The Damage That One Man Can Do

Sometimes a single crime can have effects, undreamed of at the time, that reverberate down the years.

An obvious example is the horrible Soham murders, in which a man, Huntley, murdered two schoolgirls whom he only knew through their association with his girlfriend. The man was caught and convicted, and is highly unlikely ever to be released from prison. There was a crime, the law took its course, the victims' families mourned, and the press pumped up its circulation on the back of the case.

But none of that represents the real impact of the case. Prior to Soham the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
laid down the commendable principle that for all but the most serious crimes a period of good behaviour would allow an offender to act as if the conviction had never happened; for many offenders crime is something they grow out of, and they take their place in society when they have done so. But after Soham pressure from the press and from public opinion led to the erection of the whole CRB culture, and the effective collapse of the ROA regime.

The nub of the Act is in this (edited) extract:-

where an individual has been convicted, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, of any offence or offences, and the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

(a)he did not have imposed on him in respect of that conviction a sentence which is excluded from rehabilitation under this Act; and

(b)he has not had imposed on him in respect of a subsequent conviction during the rehabilitation period applicable to the first-mentioned conviction in accordance with section 6 below a sentence which is excluded from rehabilitation under this Act;

then, after the end of the rehabilitation period so applicable (including, where appropriate, any extension under section 6(4) below of the period originally applicable to the first-mentioned conviction) or, where that rehabilitation period ended before the commencement of this Act, after the commencement of this Act, that individual shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as a rehabilitated person in respect of the first-mentioned conviction and that conviction shall for those purposes be treated as spent.

Inevitable mission creep over time has led to a CRB check system that allows for an enhanced, full, check in certain circumstances, that will reveal all convictions however ancient. It isn't too difficult for a determined employer to justify the need for a check - for example any company that supplies goods or services to, say, an old people's home or a school can check up on whom it is hiring in direct contradiction of the spirit of the ROA. Many years ago I used to do business with a firm in the hospitality industry, and they checked the police record of every single employee by the simple expedient of paying police officers for the information.
So a young person who, say, steals a bike in a moment of drunken idiocy might find that conviction for theft emerging 25 years later when he is applying for a senior post in a sensitive area.
Without Huntley, it's perfectly possible that none of this would have happened.

The other case that comes to mind is R v Witchelo (1992) 13 Cr.App.R.S. 371. This was the case of a man who elaborately tampered with goods on supermarket shelves in an attempt to blackmail the store owners. He was caught and got a stiff 17 years pour encourager les autres. The long-term effect of that case is the introduction of elaborate tamper proof seals on food packaging, so that every time we buy a jar of jam or some such we pay a few pence towards the cost of the seals, as well as suffering the frustration of trying to open the package. Witchelo has probably cost the UK economy as much as a medium-sized earthquake over time, and the costs will run on and on for ever.

What Cash Shortage?

The other day one of our charmless and amoral regular customers appeared as an 'extra', which means that his case had been put into the list at the last minute. He appeared in custody in the secure dock, flanked by two of Serco's finest. It turned out that he was on bail to our court on a medium-serious matter, due to return in about ten days' time. He was bailed to an address in Kent, thus keeping him away from his usual haunts and his usual cronies.
However, he was also wanted on warrant for a £7.90 shoplifting that happened before Christmas. So the Met saw fit to send two officers in a police vehicle on a nearly 200-mile round trip to pick up a man who was already in the court system, drive him back, lock him in a cell overnight, and produce him before me and my colleagues.
He pleaded guilty to the £7.90 theft,and we inevitably sentenced him to a fine, deemed served by his time in custody. He was released, to make his own way back to his bail address, and so we ordered the court staff to make sure that he was not penalised for missing his sign-on time at the police station in Kent, for one day at least.
What were the Met up to? This must have cost hundreds of pounds, if not more. No possible benefit could have accrued to the justice system nor to the community.

I thought the police were short of funds. If they are not, then we have been misled. If they are, then someone with a bit of rank needs to sort this out, and make sure that use of resources is properly prioritised in the future.

And Another Thing - How Would You Sentence This?

This unpleasant case is in the news. Your sentence would be?

Reference to the guidelines and sentencing principles will give you credibility.

Sentimental ranting will not.

What Do You Make Of It?

The Open University has an interesting you-be-the-judge/jury programme here. I, and no doubt the OU too, would love to know what you think of it.

Another One Bites The Dust

As the news of Alan Johnson's family troubles and subsequent withdrawal from the opposition front bench hits the headlines, I cannot help pointing out that my post some months ago about the curse of the Home Office was even more prescient than I thought at the time.

Big Questions - And Lots Of Them

The MoJ has issued a consultation document. It isn't only exalted people such as magistrates who can reply - even ordinary people like you can chip in. If it makes you feel better, they won't take any notice of my response either. The MoJ dictionary defines 'consultation' as 'letting the little people waste their time commenting on what we are going to do anyway'.

