TO BE WELSH OR NOT TO BE WELSH? THAT IS THE QUESTION

I suppose language can be likened to glue; depending on its formula and purpose it binds together disparate substances to form in effect a new or enhanced object with a new or enhanced purpose.  In any population, society, tribe, grouping, sect or family language can also be as divisive as the English Channel dividing England from the European continent.  

Language can divide or unite nations.  Belgium is an artificial construct between original Dutch speakers and French speakers where politics is forever treading a tightrope between two proud communities.  The tragedy of Ukraine has a basis in geographical separation of language between the east and west of the country. When early Zionists in the 19th century began buying land in Ottoman controlled Palestine they were communicating with the Jews and Arabs living there in European languages as well as Arabic and Hebrew.  As time went on the early pioneers of increased Jewish immigration realised that to increase the cohesiveness of a diverse people Hebrew would be imposed as the target national language of a future nation and thus a language that had been in common use until two thousand  years ago but had diminishing numbers of speakers mainly for religious purposes was re-born in a modern form alongside Arabic as the national languages of the modern State of Israel.

Before the Roman invasion the Brittonic language was the lingua franca in what is now Great Britain south of the Firth of Forth.  The Romans left their 400 year occupation having bequeathed to future generations the Latin language which has been a foundation stone of modern English. Similarly after 1066 Norman French was the predominant language of the English nobility until English, derived from invaders between the 5th and 7th centuries, was given official status by the Pleading in English Act 1362.  That act stated that pleas in Courts had to be held in English although written accounts were still in Latin. English became the official language in England during the reign of King Henry V.

Researchers have shown that Cornish, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Manx and Welsh belong to the Celtic branch of Indo-European. Celtic, in turn, divides into two distinct subgroups: P-Celtic (or Brythonic) and Q-Celtic (or Goidelic). Cornish and Welsh are P-Celtic languages, whilst Scottish Gaelic, Irish and Manx are Q-Celtic languages.  Nationalism thrives as a driving force for populist political philosophy and language is part of that force.  Ireland is a prime example where many Catholics in Northern Ireland were encouraged by their co-religionists over the border to learn Gaelic.  The SNP legislated for road signs in Scotland to be in Scottish Gaelic as well as English. Many government and other official documents are now published in Welsh alongside English.  The Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 is the legislation that created the Welsh language standards. It is a legally binding framework that all public organisations in Wales must follow to make sure that the Welsh language is treated no less favourably than English.  All children in Wales have to learn Welsh up until they are 16. Details of language provision is available here.  

A private parking company with a dubious reputation has recently won an action against a Welsh speaker for not publishing its documents in Welsh.  With both Scots and Welsh assemblies originally offered in an attempt to assuage nationalistic murmurings beginning to be aroused 50 years ago they are now being seen by their proponents as a springboard, especially in Scotland, for complete independence.  Such division would be a catastrophe for this United Kingdom but a triumph for those who seek to increase European division both within and without its geographic boundaries.  The General Elections both in this country, Europe and USA might answer the question as to whether a certain Mr V. Putin has succeeded with his disruptive aspirations aided by social media acolytes. 

Language was, is and always will be a uniter or disuniter of societies.  Ours is no exception.  The very term "woke" is a familiar example. Lewis Carroll and George Orwell each in his own way owed much of their literary status to the effects of understanding or misunderstanding the meaning of words.   

IT IS BROKE AND THEY WON`T FIX IT

There`s an old adage, "if it ain`t broke don`t fix it."  Whilst it sounds reasonable advice, on a second reading it becomes obvious that if it is followed there must be preparation for the breakdown which results.  If machinery is allowed to function without maintenance seemingly in fine operating condition it will be a matter of when not if it fails.  Owners of vehicles, bicycles, guns, hydro electric schemes, oil tankers; indeed there are very few man made objects with moving parts  which don`t require inspection and careful attention to allow them to function at maximum capacity for maximum efficiency over a maximum lifetime.   When it comes to organisations similar considerations should apply but they don`t. 

It seems almost monthly that we read of supervisory organisations in many spheres of our lives which have failed in their primary functions of ensuring that those organisations over which they have the power to inspect, impose, change or challenge existing forms of behaviour, supervision, rules or recommendations have failed with the cost of such failure being the ruin of human lives.  We are conditioned to bland statements from such entities when their failings are made public.  Only those with a professional or personal insight into such situations are truly aware of what horror stories lie behind each such announcement.  Very often those individuals go public with their informed comments only when they are retired secure in the knowledge that their pensions are safe.  Ex senior police officers, judges and medical staff are amongst the most prominent but rarely are their wise words more than just a few days` headlines. Within our emasculated and discredited justice system I would opine that the most heinous miscarriages of justice occur at the lowliest courts in the system; the magistrates courts. 

