But this article from the same page was far more interesting, indicating continuing judicial independence and integrity (as well as delivering another huge smack in the face for the war criminals).
All that now remains is, to see whether the war criminals (sorry the Executive) allow the judicial decision to be implemented.
As someone once said (in a Galaxy far far away) "the judiciary cannot enforce their decisions, only the Executive can do that".
What happens next is going to be a test of judicial authority. If the judiciary is ignored again, or overruled again, then that is yet another gurgle down the plug-hole for any remaining vestiges of such authority and respect.
George
You are right in what you say George, but it would be just like this Government to try to find a way around the courts' verdicts. Brown is on record as threatening to change the law after another judgment he didn't like.
That is exactly what I meant, Bystander.
The system has been corrupted.
And the actions taken are all in our names, as well. I do not like having such things on my conscience.
George
Is the fact that the scales are shown level;
a) An oversight on behalf of the logo design team (BTY just how much did it cost? Is there anyone out there who knows how to raise a FOI question?)
b) An attempt by minijus to pull the wool over our eyes.
c) A hopeful sign that there are still a few insiders who believe in equality before the law. (Not a dig at bystander and his colleagues, but at the technocrats who seem to believe that the law is about administering fixed penalty notices rather then justice)
Jobrag
That logo is dreadful, but didn't the police fulfill the duties of the CPS until relatively recently (last 25 years)?
Perhaps the Magistrates' Association could adopt a logo of two crossed dead Brazilian electricians emblazoned on a mound of dead Brazilian electricians motif.
(Apologies to Rowan Atkinson).
So effectively the police are going to bind over thefts of less than £200. I am appalled. I am also appalled by the low rate of PND recoveries, less than 50%. I agree with your sentiments that were are left holding half a salami at the moment. We must do something with our colleagues to claw back our independence.
It wasn't that long ago when police courts existed so this shouldn't suprise too many people.
The police are far more organised than the CPS and could probably do a far better job - However, it doesn't take a genius to work out that a little independence between organisations in the CJS is a good thing.
What is most needed now is a well funded, well organised and decently staffed CPS. When that happens perhaps the government can stop fiddling with the law.
I don't think the problem is the police prosecuting in place of the cps, so much as them deciding the sentence. The same applies when the cps get powers to impose unpaid work etc.
Of course the police like such deversions as they get a result in a few minutes without reams of paperwork.
I'm too young to remember police courts, but I believe one of the reasons they went is that they didn't do a very good job of it.
Defer an £80 fine? Most of these yobos can get more than that in one day through shoplifting, house breaking or mugging. They'll just pay up and do the same the next day.
Have we ever had a government so weak and insipid? Totally ineffective and Mamby Pamby. 'We will persuade the hooligans to cease their activities - if that's alright with them.'
..." Perhaps the Magistrates' Association could adopt a logo of two crossed dead Brazilian electricians emblazoned on a mound of dead Brazilian electricians motif..."
Umm.. I'm not sure why the Magistrates Association would want a new coat of arms? They already have a very nice one which they are enjoined to use as 'Sunday Best':
http://www.magistrates-associati...oat-of-
arms.htm
Besides, if you were to use Brazilian electricians everywhere, there would not be enough room to include the journalist in the Mini and the coffee table leg.....
Wait a sec.
Criminal law involves questions of evidence that have been known to stump several highly intelligent judges. Prosecutions are often hopeless for reasons that are almost impossible to see from the 'factory floor' level. The decision to charge can be an incredibly difficult one, especially considering the cost of tragging someone through the courts these days.
And you want to put that in the hands of police inspectors? When you're already complaining about 'red tape' and not having enough bobbies on the beat?
You lot are mad.
So, you've got the scales for decision making, the sword for execution of judgment, but Justice is out of the picture?
Martin,
We're not mad. We just vote in people who manage to make us believe things will only get better.
Anyone who saw election night of 1997 will know what I mean
Jobrag
b) An attempt by minijus to pull the wool over our eyes.
Not really as these are two organisations are the two that don't belong to minijus.
Sinister indeed. Why are the cops now seeing themselves as the prosecutors? Because this supine Government has never had the balls to tell them where to get off. Worse, this supine Government hasn't even the slightest ability to govern.
