Soul and Heal

The excellent NHS Blog Doctor points us to this mordant comment on so-called 'alternative' medicine. When some enthusiast for The Alternative Way gets hold of me at a party or in the pub, I try to remind myself of the fact that nobody who has just been run over by a bus has ever been known to call "get me a homeopath" rather than a properly equipped paramedic ambulance.
The good Doctor has previously made another telling point that has stayed with me:- when the Queen or Prime Minister or any other highly valued celebrity travels with an entourage, that entourage will include a doctor, rather than a 'nurse practitioner'. Sauce for those geese is sauce for this here gander.

The Long Arm Of The Straw

What can I say about this?

Or this?

Interesting Case

Thanks to Crime Line for this interesting case about sentencing. I am sure that Justices' Clerks across the country will be issuing guidance about it.

When a matter is too serious to be dealt with there and then a bench will order a pre-sentence report. As required by the 2003 Criminal Justice Act we have to complete a reasons form to hand to Probation. We fill in the starting point for the offence, then aggravation and mitigation, and any personal factors. We then indicate our view of the appropriate sentence, often bracketing across several options. If custody is an option, immediate or suspended, we have to say so. Many of us write "ALL OPTIONS OPEN" on the bottom of the form to avoid any doubt. I always read the form to the defendant and make sure that he understands if custody is on the cards. There is case law, referred to in the above report, that if the bench indicates a community penalty then the defendant has a 'legitimate expectation' not to go inside. Until now, that has been that (and much frustration can be caused by careless benches who tie the hands of eventual sentencers). The High Court has upheld the DJ(MC) who ignored that on the grounds that the decision was 'perverse' and that too raises a few questions. Their Lordships mention the fact that the bench ordering reports did not reserve the case to itself, but that is not at all unusual because of the problems in reconvening a lay bench. It looks like this one was doing half-day sittings so they couldn't even deal with it later in the day. If we convict after trial I always insist that at least one of us comes back for sentence, despite the fact that our Clerk doesn't like it. If needs be I will swap into a sitting, or simply adjourn the sentence to a day when I or a colleague are in. I think that the objection owes more to administrative convenience than to justice. Someone who has sat through a trial and heard the evidence and seen the witnesses will have a far fuller understanding of the case than someone looking at a single A4 proforma.

So let's see what our advisers make of this latest case. I will keep you informed, of course.

Old Bailee

Deciding on bail is one of the most important tasks performed by magistrates, and while we have the Bail Act to guide us, there is a considerable degree of judgment required. When someone comes before us in custody from the police station the Prosecutor will make representations before the Defence make their bail application. These days there are a few Prosecutors who are on something of a mission, and who vigorously oppose bail in almost every case. This means that we have to look carefully at the objections before we reach our decision. The other day a man was brought in, and the Crown opposed bail because he was already on (bail) remand awaiting committal to the Crown Court for six high-value thefts, and had just been charged with a seventh. The Crown submitted that this raised the fear that he would commit further offences, so please would we lock him up. I questioned the Prosecutor closely about the seven offences, and it turned out that the seventh theft was carried out at the same time as the first six, but the police had only just got together enough evidence to charge him with it. So the offences were all of a piece, the objection was not made out, and we re-bailed him on the same conditions as before. The CPS need to do a bit better than this. Prosecutors have a duty as officers of the court to assist proceedings and they must try to avoid a knee-jerk policy of always opposing bail.

War On Drugs - Latest

Phew! That's a relief.

Puts me in mind of this.

A Personal View

If I were Justice Secretary and I were asked whether or not to confirm a decision of the independent Parole Board to recommend the release of a prisoner of almost eighty, who is fed through a naso-gastric tube and who has a broken hip and requires constant nursing care, I am pretty sure I would go ahead and confirm it.

But then I am not a politician, and I couldn't give a toss what the tabloids think.

Here's the threat to society - looks dangerous doesn't he?

Crikey!

I have just stumbled across this list of revised fees to be charged by magistrates' courts. I'm not sure how I feel about HMCS charging for the services that I give for free (well all right, for a few biscuits then).

What Was That Again Officer?

'The promise of reform which the Green Paper heralds holds much for the public and Service alike; local policing, customised to local need with authentic answerability, strengthened accountabilities at force level through reforms to police authorities and HMIC, performance management at the service of localities with targets and plans tailored to local needs, the end of centrally-engineered one size fits all initiatives, an intelligent approach to cutting red tape through redesign of processes and cultures, a renewed emphasis on strategic development so as to better equip our service to meet the amorphous challenges of managing cross force harms, risks and opportunities.'