Earlier this century the success rates for appeal of verdicts charged with either way offences  at magistrates courts was as in the table below.

Appeals against sentence or verdict at magistrates courts have consistently been around 45% successful in the following decade. 

Current estimates are that around 24% of all appeals to the crown court are successful.  With the introduction of the Single Justice Procedure in 2015 it might be thought surprising that successful appeals have not shown a marked increase.  It is hard perhaps to stomach in these egalitarian times but only a relatively small percentage of guilty defendants have the means to hire a lawyer to represent them at an appeal before a judge and two magistrates or alternatively the time and intellect to be litigants in person.  

It is within the magistrates courts that the vast majority of offenders is faced with the power of the judicial system; a system which is often stacked against them because the old notion of a "level playing field" or "equality of arms" is but a historical memory.  Returning to my theme, the magistrates courts system is indeed "broke"; broken by deliberate government action and inaction.  This is in some ways similar to the result of matter colliding with  anti- matter which I believe results in the constituent particles destroying each other with a huge energy release. Depending on the colliding particles not only is there a great energy release, but new, different particles may also be produced (such as neutrinos and various flavours of quark.  For matter and anti matter substitute the rights of the individual and the power of the state. The released substances of the collision might be listed as victims` rights, equivocal guilty pleas, perverse verdicts, prisoner suicides, decision making in the near future by A.I., increased wrongful convictions, premature releases and many more. 

If it`s not too late to "service" the damaged courts system and attempt a "fix" there must be a political will which just does not exist.  I fear that lay magistrates might soon be losing my preference as the best way of handling a million plus summary matters every year.  It has become newsworthy that some of the recent local election results in certain areas have come about as a result of foreign practices being employed by immigrant communities. With the numbers of Muslim magistrates or their affiliations being kept secret by the MOJ I fear that political influences could be added to the already undertrained recent cohorts of those hastily added to the bench as a result of deliberate mismanagement.  Urgent consideration should be given to the Presiding Judge directing that all those found guilty be instructed that they have a right to appeal verdict and/or sentence and practical efforts eg leaflets on that process, be handed out in the courts.  As was the case last century applicants to the bench should be obliged to state their political allegiance(s).  Limits of eg 20 years service should be imposed upon magistrates.  Defendants must lose the right in either way offences to choose crown court trial. Consideration must be given to insist that all trials should be presided over by a District Judge [MC] with two magistrate wingers and/or all cases where custody is an option.  

However simple my wish list the images in my crystal ball will remain just that.  The justice  system is broken for all of us apart from oligarchs and their wives fighting over the results of their divorces and the media trying to prise open government`s secret files.  

It is broke and "they" won`t fix it. 

WORDS CAN KILL

Observers, commentators, journalists and others born in the last three decades of the 20th century when telling the world of the 1960s in word, film or speech often use the prefix "swinging".  A more accurate though less catchy prefix would be "embryonic" describing how young people began to break out of the shell imposed by a world war and its financially restricting aftermath.  Compared to current normalities profane speech was relatively heard only in anger and not as an emphasis to enhance an adjective and certainly not to signal a writer`s attempt at what became known as "kitchen sink drama".  Poof or poofter was a common term for homosexual and was, I suppose, to a recipient be hurtful and degrading.  Today the use of those words would probably give rise to a complaint of a hate crime; a term itself only in common use this century.  

Fans of "At last the 1948 Show" will remember with unrestricted joy the sketch

The only phrase missing that might have added just an extra frissom of timelessness were that required for what is indeed a timeless comedy jewel might have been "back in the day" but that was a phrase originating about 5o years ago in American slang before the sketch was written.  However the remarks of a judge describing those words at a recent employment tribunal as  "barbed and unwelcome"  indicate how far down the slope of restricted speech our society has tumbled.  Judge Patrick Quill suggested that the aforementioned phrase could be deemed "unwanted conduct".  A report and comment can be accessed here.  

