Bits and Pieces 3

"You're all missing the point. This blog used to be a forum full of interesting views and perspective on probation and CJ issues. Now it appears to be a site for disgruntled colleagues and others to vent causing anxiety to others. I feel the forum is losing its way so I wanted to put a different spin/perspective on things!"

We try to give customer satisfaction round here, so it's probably high time for another pot pourri of stuff that caught my eye recently. First off, lets mention Ben Gunn who, being a self-confessed 'media tart', unwisely accepted an invitation to make the long hike up to Media City and be wound-up something rotten by James O'Brien on his dreadful new daytime ITV bear-baiting show. 

It's naughty of me I know, but I don't have a great deal of sympathy as Ben is more used to being the centre of attention for groups of mostly mesmerised female undergraduates. He also has quite a penchant for winding people up himself, but he was comprehensively outshone during this encounter and mightily pissed-off as a result. 

This appalling programme was only salvaged towards the end by the moving contribution of a woman who spent time visiting the man serving time for killing her son as a way to try and understand the motivation and encourage his rehabilitation. Quite rightly, this example of Restorative Justice got a warm round of applause and the admiration of the audience, but there's no real media interest in this kinda stuff and it was soon lost in a tide of mostly ignorant banality. Sadly it serves to remind us what a great swathe of the public actually thinks.

Over on the Magistrates Blog there has been much discontent expressed regarding Grayling's new Criminal Courts Charge, including this from fellow blogger and recently-retired JP:- 

When some many years ago I contemplated my forced retirement through age from the Bench I imagined that it would be with regret. My exit from the car park after my final sitting last week was without that regret. It had crawed in my throat when so called victim surcharges had to be applied. It has been reinforced by the number of low income defendants deprived of legal aid who have had to be spoon fed their defence by a legal advisor and an increasingly intervening chairman. It boiled over by announcements that county courts had to be self financing and that convicted criminals should in addition to a tick box sentence pay financially for their offending and be transformed into good members of society by an emasculated part privatised probation service. Having resigned from the Magistrates Association long ago that organisation should be headed for the litter basket for all the good it does its members. Enjoy your remaining years Bystander and friends.

Other comments have a depressing familiarity about them:-

I'm leaving after 15 years on the bench. This is the final straw on the camel's back. I'd like to think I made a difference in my time. I simply can't continue and impose these additional, disproportionate charges with a clear conscience. What's next - charging for time spent in the cells? The van to get to court? At least I can walk away - I feel for the paid judiciary who may sympathise but need a salary.

******

Look, I agree with all the sentiments so far expressed, both here and elsewhere, but...

The reality is that this will happen and judicial office holders will impose the appropriate charge because they have no choice. No doubt some tweaking to this abomination will take place but the main thrust of it will remain. All the sabre rattling and huffing and puffing will change nothing. Resignations? There maybe a few but nothing dramatic and anyway there simply isn't a need for the numbers of magistrates we have now in any event.

Justice is being irreparably damaged but the general public doesn't know it. Their focus is on the NHS/immigration/cuts and any number of other issues. Justice isn't on their radar because most people never come before the courts. They simply fail to grasp the harm being done and cannot see how this erodes our freedom. So, complain away if you like, but no one who can make a difference is listening and the general public don't care.

*****

Following on from Grayling getting another knock back from the courts, this time over the treatment of absconders, 'Jack of Kent' put the boot in by highlighting his extraordinary argument that he's effectively above the law:-

Grayling: the Lord Chancellor who told the High Court to disregard the Rule of Law

In a judgment handed down today the High Court held that yet again the Ministry of Justice under Grayling had acted unlawfully. It may seem strange to some that the very government department running the court system of England and Wales would ever be held to have acted unlawfully. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has a duty recognised by statute to uphold the rule of law. But during Grayling’s time at the department, the Ministry of Justice has repeatedly been found to have acted unlawfully.

And today, on his birthday, came from the High Court another judgment that the Ministry of Justice had acted unlawfully, with a very telling passage. The case was about whether Grayling could ignore the Ministry of Justice’s own statutory “Directions” (rules formally made under a statutory provision) when forcing a change of policy about the treatment of prisoners.