The above is apparently a quote from an ACPO document. Once I had recovered from the GBH done to my native language I started to feel a sneaking sympathy for the less exalted coppers who have to put up with this rubbish.

The whole story is here.

What Can I Say?

About this ?

And They Say Our Sentences Are Never Realistic

Convicted fraudster Bernard Madoff has been sentenced to 150 years in jail for orchestrating the largest fraud America has ever seen.

That's more like it!

Just one thing though - I suspect that he may never do the full term.

Call it a hunch, but I'm pretty shrewd about these things.

A Thoughtful Look at G20

In the Times.

Yet More Useless and Unnecessary Claptrap

Still the Government blunders on, passing useless and damaging laws for the sake of a cheap headline. Now, according to the BBC, parents (or more likely the parent) of kids who don't go to school are to be threatened with fines and imprisonment.

Children who skip school are vastly more likely than their peers to end up in trouble, and will face a lifetime stuck on the fringes of society and the economy. They are a social and an educational problem. But they are not a criminal justice problem - at least not yet.

What are we supposed to do, faced with Miss Smith, 30 but looks 40, lives on a crap estate, and is on benefits, as she had been since her son Dwayne was born when she was 16? Dwayne is now heading for six feet tall, like the father he has never seen. He can't read and write and finds school meaningless despite the heroic efforts of his teachers. His social worker can't do a lot more than keep his file up to date. He has been bunking off for years and hanging out with his gormless mates.

Miss S pleads guilty (no choice, really). Under the guidelines her Relevant Weekly Income is deemed to be £100, so we fine her Band A (£50 less a third, so call it £35) plus Surcharge (£15) and costs (cut those back a bit so say £30). We make a Deduction from Benefit Order to take the fine out of her benefits at £5 per week. What the hell will all that achieve?

The truancy problem is important and complex. It needs painstaking, down-and-dirty work at the school, on the estate and in the home. It will be expensive and unglamorous. It may well fail anyway. But it's more use than dragging an inadequate mother into the dock of a criminal court.

Open Your Eyes

The perks and expenses of senior BBC people are coming under scrutiny at the moment. Even after allowing for the fact that Rupert Murdoch has a strategic financial interest in clipping the BBC's wings, there are certainly some questions to be answered.

As we have seen in The City and in Parliament and in big business and elsewhere, when you allow people - any people - to set their own remuneration they will, being human, give themselves the benefit of the doubt. Any sensible system will impose impartial and firm controls to deal with this fundamental trait of human nature.

I have a serious suggestion for the BBC. Let the senior people who control its spending each sit for a day at the back of a magistrates' court that is dealing with TV licensing cases. Let them see the procession of poor, usually female, usually bedraggled people who trudge through court, having, under the new fine guidelines, three-figure fines imposed, plus costs and (!) Victim Surcharge. Of course there is a proportion of people who just don't like paying any bill, but let's put this into perspective. The licence fee is more than two weeks of Jobseeker's Allowance, and about a day-and-a-half's worth of the average wage. The £2000 spent on flying the boss's family back because Sir had to sort out the Ross/Brand fiasco represents more than 33 weeks' worth of JSA for the poorest licence payers. So come and have a look at JPs fining the unlicensed in - note - a criminal court. Then, next time you want to charge up a £200 lunch at the Ivy for two people who are already well-off you will have a better idea of where the money comes from. I'll be happy to arrange it, and I might even come along myself.

Hot From The Press

Here are the very latest sentencing statistics released by the MoJ. Make of them what you will - I would be interested to hear what the informed public thinks about them.

Oh yes, and here's the annual report of the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

Sad

The 19 year-old defendant sits behind the armoured glass of the secure dock, flanked by a Serco guard. Tall, mixed-race, he sits in a slumped posture. He has stolen and promptly eaten less than two pounds' worth of food from a supermarket. He has spent the night in custody, for no reason that I can understand. Guilty Plea. The duty solicitor mitigates. Her client stole because he was hungry. He was in care for most of his young life, and turned loose when he became 16. Whatever support he was given has vanished now. He has no family, no friends, no job, no home. The solicitor urges us to impose a fine, deemed served by the time in custody which will allow the young man's immediate release. That's the way we go.
The solicitor tells us that she has directed the client to go straight to the Civic Centre to try to sort out some emergency accommodation. The young man does not look up while this is going on.
Magistrates are not social workers. We just played our small part - the criminal justice system has absolutely nothing to offer this young man, other than a prison cell if, like so very many former in-care young people, he turns to crime.
I have no power to do anything about him, but I can't get him out of my mind.