Are we as a society being led down the proverbial rabbit hole to a wonderland that even Lewis Carroll would not have imagined?  Only a few days ago a police officer at a march supporting Hamas told a Jewish bystander that somebody waving a swastika was not in itself a hate crime and had to be considered in context.  In what universe do a police officer and a judge offer such crass remarks and apparently find themselves in line with public opinion?  The comments by observers in the article are a further indication of the depths to which this society appears to have shrunk insofar as innocent comment is now considered unlawful if the recipient so considers it.  But when it comes to real hate directed at Jews they are expected to suffer as it is considered not unlawful.  Compare that with the attitude on display if similar remarks were to be directed at Muslims or black people. 

What we say in public [also in private if you live in Scotland] is one thing but our beliefs are now also coming within reach of those who want to put "Newspeak" on a statutory footing. Rachel Meade, a social worker employed at Westminster City Council made public her opinion on social media that a person cannot change sex: for that she was subjected to all the wrath that self serving "progressive" council officials and regulators could muster to castigate her.  A report is available here.  

It could be argued as per my opening paragraph that those  fighting curtailment of everyday language began to bear their fangs with the establishment of Stonewall, the largest LGBT rights organisation in Europe. Named after the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City, it was formed in 1989 by political activists and others campaigning against Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, including Ian McKellen, Lisa Power and Michael Cashman.  Having been instrumental with others in rightfully securing protection for its supporters in word and deed it is in the process of self destruction in the so called "progressive" movement`s greatest self imposed struggle involving the rights or otherwise of those who consider themselves "trans".   

Many people`s image of a fascist is one of a tall fair haired well built male in his early thirties wearing black leather riding boots and a black uniform topped with a military cap embossed with a skull and crossbones.  They are wrong.  Today`s fascists come in all shapes, sexes and sizes. They do not set about their tasks with senseless brutality but their intentions are as evil as those who wore the black uniform or their Italian and English counterparts of the 1930s who wore at least a black shirt. They are intent in subverting the English language as readily as Lewis Carroll`s timeless invention of Humpty Dumpty. 

Fascists must  stifle opposition.  In Germany and Italy from the early 1920s that involved terrorising newspaper owners and editors into what they could and could not publish.  Today for fascists, under their camouflage as "progressives", that translates into propagating lie and innuendo on social media and castigating and attempting to discredit those who attempt to show them up for what they are. Today it is often Israelis first then Zionists then just Jews who are targeted.  Tomorrow their net will have widened.  Already on one side the leader of the Opposition is in their gunsight and those who support Islamism are joined in a political pincer movement  from the other. Sooner or later those who would destroy the basis of our Judeo Christian society must be confronted with words that actually have real meaning.  Language is a tool and a weapon.  In the wrong mouths words can kill. 

PERVERSE OR NOT PERVERSE:THE DEBATE CONTINUES

Last week my post heading was "Perverse Verdicts".  This week the High Court came to a conclusion on what might be described as a corollary to that; namely that  "Mr Justice Saini refused the Solicitor General’s application for permission to bring proceedings for contempt against Ms Warner. Ms Warner had displayed a placard with the words “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE” to passers-by outside Inner London Crown Court on the morning a trial of a number of defendants associated with the environmental group Insulate Britain was due to begin.

Mr Justice Saini reached the firm conclusion that the Solicitor General’s case did not disclose a reasonable basis for committal, given Ms Warner merely “accurately informed potential prospective jurors about one of their legal powers”.  

To re-cap an interesting juxta position of the law; a barrister is forbidden to speak in favour of his client who wishes to put forward a perverse argument as his/her defence but an unrepresented defendant can him/herself argue that self same perverse argument. As I indicated last week this debate has a long way to run.  The full transcript of the above case HM SOLICITOR GENERAL Claimant - and - TRUDI ANN WARNER Defendant is available here.   

PERVERSE VERDICTS

It seems that especially since October 7th 2023 the term "public order" has been re-defined by police especially in London.  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has taken a Humpty Dumpty attitude to expressions of public hate insofar as HD`s definition was that words mean what I want them to mean.  This approach to the policing of demonstrations large or small has infiltrated the minds of those mainly on the socialist so called "progressive" Left who are assembling at the drop of a hat to make felt their opinions on an ever increasing range of topics which they think that they and only they have the right to impose upon the public all manner of interference in their daily lives.  

