Having seemingly recovered from the ignominy of the expenses scandal and bruising from the universal aprobrium heaped upon them as a result, but emboldened by the facing down of Rupert Murdoch, politicians now seem hell bent on flexing their muscles. The recent pronouncements by prime minister David Cameron in the wake of the riots were clearly designed to sound tough and have played well both in Parliament and the country at large. But not everyone is happy with the tough rhetoric and indeed there are mutterings that our senior politicians having exceeded their authority.
A piece in yesterday's Guardian written by an experienced lay magistrate and popular blogger raises concerns over what appeared to be instructions by the prime minister as to how the courts should deal with those arrested and charged with riot-related offences. We all know that under our famously unwritten constitution the Judiciary are supposedly independent and historically don't take kindly to being pushed around by government. This is particularly true of the Lay Bench, as recently demonstrated here.
But it would be naive to think that as a result of the unprecedented public disorder and numbers arrested that the Criminal Justice System would just tick along as usual, but possibly at a slightly higher gear. Huge numbers of arrested people had to be shipped out of the capital to surrounding police custody suites and Magistrates Courts in several cities undertook all-night sittings. The thing is, unless I can be corrected, these all night courts have not been the preserve of Lay Benches, but rather exclusively District Judges.
Ever since the few Stipendiary Magistrates were renamed and increased in number, there have been understandabe tensions between them and the Lay Bench. There was a widespread suspicion that it was all part of a grand plan to do away with unpaid, amateur justices, not withstanding their 700 year-old history, and replace them all with highly paid professional judges. Although this has been regularly denied and further recruitment slowed down, tensions still remain that all the interesting or difficult stuff get reserved to the DJ.
To some extent this is an understandable consequence of having paid Judges, but the suspicion now is that they have been influenced by political pronouncements over how to deal with rioters. Many being processed through recent all night sittings have been denied bail and there is just a tad of a suspicion that denial of bail might be being used as a punishment in itself. As 'Bystander' makes clear in his recent article, very naughty indeed.
But it's not just worries about political influence on the judicial process, it's also surfaced in relation to the police. Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers has reacted angrily to the suggestion that it was the home secretary that ordered Chief Constables to cancel leave and flood cities with officers. He has stated what I think is the true constitutional position that she has no authority at all to order Chief Constables to do anything. I believe that the position, at the moment at least, is that Chief Constables hold their post as a direct Crown Appointment and as a result have complete authority to act as they, and they alone, see fit. Ok they can be censured, suspended, arrested or sacked even, but they cannot be ordered to do anything. Some might say a pedantic point, but I think we ought to think very carefully as a society what it will mean if we go further down the road of political influence over chief police officers, or judges even.
Only half with you here Jim. The lay magistracy is a curious anomaly whereby the people are expected to have faith in a disparate collection of semi-trained amateurs who have to be led by the hand through the simplest of tasks. Would you like your medical diagnosis to be given by a doctor or the receptionist? It is always instructive to watch solicitors when faced by a DJ as averse to a lay bench; they know that no liberties can be taken and their chances of flannel are greatly reduced. Any contentious issue is always better dealt with by a professional rather than the Local Bumblers, who should be left to deal with parking tickets and dog bites. The self-importance of these types is truly staggering; please do not even think that sitting for 4 hours, twice a week gives great experience, especially when serious decisions have to be made. Please do not even think of lecturing others when you are the least qualified group and those most held in contempt in your own court room. This is not government taking over justice; this is a proper response to a crisis using professionals. DJ’s are used in these situations because the Bumblers are not up to it, period. If they all vanished tomorrow and were replaced by professionals, justice in this country would be swifter and surer, and not collapse.
ReplyDeleteGrim times calls for rapid responses and changing tactics to meet situations. You are witnessing the catastrophic failure of a society spawned by reliance on spurious entitlement and belief that ills are someone else’s fault. These people are violent thieves who deserve censure and not hand wringing from Guardian readers. I see we have already had the witless nonsense from dud Labour MP’s who manage to equate violence and murder with protests over student fees. Mind boggling drivel. These bone headed types might want to work out that the public are interested in law and order, and not cheap political dogma. They may get more precious votes if they react with common sense.
It would be a disaster should politicians start influencing the way in which the police undertake their duties and a catastrophe should they have any influence at all over the justices, magistrates or high court judge
ReplyDeleteThat's a disgraceful description anon gives of our magistrates. Having worked in the courts for a long time now my conclusion is that magistrates are very community minded and sit on the bench in the hope that they can make a difference in the communities they serve. On the other hand the dj's, who I
ReplyDeleteI also have great respect for but for diffrent reasons have a different focus, the law not nessecarily what's best for the community. The dj's are spawned from that expensive elite who rule the courts with their ever expanding greed to fill their pockets from the public purse to send their kids to private school. It is not in their interests to tackle crime in our communities unlike honest magistrates who serve the community for no financial gain or reward.
And by the way, it is also insulting to doctors to compare them to lawyer's. doctors save lives, lawyers ruin lives.
Wow! That’s a lot of cheap prejudice squeezed in one post at 8.13. Thank you for posting; I haven’t laughed so much in a while. I have also worked in courts for a very long time and stand by my view. I presume ‘elitism’ is the usual swear word used against a person who has studied hard and qualified in an exacting profession and actually knows what they are doing. Please explain why mediocrity is superior? I have never understood the lefty idea that dragging down talent rather than let it flourish and do some use in the world was a good way forward. It has certainly worked in education, where our young (upon whom we will all rely in the future) are amongst the most illiterate in the world.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the post is sprinkled with such venomous bigotry I can only hope the poster has no influence over others and no supervisory responsibilities. The usual bile is reserved for ‘ever expanding greed,’ ‘public purse’ and of course, ‘private schools.’ As for presuming how a DJ spends their money ………
A classic. There is no evidence to support any of this drivel, but that never stopped anyone. Please post again; we all need to see where things went wrong.
Chris
I am a qualified solicitor. I know what it takes to qualify and practice as a solicitor. I have no respect whatsoever for any solicitor I know. Studying hard and qualifying do not mean you have principles - frankly in my experience it tends to mean quite the opposite. Chris, I wager there is no evidence to support what you say (you have a right to say it, I will not call it drivel). We don't need "experts", what we need now is wisdom - something there appears to be precious little of.
ReplyDelete"This is not government taking over justice; this is a proper response to a crisis using professionals. DJ’s are used in these situations because the Bumblers are not up to it, period."
ReplyDelete(Anon, 1st response)
Looking at the bail decisions and sentences handed down by all these DJS - all remarkably similar in their severity - it seems to this onlooker that the reason they've been given nearly all the riot cases is that they can be trusted to follow the party line. Of course, being professionals, they know who pays the £100K+ salary & pension.
I'm not against swift and robust dealing with the riot cases, I should say, but six months for a bottle of water after a guilty plea - the absolute maximum sentence available for the offence? When the worst of the fuss has died down, expect some successful appeals.