What I wonder is if the next Government (whatever that may be) will have sufficient intelligence to withdraw all of these additional and pointless powers and legislation. Any bets?
Shoplifters facing on-the-spot fines could have the penalties written off if they promise to behave.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/67.../uk/
6703813.stm
Fines of £80 or £50 will be deferred if the offender agrees to be bound by an Acceptable Behaviour Contract.
So how many fines are going to be recorded before matey gets a criminal record? If it's like the other £80 fine system, it won't go down on their record, so they can just carry on shoplifting ad infinitum.
New logo? here's a suggestion..... two steaming dog turds summounted by flying pigs... sums it up for me.
Reminds me of the story of the Engineer, the Scientist, and the Social Worker marooned on a Desert Island, with nothing to eat bar a crate of Baked Beanz - and no tin opener.
"Yes," says the Engineer, "If we hit a can with a rock hard enough and often enough it will split."
"Hmmm!", says the Scientist, "If we gently heat the can the presure will build up and force the can open."
"You fools", says the Social Worker, " If we appeal to the better nature of the can ........ "
Am I cynical, or will we see "Shot whilst attempting to escape" re enter our langauge.
Jobrag,
Non special requirements to make a request under the Freedom of Information act. The request simply must be made in writing and need not even mention the act. Put simply, ask a public body anything and they are obliged to answer - unless they can think of a specific reason not to.
Jobrag,
You may be interested in the Your Right To Know website & book: http://www.yrtk.org/
It may be interesting to note that this 'new logo' has in fact been in use for at least a year. It is used by units, for example the witness care unit, that are staffed by both police and CPS staff. However, I'm sure that it's more fun to believe it has just been drawn up for when the two organisations merge and take over the world.
Freedom in Britiain is being eroded in a "stealth manner". The public are to caught up in their "me me" culture that they don't notice or care. Where are the Civil Liberty people? In America the ACLU would be suing the backside off the government over this.
I see Tarrant accepted a "police caution" for assault even though the forensic evidence said it was questionable. My advice is NEVER accept a police caution - if they have enough evidence they will charge - call their bluff. Tarrant will find it hard to get into the USA now with that on his record.
>Where are the Civil Liberty people?
Where, oh where? If only there were some massive global repository of knowledge in which we could... oh they're here.
If you can un-wring your hands for a second, then feel free (for now) to join or to make a one off donation.
I offered to buy a nice Laura Ashley dress and some make-up for Shami Chakrabarti, but they never got back to me.
More petty bureaucracy. This is so pathetic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ter/
6707509.stm
Soon we'll need written permission in triplicate to sneeze.
Recently we mourned the passing of a beloved old friend, Mr Common Sense.
Mr Sense had been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth certificate was long ago lost in the bureaucracy of red tape.
He will be fondly remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons, as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, and that life isn't always fair.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not kids, are in charge).
His health began to rapidly deteriorate when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place.
Reports of a six-year-old boy accused of sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student when a condition he had worsened.
Mr. Sense declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student, but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Finally, Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses, and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after having ordered a hot cup of coffee he was given a cup with 'caution hot liquid' printed on it by a smiling waiter saying please be careful the coffee is hot.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by two stepbrothers: My Rights and Ima Whiner.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
In general we ( the police) despise the CPS.May 2004 was a very sad time when CPS took over the decision as to whether someone should be charged or not. This has been a major disaster caused mainly by the CPS being un cooperative and insisting on rigid office hours and work to rule. Further cut backs have reduced the available lawyers by half at police station level in my area.I had enough and found a training job when a CPS lawyer insisted I charge someone who had 100 wraps of heroin on them with mere possession. I appealed but it did no good. The other side of the penny is that police officers with less than 5 years in don't know how to prepare a simple report. If anyone does get a ticket PND contest it as you can almost guarantee the evidence will be hopeless and the ticket bureau will cancel it before CPS even look at it.I try and train them and do model statements that include R v Turnbull etc but it doesn't work, the reports still come in full of text speak.I may be nieve but surely the money used for legal aid, of which it is no expense spared time and time again for the same criminals, comes out of the same pot, tax, as the money used for CPS. So I cannot understand why the CPS is so poor and the defence usually so good. Perhaps the answer is if you work for CPS its a steady job and everyone else works the 8 hours and has a full lunch break, gets all the holidays etc etc,and the hardworking ones are scared to rock the boat.Whereas if you work for a defence firm you need to work very hard and be sucessful or face the boot.