Perhaps one of the first such demonstrations which was arguably aimed at government and not public opinion was that at Greenham Common between 1981 and 1992 when a group of women formed a 24 hours a day seven days a week permanent camp to protest at nuclear weapons being stored at the site in Berkshire on instant alert to be used by U.S. aircraft to bomb Russia if the "need" arose.  From tree huggers to road blockers via climate change fanatics, trans fascists and Black Lives Matter reparation seekers the elasticity  of the legal right to protest and the public`s right to go about its lawful business unimpaired has become increasingly stretched.  The bitter hatred of the politics being exposed by that massacre on October 7th has taken the antipathy to law and disorder a further anarchic step first posted here on 19th December 2023.    In simple terms in view of the protesters but a minefield for legal big wigs campaigns are being organised to allow jurors to disregard judges` directions that verdicts should be based purely on the evidence presented at trial and that the opinions or consciences of jurors should not override that prime consideration.  Events in Salisbury and Bristol appear to be following previous methods of protest. 

As a retired member of the lowest level of the judiciary I can, like everyone else, have an opinion and enjoy debate over a pint were I so inclined.  But for those at the top table this is a matter of fundamental constitutional importance.  With racists in the guise of "progressives" absorbing Islamo-Marxist inspired "anti Zionism" to avoid in their minds expressing hatred of Jews and justifying acquittal of criminal damage, breach of the peace and/or affray, BLM supporters defacing  statues and artworks and others similarly using climate change in their defence of public order charges the debate and conclusions on perverse verdicts has a long way to run.  

JURIES AND TELESCOPES

Today`s opinions for what they`re worth are from the viewpoint of an interested outsider and not as those of a retired magistrate.  An area where outsiders and the law interact without detriment to the former is in jury service.  Personally I have never served as a juror but for those who do especially in cases of acute public interest the pressures must be considerable  especially if their backgrounds are such where there has been no need to exercise higher intellectual functions.  In typical British fashion there has been virtually no research into how a jury functions.  All that academics can do is to analyse results and their aftermath. Such limitations were available for all to see in the cases of  PAUL YUSUFF,  MATTHEW YUSUFF  and  MOUSSA TRAORE. To quote from the matter heard on 27/3/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH  DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT and available here in full the jury spokesperson made a mistake on telling the court the jury`s verdicts.  The ramifications of this situation must be having or at least should have major second thinking at the MOJ as to how to prevent a further similar happening and that the "untouchable" workings of juries must be set aside in favour of properly funded academic research.  What immediately comes to my mind is that the jury`s findings should be written and signed by all jurors and handed to the judge before the pronouncement is made.  In the event of confusion that confusion could be rectified by the judge and clerk of the court before before any public "misspeaking". 

The other major legal event in recent weeks  was new guidelines from the Sentencing Council on Domestic Homicide Sentencing. For what it`s worth I do think said body is looking at the law through the wrong end of the telescope.  Thankfully the unlawful killing of another is still a relatively rare event in this country and domestic homicide whilst a dreadful crime with widespread ramifications for any family is also relatively low in the UK.  Perhaps Mr, Mrs and Miss Person in the street would rather that criminal activities on their doorsteps or high streets were in the sights of the Council in its efforts to use sentencing as a deterrent and punishment.  However with almost every day bringing news that more and more offenders who deserve immediate custody not being jailed owing to there being no prison accommodation and others being released with ever increasing remission I see no more prospect of that than I do of a much needed increase of police officers actually on our streets and new police stations being opened or re opened where they are actually needed i.e. on our high streets.  Meanwhile the Sentencing Guidelines despite denials look increasingly as if they are ripe for computerisation at least in the early stages of determining the seriousness of an offence but that is a topic for another day.   

SJP JUGGLERS DROP THE BALL OF JUSTICE

Sentencing of newsworthy serious criminals on live TV is no longer in itself a newsworthy event.  Pioneered in Scotland such opportunities  to show  the law in action are an indication of how the MOJ wants the public to perceive the state of justice perhaps to disguise the failure of the last 14 years during which from police to prisons and all posts in between only a rabid optimist would opine that  the public is well served against criminality. When multiple murderers are sentenced in effect to die in jail the tool makers in Petty France can almost be seen as clap happy with their mutual back slapping as national media take up the stories. However it`s at the local level whether on line or in print that tens of millions of people have their glimpses of the law in action. One would have thought that the recent furore initiated  belatedly  by the Magistrates Association in respect of the Single Justice Procedure would have invited criticism as to why it has taken nine years to reach the eyes and ears of the general public.  It has not.

