It's McKenzie Again

The powers-that-be have decided to have a look at McKenzie Friends.

Funny, that. You would almost think that someone Up There reads this blog.

Now That's What I Call a Correction

My son has pointed out the following Correction issued in the last few days: Unbeatable.

Exemplary

The official websites are giving increasing prominence to judges' sentencing remarks in complex cases, or those that cause public concern. In a recent judgment, DJ Deborah Wright (whom I know well as our sittings often overlap) sentenced the protesters who blocked off a Heathrow runway   to show how cross they are about the proposed new Northern runway.

Her remarks are Here and I think that she did a good job.

A Glimpse of The Mob

Like most middle-class people I lead a sheltered life (in a relatively peaceful Buckinghamshire enclave) so it is especially shocking when I come up against really offensive behaviour.
I spent last Friday night in the A & E department of a big hospital (think Jimmy Savile). There was nothing too bad wrong with me, but I am at the age where medics like to run the full range of tests just to be sure. Not too far round the corner from my cubicle was a group of apparently drunken young men, who were hurling foul mouthed abuse at hospital staff, ripe with indignant profanity. By about 11 p..m. police arrived from time to time, but the noise continued unabated. I asked the nurse who was taking a blood sample if this was a usual event and he said that it was about the norm for a Friday night.

I have always regarded misbehaviour in and near hospitals as seriously aggravated offences, for reasons that  do not need to be spelt out, but this opened my eyes to the reality that hospital staff can face.

Very nasty.

For Which Relief Much Thanks

Those of us who were beginning to despair at the flat-footed callousness of Chris Grayling's tenure at the MoJ are starting to look with wide-eyed wonderment at the systematic dismantling of the Grayling legacy being carried out by Michael Gove. Only a couple of weeks ago I had a quiet chat with a decent, respected and hard-working defence solicitor who could see no glimmer of light in the darkness that was enveloping the defence profession. There were credible plans to remove many well-run firms from the Duty Solicitor scheme, and to pare the fees of the remainder to the unsustainable bone. Small firms had become unsaleable, their owners unable to retire with any security.

Let's take a deep breath, and survey where we are now, resolving to find a solution that will aim to restore fairness while keeping a wary eye on the costs involved.

A New Viewpoint

A couple of weeks ago, I went to my local court (in which I have never sat as a magistrate) as a McKenzie Friend..

An old friend of mine was arrested over Christmas and charged with drink-driving. So far, so bad, and he was anxious to plead guilty straight away, and take his punishment and ban. I went along just to be certain that he understood what was going on, and had the weird experience of standing next to him in the armoured-glass dock. The front of house court staff were very helpful and polite, and not at all fazed by my presence. The seats were hard but the coffee machine worked, and the ushers were on the ball, introducing the Duty Solicitor, who was also friendly and informative. The bench listened carefully to what my friend had to say, and he came across as sincere and frank. After he had said his piece (guilty plea,  apologies, and so on) the bench went into a huddle and called up the legal adviser.
What the bench was considering was whether the circumstances of the offence might have allowed a Special Reasons argument. I could see their thought process, and then the chairman went on to explain the situation clearly. They put the case back, to allow time to consider, so in a quiet moment when the bench was out we approached the Clerk and said that we would like to give Special Reasons a run. We were give a date six weeks hence in another town, and my friend was bailed to then.
I can't go into any detail at this stage, but the bottom line is that the defendant has little to lose (apart from costs) and a lot to gain if he escapes a ban.
When booking the new date, the clerk checked that I understood the issues, which I did. The CPS prosecutor gave me a sideways look and said that one of his colleagues had recognised me from my home court, so yes I probably did understand..

Let's see how we get on.

Bail - The Least Understood Thing We Do?

There has been a bit of huffing and puffing about the (possible) Jihadi star of a grotesque snuff movie, who jumped bail to go to the Middle East a year or two back. Of course some will ask why he was on bail, but there seems to be no realisation that the law prescribes a right to bail . Every JP is aware of the exceptions, which, simply put, amount to a substantial fear that the defendant will abscond, interfere with witnesses, or commit further offences.

The commenters in our more thick-ear newspapers, seem to prefer the idea of locking up anyone who finds himself under suspicion. Quite apart from the principle of incarcerating the unconvicted, what would that do to our swelling prison population?

