This morning I was supposed to have a trial. I didn't have a trial because the CPS didn't serve the evidence which they were directed to serve two months ago. There was a specific court order telling them to serve it. They didn't. Instead, when they found out that their copy of the evidence didn't work (it was a CCTV recording) they just decided not to rely on it, and claimed that made everything OK.
When the CPS breach their disclosure obligations (which they had clearly done here) they are supposed to apply for an adjournment and if that is refused they are supposed to offer no evidence, and the case is dismissed. What they do instead, is lie, claim they haven't breached their disclosure obligations, refuse to offer no evidence, and the defence have to apply for the adjournment. That's what I did. The case was adjourned.
I went back to the office, and reviewed the batch of legal aid cuts that will be introduced in January. These introduce a flat, greatly reduced, fee for nearly all magistrates trials. Solicitors who get cases adjourned because the CPS haven't served the evidence that could exonerate their client, will swiftly go bankrupt as a result. In fact, solicitors who do any work on their cases at all will swiftly go bankrupt. The only way to stay in business will be deal with a large number of cases and pressure all your clients into pleading guilty. If you think that is a result which the government has achieved by accident, then you're a fucking idiot.
When I left the office I didn't go home. Instead, I added an hour to my journey by driving in the opposite direction to go and feed a client's cats. He got remanded a few days ago. The police suffered one of their frequent not-my-job-can't-be-arsed attacks and left his cats in situ. It's not my job either, but the RSPCA and Cats Protection will only take them if he signs them over for permanent re-homing, which seems a bit harsh as he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and even if he was agreeable, he can't do anything right now because he's in prison. So I went and fed the cats, because no one else was willing to.
Don't worry, though. This sort of thing won't be the case for long. I'll be out of a job in a few months. Even if my firm manages to win a contract this autumn, no one who does the job well will be able to make a living at it post-January. The only advice you'll get after that is Plead Guilty, but it won't be from me. And there's no chance at all that anyone will feed your cats.
I'm not a good person. A lot of people I know are good people and they don't wish retribution on those who are creating this situation.
I'm not a good person, though. I do wish it. I wish for everyone who voted for this government to be arrested and charged with something they didn't do. I wish for them to fall into the meat grinder that our justice system is becoming. I wish for them to suffer the trauma and stress and injustice that they were content to inflict on others because they didn't think it would happen to them.
It won't though. The system works, you see. The system is that if you keep about a third of the country comfortable, you can pay for it with the blood and misery of the rest, and still keep getting elected.
Whether or not you put your dick into a pig's head doesn't really come into it.
So the "nob-in-a-pig" crew are managing to eradicate all traces of knowledge, experience, good will & sufficient numbers of staff from all aspects of the CJ system. Prisons are fucked. Probation is fucked. And now, as today's blog shows, the legal system is well on the way to being fucked - no local courts & no need for defence lawyers.
ReplyDeleteThe current system is a mess. Increasingly I'm finding people are pleading guilty in the first instance on legal advice, even sometimes when they should not. I can't say any more on this except that I look forward to see David Cameron plead guilty when Peppa Pig files a sexual abuse claim. The question is whether the govt will cover it up and file the report with the rest of the hidden abuse claims.
ReplyDeleteBack to TR I was to add this to your previous thread. Probation is a funny place at the moment. It is very bad news that Nick Smart is leaving London CRC to be replaced by a prisoner governor, Helen Swidenbank. More evidence that the power of NOMS and its prison monopoly remains. If the future brings CRC's increasingly run by prison governors, then what's to stop probation management and probation work being overtaken by prison staff wanting a 'get out of jail free card'.
I also read elsewhere that Tessa Webb has become a HMIP inspector. This former CEO of what was the extremely poor performing Hertfordshire Probation Trust and the Sodexo-shafted BeNCH CRC, left with a huge retirement package and reportedly worked on TR to further the probation destruction. Probably not done a proper days probation work in 20 years, and as a disgruntled probation employee I can vouch for her awful 'skills' as a probation chief who was trying to sell and merge probation even before TR. I can only wonder what the hell she's doing as a HMIP inspector, or maybe it's the current perk for helping to destroy the probation service.
I reckon the above are already 'Fellows' of the Probation Institute! Speaking of that useless organisation I noticed that Prof Paul Senior is now Chair of the PI and its taken on another 'partnership', this time with ABPO. I'm not sure what this all exactly means but it doesn't make much difference when the 'founding' lot that helped sell off probation (or refused to defend it) are still involved, and the new lot (the committee and elect's) are heavily populated by CRC and private company individuals.