Local print media, the vehicles which in times past by their reporting of local magistrates courts when indeed such were actually "local", were  once the "name `em and shame `em" engines of a type of neighbourhood watch all but absent now in our collective rush to the keyboard.  At one time the option for local newspaper proprietors would have been to try and increase circulation by offering content that social on line media and mass media print by their very structures could not.  However nowadays it seems the business plan for local press is to restrict their on line availability to subscription only.  By playing chicken with their readership as to who will give way first; those prepared to buy the hard copy, those who would pay subs or those who refuse either option, it`s increasingly unlikely that truly local news will be reported.  It is likely news agencies` synchronised   stories will become the mainstay for many.  And so the "news" of the Magistrates Association`s self critical and snivelling statement posted here last week has been widely repeated almost word for word up and down the country.  My point is why has it taken so long for this overdue criticism to reach the public.  A large cadre of defence lawyers must have been the first to be aware of the iniquities involved.  Their representatives within the Law Society would surely have been in the loop to lobby MOJ.  But most of all individual magistrates not worthy of their appointment have been complicit since 2015 in presiding over a court system that they must have been aware was acting contrary to their oath: "  I... swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lord King Charles the third, in the office of Justice of the Peace and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will."

I have yet to see, hear or read of the contrition of any single or group of magistrates for their actions.  In my time on the bench we had an annual general bench meeting where any subject deemed suitable by the bench chairman and his/her committee could be discussed and voted on.  I understand that such process has been discontinued.  This is unsurprising since the take over by HMCS, the abolition of magistrates courts committees and subsequently the establishment of HMCTS, was to that end; the magistrates courts must be taken under complete government control.  So much for the joke concept of "local" when ascribed to justice. 

It`s apparent that unless magistrates form a new body to actually represent themselves as a professional association the operation of the lower courts system will increasingly be weighted to the needs of a government and less to the application of the law for local communities.  I always thought that magistrates being the only members of a branch of the judiciary not being financially beholden to government could and would use that independence for the public good.  On a personal level I resigned before my designated retirement date because I did not want to implement impending legislation.  I wonder how many sitting as Single Justices have had any doubt about their position?  They are as jugglers trying to keep five concepts airborne when they`ve trained for three.  There is the inevitability of public failure which should be accompanied by humiliation but rarely is.

 I do not expect this site will be flooded with comments.  

SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE//FAILURE OF THE MOJ AND MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION

My post today is on a subject upon which I first commented 15th June 2016 and on which my last comment before today was 24th January 2023.  The subject is the Single Justice Procedure. The above comments and others can be viewed by writing Single Justice Procedure in search box.  The background will assist in realising that from the start this supposed "improvement" in dealing with simple summary matters was misconceived from the outset. 

This is a topic which to be fully understood requires perhaps more reading time than a blog post usually demands. Some of the posts revealed by "search" offer viewpoints from a variety of sources.  The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 in England and Wales. The procedure was designed to be an accessible, speedy, effective and more efficient means of delivering justice when dealing with the most minor summary offences.  Until recently, with very few exceptions, there has been almost no criticism of the process.  The body that makes few attempts to truly represent its J.P. members; the Magistrates Association has, by and large, been silent on this issue since its inception.  That truly is unsurprising since many of its "guiding lights" see a gong on the horizon as a fitting tribute to toadying to government.  It has also helped that persistent posts by  Tristan Kirk [@kirkkorner] Courts correspondent for the Evening Standard and Penelope Gibbs [@PenelopeGibbs2] and [@transformjust1] have brought this legal anomaly to a wide audience through X.  Belatedly the M.A. have yesterday 25th March issued an opinion which for the sake of simplicity I have copied in full below but the original release is available for those who choose; here. 

The Single Justice Procedure—which handles around 40,000 criminal cases every month—needs reform if it is to be seen as fair and transparent, according to the Magistrates’ Association, the organisation that represents over 12,000 magistrates in England and Wales.

The Magistrates’ Association (MA) today published its new position on the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). This reflects hundreds of its members’ insights into hearing SJP cases over the last eight years since it was introduced and responds to recent interest from the media on the SJP’s impact on defendants, especially vulnerable and elderly people. It also includes 12 recommendations to improve the operation, transparency and fairness of the SJP.

The MA found that many of its members are uncomfortable with the SJP process as it currently works, and a significant proportion feel they do not always get as much time as they need to properly consider each case.

Although training on the SJP for magistrates is available, MA members feel that it is largely focused on how to use the system and does not emphasise that the SJP is a judicial process in which magistrates can exercise their discretion, as they do with cases heard in court.