Beware of Stealth Lawmakers

This report is worrying, particularly in view of the shifty way in which the Criminal Courts' Charge was sneaked through Parliament at the eleventh hour before the election forced a halt. Now I do not have the time nor the inclination to pore through this stuff, especially as my dear granddaughters have taken up so much of my time over the last week.

Let us remain vigilant against sneaky rules made by the same bunch of Sir Humphreys who have served us so badly for so long.

Is there a single civil servant out there who can, granted anonymity, explain what is to happen with the pile of cash that has been imposed (if not collected) by the appalling and callous CCC?

I thought not.

December 25th 2015

Twelve months from now I shall no longer be a JP, rather a retired magistrate. Judiciary, be they the Lord Chief Justice or a humble magistrate must retire at 70.

In the meantime, can I wish a merry Christmas to all of my 20,000-odd colleagues, to all of our court staff, and to the lawyers, probation officers and others who do so much to make our justice system work.

Can I also spare a thought for the thousands of casualties in our society, including prisoners. Some of those in prison are so seriously damaged that they must be kept away from society for everyone's sake. Others have just slipped through life without the nurture of a family and remain outside society's fabric.

I hope that no magistrate ever fails to ponder "there but for the grace of God go I".

I certainly do.

Merry Christmas

I Can Only Agree With This (credit to The Times)

Democracy must always insist on equality before the law. At the heart of this principle is the belief that all citizens, regardless of their faith, creed or gender, are equally worthy of legal protection and redress. If the rule of law is to treat everyone as equal, there can be only one rule of law, administered by the state according to known precepts. The forthcoming inquiry into the judicial role of Sharia councils in Britain is, therefore, significant and welcome. Where such councils act as courts in a parallel legal system, they encroach on the rights of those whose interests are given short shrift by Islamic jurisprudence — often women and children. The inquiry must find such cases, and government must put a stop to them.

Most cases brought before Sharia councils are family matters. As far as civil law is concerned, the councils’ decisions have little binding power. Sharia councils have no official jurisdiction over divorce settlements involving property, cases involving custody of children, or any criminal matters.

However, the councils can grant couples a divorce where their marriage contract itself was religious, not civil. Islamic law, as it is enumerated in the Koran and the collected statements of the Prophet, makes it difficult, though not impossible, for women to seek a divorce. Even where a marital dispute is about cohabitation alone, therefore, women’s rights are not properly respected.

Property and child custody issues will be touched by most divorces too. It would be deeply worrying if the inquiry were to find Sharia councils overreaching by coming to conclusions on these matters. Whereas British law emphasises the best interests of the child in determining custody, for instance, Sharia rules grant custody to the father if the child has reached the “age of transfer”, regardless of the facts of the case. A 2008 ruling of the House of Lords appellate committee, the predecessor of the Supreme Court, rightly branded this system “arbitrary and discriminatory”.

Anyone who has suffered discrimination before a Sharia council is legally entitled to a hearing before a civil court with genuine jurisdiction on these matters, but it can be difficult to claim that entitlement. Few people know the details of their rights of redress under 20-year-old legislation, least of all those who have been told that the decision of the panel before them is final. Even with all the information, the threat of ostracism by the community can deter victims of discrimination from coming forward.

The inquiry should also address those activities of Sharia councils currently recognised by the law. Any two parties who want to resolve a dispute outside the courts can choose to appoint an arbitrator to decide the matter and, if they invoke the Arbitration Act 1996, that decision can then be upheld in civil courts. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal thus claims to offer Muslims the “opportunity to settle disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law with the knowledge that the outcome will be binding and enforceable”.

British courts must enforce their own decisions alone. Under present law, they may have to uphold a Sharia tribunal’s decision to award an estate to sons and not daughters, simply because all parties signed themselves into a system of inheritance that privileges men over women in accordance with religious law. The civil law should not be so pliable as to yield to the competing jurisprudence of whatever faith wishes to reshape it.

Any agreement reached through coercion or other forms of pressure can always be overturned in a civil court. Coercion often goes hand in hand, however, with enforced silence. Attempts to muzzle victims of discrimination are almost impossible to prove. The inquiry must investigate this, but it can never know what it has not found. The only true protection is a single, sovereign rule of law.