Even More from the LCJ

Following the announcement of the creation of a Ministry of Justice, Lord Phillips issued this statement:-

The announcement raises important issues of principle. The two most important are:

Structures are required which will prevent the additional responsibilities taken on by the new ministry interfering with or damaging the independent administration and proper funding of the court service.
The continuing problems of prison overcrowding and the availability of resources to provide the sentences imposed by the courts necessitate public debate. The judiciary are of the view that any changes to the present arrangements will, in due course, require legislation. Without this debate there is a risk that the new Ministry will be faced with a situation of recurrent crisis, or judges will be placed under pressure to impose sentences that they do not believe are appropriate.
The senior judges have already made it plain that structural safeguards must be put in place to protect the due and independent administration of justice. These concerns must be addressed. Provided that they are, there would be no objection in principle to the creation of a new Ministry with responsibility for both offender management and the court service.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers,
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales

As ever, Lord Phillips picks his words with great care, but what a contrast there is between this and the ever-changing tabloid-led rhetoric of politicians.

As a very junior member of the judiciary that Lord Phillips leads, I know which side I am on.

Here's a Pretty Kettle of Fish

Thanks to Nik Thomas for sending this link my way. We shouldn't say too much, because she's gone Not Guilty, and the magistrates have sent it up to the Crown Court, which means that it's sub judice.

Oh Goody! A Fresh Look at Justice!

Today's Bright Ideas (no. 477 of a series)

The BBC reports on the Government's latest thoughts (thoughts?) on the justice system.
Here's a quick guide to the announcement:-

However, the restructuring of forces - a plan abandoned when John Reid became home secretary - is not on the agenda.

- too expensive. Treasury says no.

He also said the plan was not to send less people to prison, but to have a "proportionate" criminal justice system

The plan is to send fewer people to prison because the Treasury says no. This will make room for all the 75 year-olds who must, we are told, stay incarcerated until the Daily Mail says they can come out.

If you are dangerous and convicted, you should stay in prison for as long as you pose a danger," Lord Falconer said.

Or even longer if we won't provide the people who can decide whether or not you are still dangerous.

Some people will be reduced in their re-offending by a community penalty, which is tough

- and cheaper than building prisons.

Rather than hitting the taxpayer twice by saying we're sending everybody to prison, you've got to spend another £40,000 to maintain all offenders in bed and breakfasts, we're saying you should pay back to the community if you're a non-serious offenders by doing unpaid work in the community," he said.

means there is no room in the prisons (see above).

Another idea in the policy document is for special units to house mentally-ill prisoners, where drug treatment would be available.

We are thinking of calling them mental hospitals. Why didn't anyone think of that before?

"Career criminals" could be prevented from mixing with former associates when they are freed from prison.

Could be. Won't be. It's impractical and probably illegal.

Other steps being considered include removing non-cash assets and driving licences, more rehabilitation in jails, keeping prisoners in contact with their children, more therapy and less reliance on drugs to treat mentally ill offenders

Motherhood and apple pie will take a little longer. Taking away driving licences for a non-driving offence may have legal problems and may prevent released prisoners earning a living. Non-cash assets (houses? cars?) may be part-owned by someone else. The ARA fiasco isn't promising is it?
By the way - Every year there is a promise to make community penalties tough, like I mean really tough, all right? Some years there are two promises. It won't happen. No money you see. As it is some of those sentenced to community orders are still waiting for courses or work weeks and months after the order is made.

I am sorry to repeat myself from a previous post, but the only word for this is 'bollocks'.

Down On The Pharm

I am quite accustomed to granting search warrants to investigate the burgeoning home-grown cannabis industry, in which professional operators can cram hundreds of plants into a suburban semi. The biggest that I have seen was a 5000 square foot industrial unit that was betrayed by its consumption of water and electricity. We saw something on a smaller scale the other week, a bedroom adapted with hydroponic systems to produce fifteen or so plants. The discovery was made by chance, as police visited the owner on another matter and stumbled across the drugs. The laboratory report was interesting, as it analysed just three of the plants to give an average yield of ready-to-roll dope. The amateur horticulturalist claimed that he had found street cannabis a little expensive, so he decided to cut out the middle man and grow his own. He didn't save anything, as we forfeited the plants and the equipment and fined him a fair bit of money.