Mark Beattie JP, National Chair of the Magistrates’ Association, said:

“We believe that the principle of the Single Justice Procedure is good. Every year it spares thousands of defendants the ordeal of having to attend court for minor offences, and it allows for more efficient use of court time, which means speedier justice and a focus on more serious offences.

“However, it is not a perfect system. While the vast majority of cases are handled effectively by the SJP, our members—magistrates who decide on SJP cases—have told us about flaws in the way it operates and the harm that this can have on some of society’s most vulnerable people. It is clear to us that reform, as well as additional investment in training and transparency, is needed, to restore public confidence in the Single Justice Procedure.

“This is why we have made a total of 12 recommendations today, to change the Single Justice Procedure and make it fairer, more consistent and more open.”

The Magistrates’ Association’s recommendations include:

Making it a requirement that prosecutors (the agency that is prosecuting someone, for example, TV Licensing or the DVLA) see all pleas and mitigations from defendants before the cases are heard by the magistrate.

Reviewing and improving the training that magistrates receive before they can sit on SJP cases. Training must emphasise the ability of magistrates to use their discretion fully and without reservation, including the ability to refer cases back to the prosecuting authority.

Safeguarding the SJP process so that neither magistrates nor their legal advisors feel any pressure to process cases more quickly than they want to.

The government should make provision for SJP sittings to be observable by accredited journalists.

Boosting transparency by publishing more data on the SJP, such as how many defendants plead guilty, how many make no pleas, and how many ask to come to court, nationally and broken down by region.

Undertaking research on how improvements can be made to the process for the vulnerable, including those with learning difficulties, communication challenges, or who may be less able to engage with the process.

Improving communication, through a review of the paperwork sent to defendants, to make it simpler and easier to understand.

My general comments are that whilst the above points have merit they are too little too late.  Over 3 million cases up to 2020  have gone through the procedure; one of the search revealed posts (6th July 2021) has exact numbers 2015-2020.  Between 1st April 2019 and 30th September 2023, 3,102,392 criminal cases were received into the Single Justice Service, which includes 609,164 receipts through the reformed digital service. Note the name change; a symptom of the MOJ in its various departments when it wishes to demonstrate "improvement".  The Magistrates Association claims that its members have spoken of flaws and where they have been disturbed by outcomes.  Yet for years it has been noticeably reticent about making waves where it should have: Petty France.   From the above the M.A. has perhaps unwittingly revealed its desire not to upset its governors.  Consider, "and it allows for more efficient use of court time, which means speedier justice and a focus on more serious offences."  It should not be for magistrates to be considering "use of court time" or "speedier justice".  The delivery of  Justice alone is what they are appointed for.  Managerial concepts are for others since magisterial courts committees were abolished by the MOJ over 20 years ago.  The M.A. refers to "training" which it implies could be improved.  Part of its remit as a charity is to provide training for magistrates. "reform, as well as additional investment in training and transparency, is needed, to restore public confidence in the Single Justice Procedure."

It should be questioned as to why, by this observation, its members [and nowhere near all J.P.s are members] are lacking in the ability or knowledge to function to a higher required standard.  A lack of accountability has been built into the system since its inception.  Those law makers and the M.A. should be answerable for the diliteriness in approving the legislation in the first place.  It was apparent from the start that the SJP was an affront to open justice.  The House of Common debate in which this whole fast forwarding of justice was discussed on 25th March 2014 is available here.  

The Magistrates Association is a registered charity governed by the rules of the Charity Commission for England and Wales on the website of which is written, 

"ROYAL CHARTER OF 12 NOVEMBER 1962 AS AMENDED 1 JANUARY 1971, 9 DECEMBER 1980, FEBRUARY 1995 AND 9 FEBRUARY 2005.

Charitable objects

THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE ASSOCIATION IS ESTABLISHED AND INCORPORATED ARE TO PROMOTE THE SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS: (A) EDUCATING AND INSTRUCTING MAGISTRATES AND OTHERS IN THE LAW, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS AND THE BEST METHODS OF PREVENTING CRIME; AND (B) ISSUING PUBLICATIONS AND PROMOTING CONFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS ON DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE."  {my bold}

It would appear in my humble opinion that the M.A. has failed to live up to its own charitable objects.  

Readers will by now, I hope, have enough information from which they can make their own informed opinions. 

IS THE END NIGH FOR BRITISH JUSTICE?

Many will be no longer fascinated by the recent attempts by China, Japan, India, USA to land unmanned space vehicles on the moon. Perhaps those who were agog at watching live on TV the first time that human beings walked on the moon in July 1969 are now just passive observers to the many sociological and political changes that afflict the planet  and have changed the face of this country as much as any war might have done in decades past.  

