THE number of antisocial behaviour orders handed out soared last year after the Prime Minister urged their use against yobbish behaviour.
A total of 2,555 orders were issued, compared with 1,040 in the previous year.
Greater Manchester had the highest number in England and Wales, followed by London and West Yorkshire, according to Home Office figures published yesterday.
The figures show that 4,649 orders have been handed out since they were introduced in April 1999. After a slow take-up by police and local councils, the number being issued has risen fast.
The figures did not show how many orders have been breached but statistics published in March showed that the proportion was more than four out of ten.
The Times 30/6/05
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Ex-Parrot
Today's Times tells us:-
A 35-year-old Wolverhampton man who ripped the head off his pet parrot told RSPCA officers he should be shot, Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court was told. Paul Pugh, who was allegedly drunk when he killed the bird, was not allowed to enter court as he had been drinking. Another hearing was set for July 18.
It is often obvious that defendants are either drunk or drugged when they come into court, but this one seems to have gone further than most.
I would be very tempted to look for a way of remanding him in custody, perhaps overnight, but my guess is that the RSPCA had applied for a summons, meaning that he was not bailed to the court, so there is no power to lock him up at this stage. It would be nice though, wouldn't it?
A 35-year-old Wolverhampton man who ripped the head off his pet parrot told RSPCA officers he should be shot, Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court was told. Paul Pugh, who was allegedly drunk when he killed the bird, was not allowed to enter court as he had been drinking. Another hearing was set for July 18.
It is often obvious that defendants are either drunk or drugged when they come into court, but this one seems to have gone further than most.
I would be very tempted to look for a way of remanding him in custody, perhaps overnight, but my guess is that the RSPCA had applied for a summons, meaning that he was not bailed to the court, so there is no power to lock him up at this stage. It would be nice though, wouldn't it?
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Plus Ca Change
From the fascinating Old Bailey History
Joseph Ellis was indicted for wilful and corrupt Perjury, in a Cause between Thomas Skip and Ralph Harwood . on a feigned Issued directed out of Chancery into the Court of Common-Pleas, to try; two Points: first, Whether Ralph Harwood was a Bankrupt: secondly, Whether he was a Bankrupt, prior to some Judgments to his Sisters Mary and Elizabeth, which came on to be tried at Guildhall before the Lord Chief Justice Willes, on the 17th of December, in the Sixteenth Year of his present Majesty.
The Perjury assigned, was, that Ellis swore Mr Harwood was denied to Mrs Paterson (a Creditor who came to enquire for him, and said, he owed her a great deal of Money) when he was at Home.
There were several Council for the Prosecution, but none for the Prisoner. It was therefore incumbent on the Court (who are of Council for the Prisoner) to examine the Record, and there was a material Variance found between that and the Indictment; it
being set forth in the latter, that the Defendants appeared by Powell, their Attorney; whereas, in the Record, it was said, they appeared by Greenhil, their Attorney; whereupon the Jury were directed to acquit the Prisoner.
Well, well, getting off on a technicality at the Old Bailey in the 18th Century. What wimps those old-timers were!
Joseph Ellis was indicted for wilful and corrupt Perjury, in a Cause between Thomas Skip and Ralph Harwood . on a feigned Issued directed out of Chancery into the Court of Common-Pleas, to try; two Points: first, Whether Ralph Harwood was a Bankrupt: secondly, Whether he was a Bankrupt, prior to some Judgments to his Sisters Mary and Elizabeth, which came on to be tried at Guildhall before the Lord Chief Justice Willes, on the 17th of December, in the Sixteenth Year of his present Majesty.
The Perjury assigned, was, that Ellis swore Mr Harwood was denied to Mrs Paterson (a Creditor who came to enquire for him, and said, he owed her a great deal of Money) when he was at Home.
There were several Council for the Prosecution, but none for the Prisoner. It was therefore incumbent on the Court (who are of Council for the Prisoner) to examine the Record, and there was a material Variance found between that and the Indictment; it
being set forth in the latter, that the Defendants appeared by Powell, their Attorney; whereas, in the Record, it was said, they appeared by Greenhil, their Attorney; whereupon the Jury were directed to acquit the Prisoner.