None of the above have yet condemned TR or the current state of probation. Why oh why do these individuals that helped wreck probation, the former probation CEO's with huge payoffs, and the members of the former Probation Association and Probation Chiefs Association, just keep popping up! Next it will be C Grayling joins the Napo exec and J Ledger returns as Justice Secretary!
I take your point, but would remind people that Sue Hall did try and speak up, famously appearing on Newsnight and was 'deselected' as CRC CEO for her pains the following day if my memory serves me correctly.
DeleteThis is true regarding Sue Hall. I was actually pleased she's involved in the PI.
DeleteBut the PI dos nothing to challenge TR and has done nothing to improve the current sorry state of probation - NPS & CRC
DeleteI suppose it's a difficult one for the PI seeing as they must be hoping to gain acceptance from CRC's and eventually the NPS.
DeleteJim I have to say I'm disappointed. People working in probation are being named and somwhat shamed on this blog and you allow this even though there is no place for them to defend themselves. If I'm ever mentioned I'd sue you for negligence in facilitating this to happen by allowing people blog what they want. This applies to people talking negatively about CRCs. I think it's sensible you do not allow people to post when individuals are named.
ReplyDeleteAnd who are you exactly?
DeleteSurely anyone named in a negative light could redress the balance on this blog, one of the few places left that you can actually speak your mind......the days of an angry exchange with your senior whilst both parties agree to disagree are long gone....you disagree now and your card us marked........
DeleteA king!
Delete9.59 I'm shocked your would have an angry exchange with your senior. Jeeezzz
DeleteThere is a clear difference in my mind with commentators naming those at the top as opposed to individual practitioners. In the case of the latter, I recently deleted the names of 5 practitioners from a comment.
DeleteIt all makes for depressing reading! Maybe it's just me but I don't understand anything anymore! Yesterday I had an expense claim refused for claiming 110 miles in one day- well that's the distance from my office to a northern jail! Claim in total for this journey £49.50 - left office at 12.15' there for 1.45 had a very productive first meeting with client - all plans for release next April sorted and agreed! Returnd journey, left at almost 4pm, finshed at 5.45pm. Now told that I cannot claim more than 100 miles in any day, as it would have been more cost effective, accountable to public purse for me to have used public transport so the milage would be reduced from 45p to 28p! Who the hell did the sums? Had I gone by public transport, it would have looked like this, and that is depedant on all aspects of the journey/visit going according to plan!
ReplyDeleteLeave - by train 10.46am - arrive 12.52
Taxi to hmp
Taxi from hmp
Leave by train 16.19 - arrive 18.41
The train ticket, if I buy it, £30.90 - if that organisation moj pay to arrange travel etc, there is an additional charge, for them doing it of at least £5
Add the taxi fairs, cos buses are few and far between, another £10 - £15
Total public transport cost: at least £49.50 - what I claimed!
However, look at the amount of my time is used: my trip a total of 5hrs and 30 mins, door to door. On public transport, at least, 8 hours!
In future, I will hire their cars and get advance for the fuel, as you have to ensure vehicle full on return! I should imagine the cost of hire and fuel
would be more than the £49.50 I claimed. It is shite and whilst the privately contracted company make their living, I have to do the same amount of work with less real time to do it if I travel on public transport!
9.27 with all respect mate you are taking the piss. Any business person would tell you that. You should have used hire car instead of living it up on expenses ?
ReplyDeleteDon't you worry, I will in future, and when vehicle is delivered to the wrong place or not at all, I will cancel the trip and explain why I am not there, why no report is available to court, and why I am refusing an ever increasing caseload, as I am spending so much time communicating with shared services for advance payments and chasing up requests! It's not about the expenses, its about efficient use of my time, you dick!
ReplyDelete1) give the right address so it's delivered to the right address.
ReplyDelete2) use a video link if the vehicle doesn't show up.
= problem solved for all parties?
to anon 10:17 you clearly are not a practitioner.....video links are sometimes taking 2 weeks to book....due largely to prison based issues (needing link to be free when it is increasingly being used for court, parole hearings and by legal reps due to fee reductions). Also there is a fee for hire car plus fee for delivery ( each way) and as said earlier the petrol tank has to be filled. Then there is the cost of employee time...no wait, us practitioners are expected to just forget about giving our time for free....
DeleteIt is the basic issue of some NOMS functionary saying the cost is simply the vehicle hire cost whereas the full financial cost MUST be factored in. Simples eh ????
