As to developing a debate however, I think we've got a bit further to go. In this regard I was particularly interested to see that today Inspector Gadjet was encouraged to come up with his own personal agenda for dealing with re-offending rates, following figures issued by the Ministry of Justice. He responded to a bit of a challenge from a magistrate on his site and what he said in reply is quite instructive I think:-
What would you have the bench do that we didn’t?
1. Sit for 5 days like the rest of us.
2. 12 month every prison sentence and stop the discounts.
3. Max every fine and jail them for non payment.
4. Immediately jail the assault police, medics tell me that even people with mental health issues know NOT to attack police officers.
5. Remand all the adjournments.
6. Stop suspending the jail sentences.
This way you would eventually have a much smaller prison population, all serving longer sentences, thus protecting the public, deterring those who couldn’t do ‘hard time’ and giving prisoners a chance to do some real offence related work inside. Everyone is a winner except the Defence lawyers.
Now I happen to completely disagree, but at least we now know what the task is in trying to formulate the counter-arguments. Possibly that magistrate knows too.
I see a couple of issues with Gadget's requests.
ReplyDeleteFirst, mags courts in my area already sit SIX days a week (although only five are for the hearing of trials etc, saturdays are just for emergency cases). If he is suggesting that individiual magistrates sit for 5 days a week then he would do well to remember that magistrates are unpaid volunteers taking time off of work.
The mags do not have the power to impose 12 month sentences for every offence before them and they have no control over the discounts.
Max every fine... so littering would attract the same fine as a theft. Or speeding the same fine as fraud.
Gaol all assault PCs presumably for the 12 months, so pushing a PC would attract the same sentence as smacking him hard in the face? Well, if that's the case some might take the view, in for a penny in for a pound. Also, what 'medics' are these to which he refers? "Mental health issues" is such a broad term as to be meaningless. Someone with depression certainly knows what's right and wrong. Somebody with schizophrena may or may not, somebody with a serious personality disorder may barely know who they are let alone what a policeman is.
What does remand all adjournments mean? That just shows a lack of understanding of his subject. Everybody on bail is "remanded on bail" just as everybody in custody is "remanded into custody". Assuming he means put them all in prison then that is just a blatent plea for the police to be allowed to lock everyone up, "sorry judge I can't make the next hearing... you're gonna have to lock the defendant up". This would also mean that anybody who dared to plead not guilty would go to prison regardless of the offence... because no cases are tried on their first appearance at court... they are ALL adjourned for trial!
Finally, how would not suspending prison sentences result in a smaller prison population? It wouldn't, it would result in a HUGE prison population! Stopped for speeding? Want to contest it, okay but you'll be in prison while you await your trial?
Incidentally, I suspect it would be a MASSIVE winner for defence lawyers because we'd all be running around trying to deal with this massive influx of people suddenly meeting the means and merits test for legal aid (passes merits because everyone is in prison and passes means because nobody has any income any more).
These are the ravings of a lunatic. Unfortunately, I bet a lot of people agree with this rubbish.
Many folk probably do agree with the philosophy but perhaps not with all the detail, once they have given it a moment's thought. Just as Gadjet probably responded off the top of his head I suspect you have done the same, or is the maximum fine for littering the same as the maximum fine for theft?
ReplyDeleteThe legal system is far too soft on moderate to serious offences and I suspect Gadjets point is that if tightened up there might ultimately be fewer offenders and therefore fewer prisoners. He could be right you know.
As the author of the magistrate's comments, perhaps I could say:
ReplyDelete- if I had my way I would be much tougher on certain types of crime and criminals but,as we all know, the system doesn't let me. The sentencing guidelines get ever weaker and less in line with what most people I know want to happen. We should however be more willing to sieze vehicles of the no insurance crowd, not just at the roadside, but as a penalty and similarly for dangerous or disqualified driving. Israel has a scheme where if caught using a mobile phone, the vehicle is siezed and has to be bought back at market value. Focusses the mind.
As to bail, we can now only remand in custody IF THE POLICE GAVE BAIL if there is significant new information - and there rarely is. In other words if the custody sergeant bails, then that's it until the trial. If you don't want the scrote to be given bail, then please don't bail the scrote. This is particularly true in assault PC and domestic violence cases. In these, my local force often bails back to the home address with a residence condition. Very helpful (not).
I would imprison for fines and unpaid work default, but this is now less common than it used to be. A pity.