Well, well, getting off on a technicality at the Old Bailey in the 18th Century. What wimps those old-timers were!
Monday, June 27, 2005
Banged Up
From The Times today:-
ENGLAND and Wales have been toppled as the jail capital of Western Europe, according to figures published today .
A total of 144 people per 100,000 of the population were in jail in Luxembourg last year, compared with 142 in England and Wales, which had held the top spot in the World Prison Population List for two years.
They have now fallen from the top position as a result of the entry into the EU in May 2004 of former Communist bloc states.
Scotland had an imprisonment rate of 132 and Northern Ireland 72 per 100,000 of the population. The EU accession countries, apart from Malta, with 72 per 100,000 of the population, Cyprus, with 50, and Slovenia, with 56, all had higher imprisonment rates. Estonia jailed 339 per 100,000 of its population, Latvia 337, Lithuania 234, Poland 209, the Czech Republic 184, and Slovakia and Hungary both 165.
The United States remained the world’s top jailer, with a total of 2.1 million inmates, a rate of 714 per 100,000 of the population. In total there were more than nine million people behind bars across the globe, according to the survey compiled by Roy Walmsley.
I find the figure of 2.1 million in prison in the USA almost incredible. From what I read US prisons vary in style from the relaxed to the near-barbaric. The latter is more common when local sheriffs treat prisoners harshly in order to get themselves re-elected.
ENGLAND and Wales have been toppled as the jail capital of Western Europe, according to figures published today .
A total of 144 people per 100,000 of the population were in jail in Luxembourg last year, compared with 142 in England and Wales, which had held the top spot in the World Prison Population List for two years.
They have now fallen from the top position as a result of the entry into the EU in May 2004 of former Communist bloc states.
Scotland had an imprisonment rate of 132 and Northern Ireland 72 per 100,000 of the population. The EU accession countries, apart from Malta, with 72 per 100,000 of the population, Cyprus, with 50, and Slovenia, with 56, all had higher imprisonment rates. Estonia jailed 339 per 100,000 of its population, Latvia 337, Lithuania 234, Poland 209, the Czech Republic 184, and Slovakia and Hungary both 165.
The United States remained the world’s top jailer, with a total of 2.1 million inmates, a rate of 714 per 100,000 of the population. In total there were more than nine million people behind bars across the globe, according to the survey compiled by Roy Walmsley.
I find the figure of 2.1 million in prison in the USA almost incredible. From what I read US prisons vary in style from the relaxed to the near-barbaric. The latter is more common when local sheriffs treat prisoners harshly in order to get themselves re-elected.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
No Comment
From The Guardian:
Magistrates were entitled not to convict an "ardent nationalist" who for two years launched into "Alf Garnett" style rants over the phone to his MP about asylum seekers and immigrants, the high court ruled today.
Two high court judges said Leicester magistrates had been placed in "a dilemma", but were entitled to decide that, although Leslie George Collins' remarks were offensive, they were not "grossly offensive" to a "reasonable person" under telecom laws.
However, Lord Justice Sedley, sitting with Mr Justice Mitting, warned that Mr Collins' references to "wogs, Pakis and black bastards" might well have been grossly offensive if those who heard the calls had been from an ethnic minority.
Lord Justice Sedley said: "The respondent [Mr Collins] had no idea, and evidently did not care, whether the person he was addressing or who would pick up his recorded message would be personally offended - grossly offended - by his abusive and intemperate language.
"It was his good fortune that none was, but this was nevertheless a fact which the justices were entitled to take account."
The judge said if Mr Collins, 60, had been speaking to a member of an ethnic minority, "it might well have been impossible, however stoically the hearer might have brushed it aside, to avoid the conclusion that the message was grossly offensive".
The judges were dismissing a bid by the director of public prosecutions (DPP) to have Mr Collins convicted.
During a recent hearing which led to today's ruling, the judges were told that Mr Collins's rants were like those of Alf Garnett, the bigoted lead character from the 1960s television show from Till Death Us Do Part.
At the hearing, John Lloyd-Jones, appearing for the DPP, argued there was no place for Alf Garnett-style tirades in today's multicultural Britain.
He described how David Taylor, Labour MP for Leicestershire North West, and three of his constituency office staff were subjected to a two-year stream of calls, between January 2002 and January 2004, full of expletives from Mr Collins, with messages also left on the MP's answering machine.