Interestingly with the tickets for theft etc (PND) there was alot of arguing about them being too punitive at £80 and very strict criteria apply (or should) as to who can receieve them and they are recorded on the PNC.However new traffic tickets have been implemented £200 and 6 points for no insurance £60 no tax disc and £60 no MOT and three tickets can be issued per stop so long as only one of the offences is endorsable.With this there was no consultation about peoples ability to pay before its introduction.I suspect that these new tickets will keep no insurance cases out of the courts.This is for two reasons one official, keep court lists down to save money and the second one was unofficial in that the government were fed up with the courts issuing £40 fines for no insurance and a few pounds costs. Most people with no insurance can and do argue ( through a legal aid solicitor) that they are very poor and get a very small penalty so at least with the £200 or indeed the £80 shoplifting fine the offender does get a financial penalty and about 75% pay it in the end one way or another.
Its no good slagging the courts off too much because much of it is government policy. Bystander do you agree that someone standing before you tomorrow is less likely to be RIC than 12 months ago.
However I have been in court where the bench simply hasn't understood the case. Also I strongly suspect that the role of magistrate does attract people who have liberal leaning views these days and genuinely care about the 'plight' of the defendants rather than thinking right we have got him for this i.e shoplifting but I know full well he is burgling dwellings so I will give him the maximum I possibly can that won't get overturned on appeal for this to keep him off the streets for the benefit of the public.We need to work as a team the police CPS and the courts and get the worst offenders off the streets.
If you could say to the chief superintendents in charge of the areas you can incarcarate your 25 worst offenders crime would fall enormously.I think the time has come to look after the 99.9% of people who are decent hardworking/retired/at school etc instead of the tiny minority who make life miserable for everyone else. The police and courts know who they are, its time for a radical change in the way offenders are managed in my view.
Is it not not the case when someone is convicted of having no insurance, there is a mandatory ban?
Vic,
Sadly not so the courts do have discretion but the usual penalty is 6 points and a fine.
Hence the tickets were set at this level.
Questions that are posed-
Q What if the individual has more than 5 points already.
Answer the police officer should ask this and if the driver admits this the driver should be put before a court.
Q What about young drivers who can only carry 6 points maximum.
A They must be reported for summons and taken to court.
In my force we recover at the scene uninsured cars under strict criteria, which is basically a signed admission from the driver that the vehicle is uninsured. The PNC is a good guide and I use the word guide specifically as is the Motor insurance agency who are under contract to tell the police if the vehicle is on the insurance database within 15 minutes of a request. However should I so desire I could click or ring on 100s of insurance sites/ companies and insure a car I had just bought from an auction from 8pm pay the premium via my visa and lawfully drive it. This would not be on the databases for about 2 working days. So we ( the police) have to be quite careful.
Sorry for hi-jacking this topic Bystander !
Creative,
1) Can you remember what reasons the CPS lawyer gave for not charging the 100 wraps man with possession with intent? I can hardly believe that decision, but I presume the lawyer must have had some logic (albeit flawed) in his decision. Your explanation for why the CPS are so useless is I think the right one: people who can't cope and survive in private practice just get cushy jobs working for the government.
2) "We have got him for this i.e shoplifting but I know full well he is burgling dwellings so I will give him the maximum."
The magistrates have to sentence him for the crime he was convicted of, they have to presume him innocent of whatever else they might privately suspect he has been doing.
Please don't blame the police for nonsenses like this: I'm pretty sure that the ones who don't spend all their time in the office think it's a bloody silly idea too. The desk-drivers, on the other hand, probably think it's a great wheeze: but for the most part they don't deserve to be called "police", since they do no policing.
The law has changed. A few years ago I was in court as support for someone who was convicted of three driving offences in the same week. The defence lawyer mentioned to the bench he was aware that driving without insurance would mean an automatic ban.