With a general election expected before Christmas pollsters will be bombarding the media with the results and opinions of their paymasters on what is likely to influence the electorate in our individual voting decisions.  No doubt previous successes from before the age of Tik Tok  will be rehatched to reach a generation that was in short trousers when Labour ended its 13 year reign in the House of Commons.  “It's the economy stupid” was a phrase coined by James Carville in 1992 when he was advising Bill Clinton in his successful run for the White House.  Like the rotten boroughs of times past, by all accounts an extra £1,000 per annum in the pocket of Mr, Mrs or Ms average earner`s bank account will be enough to buy a vote.  The esoteric notions of foreign policy or mass hysteria over a foreign war are unlikely to be considered worthy of mention in any through the letterbox leaflets.  Unfortunately the deliberate break up of our once admired justice system will be similarly classified; not worthy of debate but arguably in its many forms just as likely to affect our lives as a penny on or off any taxable item.  

We all depend on the police.  Their popularity with the public seems to rise and fall like a child on a trampoline.  On one hand events of the years since the brutal murder of Sarah Everard have exposed that there aren`t just some misbegotten rotten apples but rotten barrels full of misbegotten rotten apples.  But on that other hand it is the police who stand between peace on the streets and anarchy.  When PC Paul Fisher was acquitted of dangerous driving in November last year four years after  he crashed on his way to the scene where Sudesh Amman had stabbed two people  there were some murmurings that he had "got off".  That he was on trial at all for attempting to save innocent lives seemed incongruous to many within and without the policing and legal professions.  His case seems to sum up the push me pull me of Dr Doolittle fame in our attitudes to policing.  

Whilst I was active the persistent shoplifters had a pseudo legal adornment to their propensity to steal; "prolific", the essence of which was that even when an individual case was of low value an offender with a history of dozens or perhaps hundreds of previous convictions was to be treated for the entirety of his convictions thus ensuring that the maximum sentence of six months immediate custody was available as a true reflection of his/her law breaking.  That was the theory but the practice was very different last year.  Recorded offences rose 25% but charges fell.  In the year ending 30/6/23 police recorded 365,164 shoplifting offences but only around 12% of suspects were charged.  In the year before Covid almost 19% of suspects were charged. This decline is just a symptom of failures for more serious matters.  If the government proceeds with its stated intention to remove custodial sentences from the arsenal of disposals at magistrates courts one can expect an exponential rise in theft from shops and an increasing number of stores having security guards  inside and outside their premises as in most large retail premises in America. 

 Knife possession and knife crime have both increased and despite the wooly words of Justice Secretaries since 2010 the proportion of knife offences resulting in a suspended sentence has increased by almost 100% to the end of September 2023 resulting in almost a quarter of such offenders avoiding prison.  Further statistics show that even for repeat knife offenders in the same period 40% were not sentenced to immediate custody despite legislation that instructed judges to do just that.  

Between 2017 and 2021 more than 35,000 of the 142,275 motorists who totted up 12 points avoided being banned due to claiming 'exceptional hardship'. From my own personal knowledge and experience [posted here many times and available using the search box]  magistrates are too quick to offer relief to drivers with 12 or more penalty points.  A Google search shows that hundreds of solicitors are advertising their expertise in arguing successfully for "exceptional hardship".  Their lucrative income stream and magistrates misplaced sympathies must surely come under scrutiny by a future Justice Secretary and be formalised.  

And so to our judges who can be castigated for speaking out of turn but can be incompetent in their sentencing without retribution unless the case is particularly a high profile one attracting photogenic witnesses, available finance or public relations experts and sometimes all three.  In the last 20 years prolific offenders represented nearly half of all convictions; 243,000 people aged over 21 with at least 16 convictions or cautions. In 2022 hyper prolific offenders with 45 or more convictions or cautions offended almost 10,000 times and were subject to non custodial sentences 53% of occasions.  