Mr Lloyd-Jones said no one was seeking to restrain Collins from articulating his views "with ardour and vigour" but said no one picking up a phone should be subjected to the type of language Collins had used.
The recent hearing heard that Mr Collins was hostile and believed the government treated foreign nationals more favourably than British nationals, and they received financial advantages to which they were not entitled.
Leicester magistrates had refused to convict Mr Collins under the 1984 Telecommunications Act for making phone calls of a grossly offensive, obscene or menacing character. The magistrates ruled in October 2004 that Mr Collins's language was offensive - "but not grossly offensive" and dismissed the charge.
At the high court appeal hearing, Esther Harrison, appearing for Mr Collins, described him as "a blunt-speaking person but not a racist" and said his complaints were about the way the country was being governed.
Mr Taylor had warned Collins about his language, but he chose to ignore the warning, the DPP counsel had argued. Of the three members of Mr Taylor's staff who took the calls, one had found them upsetting, while another did not and the third said they were "depressing
Magistrates were entitled not to convict an "ardent nationalist" who for two years launched into "Alf Garnett" style rants over the phone to his MP about asylum seekers and immigrants, the high court ruled today.
Two high court judges said Leicester magistrates had been placed in "a dilemma", but were entitled to decide that, although Leslie George Collins' remarks were offensive, they were not "grossly offensive" to a "reasonable person" under telecom laws.
However, Lord Justice Sedley, sitting with Mr Justice Mitting, warned that Mr Collins' references to "wogs, Pakis and black bastards" might well have been grossly offensive if those who heard the calls had been from an ethnic minority.
Lord Justice Sedley said: "The respondent [Mr Collins] had no idea, and evidently did not care, whether the person he was addressing or who would pick up his recorded message would be personally offended - grossly offended - by his abusive and intemperate language.
"It was his good fortune that none was, but this was nevertheless a fact which the justices were entitled to take account."
The judge said if Mr Collins, 60, had been speaking to a member of an ethnic minority, "it might well have been impossible, however stoically the hearer might have brushed it aside, to avoid the conclusion that the message was grossly offensive".
The judges were dismissing a bid by the director of public prosecutions (DPP) to have Mr Collins convicted.
During a recent hearing which led to today's ruling, the judges were told that Mr Collins's rants were like those of Alf Garnett, the bigoted lead character from the 1960s television show from Till Death Us Do Part.
At the hearing, John Lloyd-Jones, appearing for the DPP, argued there was no place for Alf Garnett-style tirades in today's multicultural Britain.
He described how David Taylor, Labour MP for Leicestershire North West, and three of his constituency office staff were subjected to a two-year stream of calls, between January 2002 and January 2004, full of expletives from Mr Collins, with messages also left on the MP's answering machine.
Mr Lloyd-Jones said no one was seeking to restrain Collins from articulating his views "with ardour and vigour" but said no one picking up a phone should be subjected to the type of language Collins had used.
The recent hearing heard that Mr Collins was hostile and believed the government treated foreign nationals more favourably than British nationals, and they received financial advantages to which they were not entitled.
Leicester magistrates had refused to convict Mr Collins under the 1984 Telecommunications Act for making phone calls of a grossly offensive, obscene or menacing character. The magistrates ruled in October 2004 that Mr Collins's language was offensive - "but not grossly offensive" and dismissed the charge.
At the high court appeal hearing, Esther Harrison, appearing for Mr Collins, described him as "a blunt-speaking person but not a racist" and said his complaints were about the way the country was being governed.
Mr Taylor had warned Collins about his language, but he chose to ignore the warning, the DPP counsel had argued. Of the three members of Mr Taylor's staff who took the calls, one had found them upsetting, while another did not and the third said they were "depressing
Improper Verbing
I may previously have revealed that I have a modest degree from a decent University. Having read (at public expense) some very well written stuff in my time, although my knowledge of formal grammar is next to zero many of today's abuses of English trigger an immediate reflex of disgust when I read or hear them.