Appeal Court Rules Against Mr. Toad

In a recent judgment (for which thanks to Criminal Solicitor Dot Net) the Administrative Court has dismissed an appeal based on a technical challenge to a Gatso camera. The key bit of the judgment appears to be:-

We do not accept that the use of this approved device is fundamentally unfair and consequently a breach of a defendant's right to a fair trial. The device makes use of two completely independent types of technology. The primary speed check uses radar and is dependent on the 'Doppler' effect. The device emits a high frequency radio beam along the road. A vehicle approaching the device will reflect some of the signal back to the device. The frequency of the returned signal will be different from that of the transmitted signal and the difference between the two is a function of the speed of the approaching vehicle. The device is able to calculate the speed from the difference in frequency. Thus the primary speed check is wholly independent of the correct working of the clock inside the device. The secondary check is dependent on the clock. Only if the secondary check tallies with the primary check will there be a prosecution. It seems to us that it is not unfair to require the defence to take on trust the correct functioning of the camera at an interval of half a second because, if the camera timing were not correct, it would be an extraordinary coincidence that the result of the two checks, independently carried out, should turn out to be the same.

Elsewhere in the report the driver claims that he did not realise that he was doing 81 mph in a 50 limit (in a van) and that his van wouldn't do 80 anyway. The judges gave his argument the credence that it deserved.
The full judgment is here.

More From The Lord Chief

The latest speech by Lord Phillips, delivered last week, is to be found here. Skip the rather technical first part and start at the section headed Challenges. I make no apology for linking to long and closely argued speeches such as this, because you will never get that depth of information from a newspaper

He May Be Right

This week I had to tell a young man that he was going inside on his first custodial sentence. The main offence was a nasty violent one, and there were further ones that made our decision inevitable.
He had arrived at court on bail, so he was in the open dock. In these cases we have a well-rehearsed routine - once the bench decides that it is to be custody we call the clerk out into the retiring room and run it past him or her to check that we have got the law right. A phone call is then made to the cells, asking for an escort to come up. The officers stand outside court until sentence is pronounced, at which point they are given a discreet signal from the clerk and they enter while the chairman is still speaking, but after the defendant has realised that he is going inside. Once the pronouncement is finished the officers discreetly slip a cuff onto one wrist, and take their man down the steel staircase.
This chap was a young man who had been given every possible non-custodial disposal and had failed them all. You name it, he's got it - drugs, drink, family problems, illiteracy, the lot. As he was taken down he called out "I'll get worse". He could have a point.

Corpsed

My experienced and trusted legal adviser was guiding me through a busy list today, when he looked up at a defendant who had just been brought into the secure dock, glanced at his papers, and appeared to lose the power of speech. He handed the file to the defence brief, then to the prosecutor, each of whom glanced at it, looked down and tried to avoid my gaze. "Well?" was my question. With an effort of will the lawyers got the case going, and we dealt with the regular customer who faced us on the customary drink-related charge.
Once he had gone, I had to ask. "Come on then, what was all that?" Without a word the clerk handed up the charge sheet that had been completed in the police station. It was in standard format, except that in the biographical details section the custody officer had completed the box headed 'Occupation' with a single word:

"DRUNK"

Mini Motorbike, Maxi Trouble

Man occasionally rides a mini-motorbike on waste land near his house. The bike is unregistered, and probably not street-legal. When he has had enough he starts to push the bike home - he lives about 50 yards away from the gateway to the land. A passing PC enquires if motorbike man has had a drink. He has. He fails a breath test, complaining loudly that he wasn't riding the bike, but only pushing it. He is arrested and blows 52 in the police station. At court he tells his tale of woe to the duty solicitor, who sadly explains that in law to push the bike is to drive it, and that it counts as a motor vehicle. He therefore has no defence to the charge. Guilty plea.
We kept the fine as low as decently possible, but we still had to ban him from driving for 12 months.
There is, I believe, case law that even a vehicle whose engine is in pieces on a bench can be 'driven'. So be careful. There is some sound advice here.

Floating Away

I was looking through the London 'Evening Standard' the other day and my eye was caught by a report of a case from Wycombe Youth Court. Two youths TWOCced a milk float, and a lengthy if stately chase ensued across rural Buckinghamshire, the dairyman's conveyance pursued by no fewer than four police cars. After 40 minutes a Stinger device was used to puncture the float's tyres and bring it to a halt in Burnham. After all that one of the youths got away, and his 17 year-old accomplice was given a Referral Order. I am sure that the Court's chairman, Mr. Tony Pearson, handled matters with due solemnity - some of us might have struggled to keep a straight face.