And lastly, sitting 5 days - I have worked in my professional capaity every day for the last 12 at over 12 hours each day, except for the day in court where we started at 10:00am and finished at 15:45. But I had done three hours before court and worked till midnight after it. Not a complaint - after all I have a job I choose and no one makes me sit on the bench. Just an observation that we are not all middle aged, middle class retired fogies
I think that Inspector Gadget is either a convicted criminal trying to undermine the police, or a daily mail reporter.
ReplyDeleteIs he both?
ReplyDeleteThere is understandable frustration all round with the system. I often feel very sympathetic with the police who've brought someone to justice and watch him walk out of court smiling. But Inspector Gadget finds it easier to take a pop at magistrates rather than the guidelines.
ReplyDeleteThat said, there's an argument that we could and should be more robust within the guidelines, and suspended sentences should be activated more often than they are - automatically if a further offence is committed.
Agreed. So we now need to work on the legal advisors in court to make them see the world this way round too!
ReplyDeletenothing to do with the advisers : its the law :
ReplyDeleteif the government said automatically invoke suspended sentences for any new offence (ie speeding, no tax disc) then that would happen.
But they dont : they say that you should either invoke or make more onerous.
This gives discretion to the magistrates which has to be good thing. Someone who gets a SS for Dq driving and goes out and drives again the next day, goes to jail. Someone who drives with a mobile phone 2 years later (on the last day of his SS) having kept himself out of trouble, requalified and paid his insurance shoulg not go to jail.
The cases in the middle (shades of grey) are when the mags have the ability to use discretion. Any law which prevents that is flawed.
And I am afraid I dont know what 'more robust within the guidelines means'. Surely you either go by them or you don?
Sorry but comment like "Inspector Gadget finds it easier to take a pop at magistrates rather than the guidelines."
ReplyDeleteare completely untrue, Inspector Gadget doesn''t want to work within the guidelines, he wants to break them and run his own kangaroo courts.
Despite the fact he has probably not brought anyone to court in years he somehow passes himself of as a squad room lawyer who knows better than Judge, Jury, Magistrate and District Judge.
But i've take the liberty of writing a little song for gadget, I hope he likes it.
He used to be a copper in a real police force.
He would nick the crims and they'd tremble at his hand but oh, la laa.
He lost any ethic and his claims were pathetic, and he's a failure now.
He used to be the life and soul of everyone around.
You'll never catch him locking up a criminal and never see him send one down but oh, la laa.
He couldn't bust shoplifter oh, not for a while, and he's a failure now.
Don't cry gadget, you've got no more to live for.
Don't cry gadget, you've got nothing I would die for
And if it comes to the pension, I'm glad you'll smile again
'Cause so many don't.
And so many go unarrested.
@ silva fox above:
ReplyDeleteFair point about very minor offences at the end of the SS period, but then even if activating, mags must take into account how much has been achieved on the order when determining what custody time is appropriate. My fundamental point is that at the moment I see too many colleagues prepared to readmit offenders to their SSOs after major and early breaches, sometimes even after new similar offending. I think that waters down the SSO to the point where it's futile.
As for being more robust within the guidelines, I have in mind such things as not being soft on choosing lower starting points; going higher within the bands; weighing out more penalty for aggravating features and for previous offences; marking Bail Act offences separately, going consecutive instead of concurrent; going up rather than down for 'on the cusp' sentences where a previous sanction at the lower level has not prevented reoffending, etc. We could do quite a bit and still stay within the letter and spirit of the guidelines and other law.
Every starting point is defined : its how mags interpret aggravating and mitigating features which moves the sentence.
ReplyDeleteIf you are saying that aggravating features should have more impact than mitigating features then I cant agree. I know it already happens, many mags will announce that an offence is intentional and reckless (it may be in real life but it cant be legally as recklessness precludes specific intent) and they regularly read out aggravtaing features which are no more than the constituent of the offence. ( this offence of DQ driving is aggravated by the fact you were disqualified is a regular and frustrating one).
The law is very clear as to when concurrent and consecutive sentences are appropriate. Impose consecutive in situations when you shouldnt and you will be successfully appealed (and therefore wrong).
What you are basically saying is that mags should use their discretion in a certain way. That is of course the beauty of the magistracy, some will agree with you, some wont and a balance will be struck and hopefully fairness will win out.
all thease new prisons wouldnt av to be built all round the nation of the couuntry if there wasant police and law putting people away for jailess things the answer to all this is is theres alot of people going to jail for pointless things were they should of ad a good kick up the back side and be told not to do it again
ReplyDelete