I try to conduct Court business in clear and colloquial English, and I will, if necessary, commit a tautology if it aids understanding - for example "This case is adjourned - put off- until----". One tries to use the colloquial while avoiding the vulgar. I expect professionals to spare us from modern linguistic barbarities, but that is, alas, too much to hope for from many of today's police officers and solicitors.
Pomposity (known in the higher courts as judge-itis) is the heffalump trap that captures too many of us on the Bench, as we are routinely spoken to with sometimes grovelling amounts of deference. Most of us try not to tumble into this particular pit, but sometimes there is an overwhelming temptation to drop into Rowan Atkinson old-fart judge mode.
I hope therefore that I may be forgiven for having, in recent months, responded to two particular expressions with the indignation that Dame Edith Evans put into "A Handbag!"
The first was a police officer who said that the defendant had been taken to the station but was waiting to be 'custodised' and the second was a prosecutor who said that certain exhibits had not yet been 'forensicated'. In each case I stopped the perpetrator, and invited him to repeat what he had just said. Upon their reiteration of the atrocities I said that the court would only conduct its business in English, and that they were invited to rephrase their evidence.
Perhaps I was indeed a little too pedantic, and perhaps I was having a bit too much fun, but after all, clarity begins at home, does it not?
I try to conduct Court business in clear and colloquial English, and I will, if necessary, commit a tautology if it aids understanding - for example "This case is adjourned - put off- until----". One tries to use the colloquial while avoiding the vulgar. I expect professionals to spare us from modern linguistic barbarities, but that is, alas, too much to hope for from many of today's police officers and solicitors.
Pomposity (known in the higher courts as judge-itis) is the heffalump trap that captures too many of us on the Bench, as we are routinely spoken to with sometimes grovelling amounts of deference. Most of us try not to tumble into this particular pit, but sometimes there is an overwhelming temptation to drop into Rowan Atkinson old-fart judge mode.
I hope therefore that I may be forgiven for having, in recent months, responded to two particular expressions with the indignation that Dame Edith Evans put into "A Handbag!"
The first was a police officer who said that the defendant had been taken to the station but was waiting to be 'custodised' and the second was a prosecutor who said that certain exhibits had not yet been 'forensicated'. In each case I stopped the perpetrator, and invited him to repeat what he had just said. Upon their reiteration of the atrocities I said that the court would only conduct its business in English, and that they were invited to rephrase their evidence.
Perhaps I was indeed a little too pedantic, and perhaps I was having a bit too much fun, but after all, clarity begins at home, does it not?
The Man Who Didn't Know His Rs From His Elbow
As I have said before, we sometimes have to use interpreters in court, West London being a cosmopolitan sort of place. We were taking a routine traffic court one day when a Japanese man turned up to answer his summons for speeding. It was a perfectly run-of-the-mill case and would have been dealt with by fixed penalty if he had not been driving on a non-EU licence. He produced a rectangle of plastic bearing his photograph and a lot of Japanese writing. He handed it up when asked for his licence, but for all we knew it could have been his library ticket. It was clear that his English was very basic indeed, but we decided against adjourning the case for an interpreter as matters were so simple, he was pleading guilty, and it seemed unnecessary to spend public money as well as inconvenience the defendant. So I spoke loudly and clearly, and asked him about his financial circumstances, as I am required to do. He didn't really get it at first, but we got a plausible income level from him, then I asked if he paid rent or a mortgage. Blank look. "Do you own your house?" "Is no 'ouse. Is frat." "Does it belong to you?" "No, is lented frat."
That was a good few years ago, but to this day I cannot pass an apartment block without wondering whether they are lented frats.
That was a good few years ago, but to this day I cannot pass an apartment block without wondering whether they are lented frats.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
No More Puffs
The word is that smoking is to be banned in all parts of all courthouses shortly (although this may only just squeeze in ahead of a more general Government ban on the foul weed).
I have mixed feelings about this. I am a lifelong non-smoker, but I know that smoking is especially common among the sort of people the court has to deal with. Hanging about in a court as witness, defendant or whatever, is a highly stressful experience, and it seems a little harsh to deprive nicotine addicts of its comforts at such a time. We presently provide a smoking room with decent extractor fans for those waiting, and another for staff and magistrates. Inevitably people will gravitate outside the building for a drag - we shall need to ensure that we keep the magistrates and staff away from the defendants and their supporters. I also have a hunch that our ushers are going to have to scour the street before calling on each case in the future.