Hundreds of judicial decisions in sentencing miscreants, which have been made according to the Sentencing Guidelines, have been tossed aside.  Known only to individual judges offenders who should be in jail are walking the streets because the MOJ has instructed the judiciary to use non custodial outcomes because the prison population is at breaking point.  Recent police and judicial decisions regarding the treatment of those who openly spout religious hate in their marches for so called Palestinian freedom from "the river to the sea" are bringing this government to a point of no return in the interface between anarchy and democracy.  Simple but deep philosophical questions on the freedom of judges` sentencing options, jurors` rights to bring in "perverse" verdicts, police interpretations of the law in conflict with parliament`s interpretation of said law, prison governors` and parole boards` decisions in overriding original sentencing decisions and many other policies and decisions below the public horizon are about to be tested. MOJ spending figures show a planned 4.8% cut in operational spending on justice to £10bn in 2024/25 from £10.5bn in 2023/24.  Russian oligarchs, their estranged wives, Arab property developers, disgruntled media stars and others similar might consider London the best place to spend their favoured currency on their favourite high priced KCs but for Josephine Bloggs alighting from the Clapham all electric omnibus needing help on a dark winter night as she walks home the legal future is bleak.  Is the end nigh for British justice? Can somebody help?

MACRO MICRO AND THE LEGAL ROOST

The word macro describes something that is very large or something that is related to things that are large in size or scope. Macro is also used as a combining form meaning “large” or “great.” The word micro describes something that is very small or something related to things that are small in size or scope.  Both terms are often used in academic studies.  As with many commenters on myriad topics this blogger has, consciously or unconsciously, pontificated from both aspects at any one time.  The more distant the time when being active in the middle chair was laterally almost a weekly occurrence the more perhaps a macro or overview of magistrates courts and their inner workings appeared here. Sometimes reports of actual courts` proceedings or activities can and should bring a sudden state of the here and now into any esoteric commentary.  Three such matters have today caught my attention persuading me to turn from the macro to a micro view of the workings of magistrates courts every day at every court. 

Perhaps the most complicated cases I can recall were those brought by a local authority against those who had ignored or in some other ways had failed to comply with enforcement notices often under under section 179(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  I distinctly remember an offender represented by a then QC telling me as the presiding magistrate that the bench would not be capable of understanding his client`s complex arguments and that we should adjourn to a date for the matter to be heard by a District judge(MC).  We gave him a polite response noting his objection and invited the prosecutor to proceed.  In another similar situation the prosecuting solicitor for the local authority presented a bundle he was relying upon and, as he thought helpfully, argued that we need read only some specified two dozen of more than 200 pages. We retired to read the whole bundle.  A further case where the claim was for £22,000 had the offender who had pleaded poverty in his personally delivered mitigation writing a cheque for the full amount on his guilt being established.  There were many offenders who had to be threatened with contempt for refusing or delaying the court`s requirement for audited accounts to be presented by a future court date.  And so it was with interest that I noticed this report by Camden Council in London where justice was certainly seen to be done. 

Fly tipping has, over the decades, slowly crept up the ladder of environmental offending.  Whereas it had been in the post war years an "annoying" offence it`s now on a par with some offences causing bodily harm.  The seriousness of such offending can be gauged by the Sentencing Guidelines.  Once again on a personal level if memory serves correctly my bench fined a sole trader of a fly tipper around £20,000 for what the offender considered just "a few bits and pieces" he`d dumped at the side of a quiet street. It was interesting to note that a fly tipping offender was subject to a six weeks custody order but owing to current politics it was suspended.  With government having given notice that magistrates courts will soon be unable to impose any custodial terms immediate or suspended there is going to be a huge ill considered gap in the justice system.  I suppose when a government in power for 14 years does not provide enough prisons or prison cells to house offenders in a humane manner nor provides sufficient trained staff both in the prison service and probation to oversee sentencing and sentences there is little surprise of chickens coming home to roost.

I cannot recollect having a police officer in the dock throughout my time on the bench although there were not a few who committed perjury from the witness box with a straight face.  On consideration I assume that in today`s world things would be different for colleagues.  The current climate certainly gives one hope that, without prejudice, erring officers are more likely than in past years to face justice for offending. Last week Swansea Magistrates Court saw a serving police officer appear on a charge of sexual assault by penetration.  What is interesting is the statement of Nathan Adams, criminal lawyer at Reeds Solicitors in Cardiff.  It can be found along with a statement by Senior Investigating officer Detective Superintendent Huw Davies here. 

Criminal offending affects real people on both sides of the legal divide. Sometimes the judgements, emotional, theoretical, intellectual and judicial are based, notwithstanding the tome that is the Sentencing Guidelines, at a macro level.  There can be no confidence in a judicial system where consideration at the micro level is overlooked and unfortunately that is what has happened over the last few years and is, in my humble opinion, likely to continue whatever party is ruling that legal roost this time next year.