The High Court, unsurprisingly to anyone with a basic understanding of public law (in essence, the law which regulates activities of public bodies) held that it was not open to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice to simply ignore Directions made under a statutory provision. But in a revealing paragraph, the High Court detailed what the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice had instructed a barrister to make as a key submission:

54. Mr Weisselberg’s principal submission in response on this issue in oral argument was as concise as it was striking. The Directions were issued by the Secretary of State. He has the power to amend or revoke them; therefore he has the power to ignore or contradict them. They are not directions to him but by him, and he cannot be bound by them.

This was a remarkable submission. The judge described it as “striking” (which is judge-speak for “utterly bizarre”). It is dismissed with ease by the court:

55. We cannot accept this submission. The Secretary of State could indeed amend or revoke the Directions to the [Parole] Board. But so long as they remain in force they are binding on the Board and also binding on the Secretary of State, in the sense that he cannot lawfully tell the Board to ignore them or his officials to frustrate them.

The current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice appears to believe that because he makes the rules, it is perfectly fine for him to break the rules.

One problem with this approach is that the rule of law works both ways: you can hardly insist that others should abide by the law if you are happy to casually “ignore or contradict” the law. Another problem is that it shows a serious lack of understanding of the nature of statutory provisions: he could not simply tell his civil servants to “ignore or contradict” Directions he had made under a statutory provision.

In a junior minister all this would be a deplorable attitude. But in the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, it is a disgrace. Grayling may well shrug at yet another court defeat, especially as he will “move on” soon. But paragraph 54 of today’s judgment will provide a lasting memorial to his period in this historic office: the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice who, in all seriousness, one day told the High Court to disregard the rule of law.

Not only are journalists and the Howard League being prevented from visiting prisons, according to this, the prison newspaper 'Inside Time' is being routinely censored:-  

Inside Time vandalism

I write in response to the Mailbag from your March issue titled ‘Inside Time seriously censored by staff’. Though the sender of this letter withheld his name he does raise some very relevant issues about how HMP Garth treat our newspaper. Today is March the 12th and we have only just got the March issue. The front page has been censored; a picture has been blacked out with marker pen. And page 8 also features a blackout in the form of a large black smudge. Whoever ‘vets’ the paper seems to have a colouring-in obsession that is both unnecessary and seemingly rather petulant.

On the subject of the cover being missing from the January issue, I think I may know why. I was told by my girlfriend that a letter from me was printed on page 2 (the inside front cover) and this was the reason the prison censor removed the cover. The letter was complaining about the lack of family ties and was also critical of the healthcare system here. My letter was not in any way offensive to any individual but I did dare to question my treatment for health issues.

I have tried to complain to the number one governor via ‘confidential access’ but was answered by another lesser governor, which is strange because I thought confidential access meant, well, ‘confidential access’ to the number one governor. Anyway I was told that this was not an issue for the governor. So much for the concept of free speech here at HMP Garth.

Editorial note: this letter has been forwarded to NOMS for reply.

Finally, I see that the Probation Institute have elected their new team:-

PI Council elects new Board of Directors

On Tuesday 31 March 2015, the Probation Institute held the first meeting of the newly elected Representative Council in London. The meeting was an opportunity for the new Council members to review the work of the Institute to date, discuss the key priorities for the Institute going forward, and to elect six Directors to the Board.

Council members agreed that the key drivers of the Probation Institute should be the protection of professional standards and training, as well as the promotion of evidence-based practice and policy through the development of the Institute as a centre of excellence.

The Council also considered the nominations of 11 members of the Institute for six Director positions. Representatives chose from a talented pool of candidates, which reflected a wide range of experience and roles across probation practice and academia. As a result the Representative Council has elected the following members of the Institute as Directors:

Doris Emerson-Afolabi

Professor Anthony Goodman

Sue Hall

Laura Martin

Professor Paul Senior

Nick Smart