Spot on, Oscar

Oscar Wilde is said to have defined a cynic as a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. He was way ahead of his time.

Recently we dealt with a complex case involving a man with serious mental health issues. He stood in the dock, superficially scary on account of his size and his dress. His solicitor had moved heaven and earth to avoid a remand to prison and had to hand various doctors' opinions, all of them constructive. Pause. The Clerk told us that we could not make the suggested eminently sensible order because we had to have the Consultant's opinions in writing. We stood the case back in the list while a fax was organised. Then we stalled because the defence solicitor needed a copy of a single A4 sheet and the court would not copy it unless they received a fee of £5, that the lawyer could not recover from legal aid. He appealed to court staff, but received a blank response because they have all been warned about wasting public money. So the bench went out while a Ways and Means Act solution was found, as it indeed was.
What the hell are we doing here? To keep this defendant in mental health-compliant accommodation costs a lot of money; certainly many hundreds of pounds a day. Because HMCS, under orders, won't even do a simple photocopy, the public purse could face a bill of many thousands. It would be pathetic if it were not so infuriating.

Confused.JP

I saw a chap this week who had been arrested and charged with being in charge of a bicycle while drunk, under the Licensing Act 1874.** He pleaded not guilty and arrangements have been made to hear the case in a couple of months when witnesses are available.

Elsewhere, people are being cautioned for ABH.

Funny, that.

** I am told that should be 1872. Mea culpa. Of course someone on here had to spot it - what an amazing lot you are.

Jailhouse Rocked

If you are interested, as I am, in the US prison system, holding as it does an almost incredible two million inmates, this long and well-informed article in City Journal will show you the differences as well as the similarities between our two systems.

So Far So.............. Well, Much The Same Really

Among the flood of Government reports and statements that have been rushed out just as Parliament goes into recess for nearly three months is this look at the effect of 'community justice' in its early days. I have never hidden my view that the whole thing is a political gimmick that has nothing to offer the justice system. You can read the document yourself. But this quote stands out for me:-

Key points
• In order to assess the initial impact of the CJIs in North Liverpool and Salford on re-offending a method was used which allowed for comparison of offenders that had passed through the Community Justice courts in North Liverpool and Salford, with a matched group of offenders who had not.
• Analysis showed that the rates of re-offending within the first year for all three areas were not statistically significantly different.
• Results from this study, which were based on the experiences of offenders who passed through CJIs in their first year of operation, should be seen as tentative. Once greater numbers of offenders have passed through the Community Justice courts, and the changes initiated have become deeply embedded, this, along with data on specific interventions and types of offence on reconviction, could provide more robust evidence on the impact of Community Justice Initiatives.

Later:-
Here's a report from The Times.
And here's some more background.

(post time fiddled to push it up the list in view of added links - ed)

Just a Little Backtrack

This and this are an acknowledgement that the fixed-penalty ticket system was slipping up-tariff, as so many have warned. The Magistrates' Association has run a (for once) vigorous campaign, and seems to have achieved a useful result.

Terrorism?

There is now general public awareness that anti-terrorism legislation is routinely misused in cases where there is not the slightest suggestion that a real terrorist threat might be involved. Here is another one. Two lads in a car take a photograph of police officers and are stopped under the terrorism law. It then transpires that they have committed other offences. Many Police officers have been misdirected by their own superiors about the public's right to take photographs of officers, children, and who-knows-what else and many innocent members of the public have been forced to delete innocuous photographs.
The other interesting thing about this report is that the young man was dealt with by the Chief Magistrate, no less. Must be the smell of fame and the Harry Potter connection.

Later:- Tim Workman tried Amy Winehouse too.

New Kid On The Block

A warm welcome to the latest criminal justice blogger, The Anonymous Prosecutor. I am frequently rude about the CPS, but of course I am having a go at the organisation rather than individuals. Good luck, anon - and keep your head down!

Dodgy Figures

Nick Ross has a series looking at the real crime figures, as he describes them. I have always been sceptical about crime stats, skewed as they are by so many variables, and Gadget's post here, and in particular the comments, give a good idea of what is happening, and why.

D-Fined

The current Guidelines set out an approach to calculating fines that works fairly well, in my experience. Broadly, fines are set at Level A,B, or C, which relate to a multiple of the Relevant Weekly Income. That is either the actual weekly take-home, or an assessed amount of £100 for those on benefit, which takes rough account of other benefits such as housing and council tax benefits, or £350 for those who don't tell us anything. It's an inexact science, because the court has neither the time nor the resources to do any better. Rough justice, then.
There are also Bands D and E (they are on page 151 of the Guidelines). We rarely use these, but we did make use of a Band D a few weeks ago. A young man had committed a drink-drive at the kind of level that would attract a medium-upper community penalty, but there was a problem with using unpaid work or a curfew because he is a mechanic in the RAF and may well be off to a hot and dusty place in the New Year, or possibly sooner. So we fined him Band D; that came to nearly £700 with costs; we banned him for the appropriate period and sent him on his way. The officer who came with him told us that the RAF will apply its own sanctions as the Service takes a dim view of its members getting into trouble in civilian courts.
So the D and E fines have their uses, but we won't be using them very often.

Is This Really Right For A Caution?

The post header header speaks for itself about this case.