If you can't face composing a reply to each of the dozens of open questions,comment on any one question, or as many as you like. I bet that more MoJ staffers will read this blog than the official replies that arrive.

Small Storm In Teacup - Not Many Dead

There is enough huffing and puffing going on to disturb the calm of quite a large mug of PG Tips over the issue of whether prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections. In reality there is more or less no practical issue involved; the objections come from those indignant at 'murderers and rapists' getting a vote, and more importantly from the purely political motives of those who want to use the issue to have a poke at the ECHR, and by proxy the EU, despite these two bodies having no formal connection.
What the Germans call "Der Bottom-Line" is that the electorate numbers about 45,000,000, so the 80,000 or so prisoners would have a negligible effect even in the unlikely event that they all voted; it amounts to an average of about 120 per constituency, or less than 0.2% of the electorate.

A Milestone Passed

I have done it at last, on a day when I neither planned nor expected to do it.

I have used the word 'unconscionable' in open court - that is a word that I have never, to the best of my knowledge, spoken aloud in my life, in court or elsewhere. It's the sort of word that you might just write down once in a blue moon, but one that remains absent from everyday speech.

Unless, that is. Unless you are an MP or a lawyer, or a member of the judiciary.

I told a colleague in the retiring room that I had done it (to be honest I had rather surprised myself) and he said "I bet the next word was 'delay'"

He was right of course. We had just refused to vacate a trial because the CPS had let a month pass before notifying a key witness of the trial date, and during that month the witness had committed herself to go abroad; something for which she cannot be criticised. I announced our decision and the prosecutor caught me on the hop just as I was looking down my list for the next case by looking up and saying "May I have your reasons. sir?". So I did it on the fly, and out came 'unconscionable'.

I don't suppose I'll ever use it again, or perhaps I might just do so next time the scoundrel of a landlord at my local puts up the price of beer.

Mule Strain

Alured Darlington is an experienced defence solicitor who is well known in the courts of West London. He has held office in his local Law Society, and his views are widely respected. He often deals with cases involving foreigners who bring Class A drugs into the UK through different ports airports and rail termini. As I have said before, the sentences for this kind of offence are enormous, in an attempt, so far fruitless, to deter the importing of hard drugs. In a letter to The Times (sorry no link - it's paywalled) he says that the sentences for “drug mules” from the developing world ought to be reduced.

(edited) the suggestion that if ministers want to reduce the prison population they should start by drastically reducing the number of foreign offenders held in British jails, echoes a proposal made by the Sentencing Advisory Panel before it was disbanded last year. The panel proposed that sentences for “drug mules” should be reduced and its rationale was that the prison sentence tariff of ten years plus, was out of step with sentencing for serious cases of violence and dishonesty.

He goes on to point out the sometimes devastating effect that such sentences have on the families of the so-called "mules". I understand that the serious traffickers (who rarely appear in a court) assure their foot soldiers that if they are caught they will simply be deported.

I am well aware of the potentially appalling consequences of drug abuse and of its destabilising influence at the lower end of our society. Communities and individuals can be reduced to near barbarism in some cases - but the penalties, however serious they are, certainly don't seem to be acting as a deterrent.

Bitty

Today was one of those days - any magistrate will have seen something similar.
I battled through the traffic, but I was relaxed because I had allowed an extra ten minutes for the journey; it was only just enough though. I walked in to the freezing courthouse (the heating hadn't come back on after the weekend, but an engineer was en route. He knows the way well because the heating and air con is clapped out (TJNML).
An usher came in with a piece of paper. There had been a crash on one of the main routes to the court, and three magistrates, one prosecutor, one defence lawyer, several witnesses and one Crown Prosecutor were all caught in the jams. Ten o'clock came, and one court went in to deal with the usual morning task of applications for search warrants, Rights of Entry warrants, Statutory Declarations and the like. The rest of us fetched more coffee and got on with grumbling, as magistrates do when stuck out the back with nothing to occupy them. Court Three made a start at about 10.20 but the rest of us didn't get under way until nearer 10.40.
A couple of clerks and the chief usher then gathered at the back of the court, and we were asked to retire while the day's workload was rearranged, because another court's trial had collapsed as they do, despite half a dozen witnesses having turned up. We decided to close one court and to divvy up the remand work between two courtrooms that have secure docks. That meant three magistrates weren't needed, so I and two colleagues volunteered to go, allowing others who don't sit all that often to stay on. I set off for home, popped into the pub on the dot of 12, endured some coarse and tasteless gibes about my being in a suit and tie from Roger the barman (he knows nothing - he's a Millwall supporter for heaven's sake) and was indoors by half past one. These things happen, and they happen too often, but most of the foul-ups were beyond the court's control.