result, computer discs containing evidence still have to be physically sent to the CPS and many are lost, they say. "It was of concern to learn that a widespread issue existed, concerning the misplacing of discs by the CPS." Other problems include a limit on the size of data that can be transferred across the system, "having a negative impact on the transfer of police data to the CPS". There is difficulty in sending papers digitally to defence representatives. "Commonly the CPS prints off a paper copy for the defence representatives and sends this via courier to the court." The transfer of case evidence between police and the CPS "still suffers from numerous clerical mistakes".

Told You So (And So Did Everyone Else)

The absurd and unlamented Criminal Courts Charge has turned out to be far from easy to collect.

From Bystander N

I live in a local justice area that now includes a much wider spread of courts, and their old areas, than the court I was appointed to.

One of my colleagues looked at a defendant’s bail conditions, not to go to a specific postal area, and said to us “That’s not possible.  I know the road in question.  It’s a cul de sac and, to get out, they would have to cross open fields or go into the area their bail condition doesn't allow.”  Who would have set this?  Those like me who don’t know the area in question. 

What price local justice?

Another Odd 'Un

Last week we were faced with three trials. As is so often the case one fell over for technical reasons, the second was withdrawn by the CPS as their chief witness, a PC, was on annual leave.

I went through the ritual of grumbling at the CPS for a mickey-mouse cock-up that both harmed justice and cost a lot of money, and since you ask, no you cannot have an adjournment. It would be unfair to be hard on the poor young prosecutor on her feet, since the mistakes were made in an office miles away.

So we set out to hear the effective trial. The Crown called their only witness, and put in a few section 9 statements (i.e. unchallenged ones) and it was time for the defence. The solicitor rose to his feet and announced that his client would not be giving evidence (as was his right) so that was the case for the defence. As we retired we each assumed that the Crown would win, since the defendant declined to say anything in his own defence, but as we went methodically through what we had heard, and compared our notes, we decided that the prosecution was full of holes and that we could not safely convict. We trooped back in and I solemnly announced our findings to a rather surprised courtroom. So that was the end of that.

We don't see many like that.

Chapter and Verse

The practice of publishing Judges' sentencing remarks is a relatively recent one. Hizonner's remarks to  a famous footballer who used a 15 year-old girl for sex are here and show how carefully the sentence was put together, and where it fits into the guidelines.

Magistracy in Parliament

Our friend Obiter J has put a fascinating post on his always interesting and well-reasoned blog.It is well worth your spending a little time to look at it.

Judicial Partisanship

As those of a sensitive disposition prepare to avert their gaze from the rise of the appalling Trump and its possible consequences, the United States are facing one of their periodic wrangles over the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice.  This has far more significance across he Pond than it does here, for which we should be truly thankful. Mercifully we do not have partisan judges in our highest court - let's keep it that way.

Undue Deference

There has been a furore about the latest piece of yobbish behaviour from the retreaded Top Gear. According to some reports the local authority gave permission for stunt driving on public roads, in Central London including screaming power slides and spins. Top Gear has access to a disused airfield at Dunsfold in Surrey, which leaves even less excuse for using the highway.

The cringing deference that too many in authority show towards famous stars when cameras appear is distantly redolent of the Savile case when fame caused people to suspend their judgment of a serial offender.

Quite apart from the extraordinary driving (skilled as the drivers may be) that would count as Dangerous Driving in any court, I very much doubt whether the souped-up machines featured would pass the Construction and Use regulations. Finally, some film that I have seen shows a car sliding perilously close to un- marshalled spectators: something that would never be allowed in a properly organised motorsport event.

Trying to out-yob Clarkson is a tough call, and the BBC should not do it.

Do The Shuffle

We had to reshuffle our JPs between our five courtrooms today, two of which had to sit with a bench of just two.

My list featured three trials this morning and one in the afternoon. One defendant simply did not appear, so we issued a warrant without bail to get him in. In the next the defence put in a late Defence Case Statement that changed the whole basis of the defence, so in all fairness we had to allow an adjournment to give the prosecutor a chance to have a think about it. Two down, one to go.
Number three was actually effective:- a Domestic Violence case that turned on a row that ensued when the ex-boyfriend of the victim (and the father of her daughter)  rang her up. The volume of threats increased and the victim rang the police. Lover boy threw the phone either to her or at her, and grabbed her, as he claimed, so that  he could get past her to leave. The whole business came down to he-said/she-said, and we concluded that we could not convict beyond reasonable doubt. The protagonists left hand in hand, leaving me in little doubt that we shall see them again.

This afternoon's case was, incredibly, a simple possession of Class B but the papers hadn't been copied, and the CPS copier was hors de  combat while there was a queue for the one upstairs in the office. We put the case off and called it a day, when I was happy to get my car heater blasting hot air, as the courtroom and retiring area were freezing. Oh yes, and the coffee machine has vanished, and we now have a cheapo kettle and sundry jars of instant coffee for our comfort.

Happy Chappy

I wrote a few weeks back about a friend who was breathalysed at Christmas, and decided to run a Special Reasons argument that would allow the court not to disqualify him if the Bench agreed.

 Well, he kept his licence, with six points, and a fine in the low hundreds plus costs. He was impressed by the performance of the solicitor I recommended and is a happy boy.

I think that justice was done. and the system worked as it should.