I have mixed feelings about this. I am a lifelong non-smoker, but I know that smoking is especially common among the sort of people the court has to deal with. Hanging about in a court as witness, defendant or whatever, is a highly stressful experience, and it seems a little harsh to deprive nicotine addicts of its comforts at such a time. We presently provide a smoking room with decent extractor fans for those waiting, and another for staff and magistrates. Inevitably people will gravitate outside the building for a drag - we shall need to ensure that we keep the magistrates and staff away from the defendants and their supporters. I also have a hunch that our ushers are going to have to scour the street before calling on each case in the future.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
ASBOs Yet Again
Those of us who have reservations about the way in which Antisocial Behaviour Orders are being used in some cases have been encouraged by a recent Divisional Court judgement (W v DPP - reported in today's Times).
The defendant appealed against an absolute discharge, which is pretty unusual, but the appeal was on a principle of law. As I read it, and I am not a lawyer, the defendant had been made subject to an ASBO that forbade him from committing any criminal offence - which would be illegal in any event. That, in the view of the wise Lord Justice Brooke, was too wide, and Mr. Justice Field agreed. The prohibitions ordered had to be "sufficiently specific and clear to enable the restricted party to comply without difficulty".
So the appellant, who was convicted for breaching his ASBO as well as for the petty theft that formed the essence of the breach, was convicted twice on the same facts, even though the lower court decided to punish him only once.
I hope that the higher courts continue to force those who apply for ASBOs to give more thought to their terms, and to remind courts who consider the orders to make the terms no more onerous than necessary to prevent the offender from continuing the behaviour that led to the application for the order. ASBOs are potentially a very useful measure to protect the public, but they must be very carefully drafted if they are not to fall into disrepute.
The defendant appealed against an absolute discharge, which is pretty unusual, but the appeal was on a principle of law. As I read it, and I am not a lawyer, the defendant had been made subject to an ASBO that forbade him from committing any criminal offence - which would be illegal in any event. That, in the view of the wise Lord Justice Brooke, was too wide, and Mr. Justice Field agreed. The prohibitions ordered had to be "sufficiently specific and clear to enable the restricted party to comply without difficulty".
So the appellant, who was convicted for breaching his ASBO as well as for the petty theft that formed the essence of the breach, was convicted twice on the same facts, even though the lower court decided to punish him only once.
I hope that the higher courts continue to force those who apply for ASBOs to give more thought to their terms, and to remind courts who consider the orders to make the terms no more onerous than necessary to prevent the offender from continuing the behaviour that led to the application for the order. ASBOs are potentially a very useful measure to protect the public, but they must be very carefully drafted if they are not to fall into disrepute.
Off-Topic (Again)
I have spent a lot of time going through emails and post since my holiday. Rather like the old gold-rush prospectors I have found a small number of nuggets among the dross and I shall try to share them with you in the next few days. Suffice it to say that the new régime running the courts is producing ideas and whizzy new schemes as fast as its Powerpoint jockeys can put finger to keyboard.
So back to today's paper and the sad news of the death of Cardinal Sin, the Archbishop of Manila in the Phillippines. His name was extraordinary for a priest, but even more so once he received his red hat.
There is a tale that I find irresistible about the Irish cleric who was found to have a teenage son, for whose existence there could only be one non-celestial explanation. He duly resigned his post and went abroad - some wags with more wit than taste suggested that he had gone to take up a missionary position.
The truth , I am told, is that he went to Manila to prostrate himself before the late Cardinal, and to cry:-
"Bless me Sin, for I have fathered".
So back to today's paper and the sad news of the death of Cardinal Sin, the Archbishop of Manila in the Phillippines. His name was extraordinary for a priest, but even more so once he received his red hat.
There is a tale that I find irresistible about the Irish cleric who was found to have a teenage son, for whose existence there could only be one non-celestial explanation. He duly resigned his post and went abroad - some wags with more wit than taste suggested that he had gone to take up a missionary position.
The truth , I am told, is that he went to Manila to prostrate himself before the late Cardinal, and to cry:-
"Bless me Sin, for I have fathered".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)