I think problem is the expenses policy was drawn up for noms and hmp staff, not probation staff! Especially since TR my (NPS) caseload has become predominantly a resettlement caseload - think I have 17 lifers, 15 long termers, all having oral hearings, parole reports etc, and I think mojthinks I can manage and address these cases from my PC! Oh, I also have about 15 licences in the community, not always my locality, when in hostels etc! The policy of 100 miles in one day, 150 in 2 days and 200 in 3 days is completely arbitrary and I don't know how pda's are managing, as they can cover offices, from Huddersfield to Scarborough- all over the north east district!
ReplyDeleteAnon 09:13 these comments are already in the public domain. David/Helen/Tessa/Chris/Jonathan, I understand if you have been named then you'd feel obliged to post a response.
ReplyDeleteFor the record this blog is exactly the place for "naming and "shaming" those that helped dismantle probation, those then rewarded with EVR, huge retirement packages, OBE's and cushy jobs with the PI and HMIP. It is also exactly the place for "talking negatively" about CRC's, because there's not much that's positive to say about them, and this is thanks to you all.
I could weed out several on my caseload who should not be on probation because of over zealous psr proposal or over zealous magistrate or pleaded guilty out of fear or no solicitor. Then i'm left to pick up the pieces.
ReplyDeleteHa so could I. over zealous PSR proposal !!!! not quite the right word. People are writing reports when they have absolutely no knowledge of law, of proportionate sentencing, of any concept of equality in sentencing or that they are supposed to be objective. Many of them also completely displace any personal responsibility for the sentence, It is absolutely terrifying
DeleteIt is the Court that imposes sentence, not the psr author !
ReplyDeleteand so 17:05 proves the point of 15:46
ReplyDeleteNot really, no. Probation officers would have generally received a level of training and ongoing guidance in relation to law and sentencing. As has been said, probation officers propose and recommend suitable sentences but it is the Court that makes the decision and imposes sentence. Some may ensure they propose suitably and follow the case through, others may see their completed report as job done. That said, nowadays court reports can be written by untrained and unqualified staff, and probation officer training has been watered down.
DeleteI do read a lot of good reports, generally by probation officers who have been in the job a few years. This is not to say the uber-qualified write the best reports as this is probably where some of the most over-zealous proposals, inaccurate risk assessments and discriminatory comments come from. There's a lot of silly views trending in PSR's at times, such as all DV offenders are high risk, women offenders shouldn't go to prison but men should, drug dealers always pose harm to the general public, driving offences unequivocally put the entire population of road users and pedestrians on that day at risk, theft offences cause insurance premiums to rise in every case, and that every 2 out of 3 offenders offend due to "poor consequential thinking".
Just the other day I read a report stating a man committed an offence due to "male privilege" and I thought wtf!! The offender told me that he was innocent but pleaded guilty on the advice of his solicitor as there was a 50% he would have been found guilty!
Pity we don't have a plea of 50% guilty, or that everything we're told is true. In 25 years many of my cases have insisted they were innocent. Only two were ever successful in their appeal against conviction. Quite a few more successful in appeal against sentence, at which point they tended to accept they were guilty after all. In all that time only one person continued to maintain their innocence after exploring every single avenue of appeal - and until their passing, in prison - and they had been apprehended in the midst of committing a very serious offence.
DeleteI too have met very few people who have been charged but maintain their total innocence, thankfully because many of those who are charged but are not guilty do actually get acquitted at trial, probably because of lawyers such as todays blogger. I have met a considerable number of people who accept some but not all of what is alleged, hence Newton Hearings ( 50% guilt ). It seems that it has come to be believed that witnesses and 'victims' always tell the whole truth and nothing but !!!. Regrettably many people writing reports these days simply do not have Court experience, knowledge or life experience to form an objective and balanced view and are trotting out stock analysis and phrases without question or assessment. Of course the Court decides on the sentence but the report carries weight and influence,not just on the sentence but for the person concerned.Many reports these days seem to be written without any consideration for the impact of the content. If report writers don't understand or want to own that responsibility they should not be writing reports.
DeleteMany DO want the responsibility that comes with writing reports but sadly many also seem to fail to understand what power lies within that responsibility... or they understand but are for some reason happy to abuse that power. I feel the loss of gatekeeping, second-reading & teaching the art of report writing explains much; which is where probation managers who rubbished the role of probation in court are culpable, as are those who sought to dilute the meaningful reports by introducing fast-track templates.
Delete