The reason given for not charging supplying was that in her opinion a regular user could take 100 wraps per month himself quite easliy and I had caught him possibly when he had just bought his months supply in bulk.
In 20 years of policing I have never known a no insurance be an automatic ban. Perhaps the person you were involved with already had a considerable number of points already, so a ban would be automatic.
I dealt with one male who received a conditional discharge and no points for this very offence. He had his car stolen which I took the report and I asked the usual, who are you insured with at this point he admitted no insurance policy. He had driven to work 8 hours before. I therefore reported him for the offence, with a note on the additional information sheet that I thought he should be dealt with more sympathetically than usual.
With the point I made about sending the recidavist down for a long time for a simple theft. The legislation already exists for giving extended sentences but simply isn't used. If a magistrate or judge has a very long list of previous convictions in front of them for serious offences this can be referred to when considering the new offence. Don't forget that theft can carry 14 years, my point perhaps badly made was not I think he is burgling I am going to hammer him, his previous convictions prove he is a prolific burglar robber etc, lets use the powers on the statutes and put him away for the simple matter. The magistrates can refer cases to the crown court if they feel they don't have the sentencing powers.
Sadly in my view due to whatever reason, successive liberal administrations, Tory and Labour have basically removed these powers.
to Richard75, that was the point I think Creative was making, the courts can only deal with and sentence the case before them, regardless of the precons or suspected offences commited bythe person in the dock. As every Police officer (and I should hope everyone else in the criminal justice system) knows, 90% of all crime is committed by 10% of the population. The very fact that some people go before the court with 100+ previous convictions proves that they are a prolific criminal - either that or they were just unlucky....
Do not forget that only around 1 in 3 arrests actually end up in a charge, and of those how many result in criminal convictions??
If the guidleines are changed so that the absolute maximum penatly is required for any offence, regardless of severity, when the offender has significant previous (i.e. 25+) then this would allow the most prolific and dangerous people in society to be removed to prevent harm to anyone else.
Is that not how the infamous Al Capone was dealt with??? everyone KNEW he was responsible for dozens of murders and yet he was not convicted through lack of evidence, and so when the chance to actually convict him of anything (in this case tax evasion) that could incarcerate, him they took it - and subsequently destroyed one of the largest mob gangs in US history.
How can it be right that a person who commits 5 burglaries gets 2 years and a person who commits 500 gets 3 years simply because he TIC'd them?? the sentencing in no way reflects the gravity or effects of the crime that invariable no one outside of the Police actually has to deal with. If we have the possibility of removing people who cause such misery, even if is for something else then do we not have the obligation at least to consider the option??
Bring back death penalty for offenders with 30 or more convictions. It is very clear that they will never change their ways and will only cause more misery to Joe Average. Not to mention the cost issue. These individuals are given several chances to change their ways. There are 21 departments that deal with convicts in order to help them to adjust. There is only 1 that deals with the victims.
There is no point giving £80 fines for shoplifting or bad behaviour on the streets - these people will never pay the fine. I would like to see them in a chain gang, wearing orange and having to scrub off that awful graffiti that appeared again on the subway. If hard work doesn't happen, then a little whip lash to the back of the legs ought to sort this problem.
I am sick and tired of seeing my tax money being spent on undeserving criminals. In the end of the day, you can argue until the cows come home that they need to be given various chances in improving themselves. If they do not have any motivation to do it, it just wont happen. The only way to guarantee that the criminal will not re-offend is to lock him/her up with no possibility to parole. Or re-instate death penalty.
When the CPS was set up by the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 one of the main principles was that the new service would be INDEPENDENT of the Police. The independence now appears to be seriously compromised.
I read in my local paper about a lovely young lady who had been found guilty of her 74th offence. Her punishment from the local magistrates court? 6 month bind over. Whisper it, but I would tentatively suggest that if she has been caught 74 times, her offence figure (petty theft and public order) will be around 300 offences (at least)
People (including the criminals) have nothing but contempt for the magistrates courts. I wonder why.
Feel free to start using some of this mythical discretion soon to jail some persistent criminals, and see the difference on the streets.
Alternatively you can spend your time writing pithy blogs about the magna carta while rome burns......
What was this lady's offence then? A bindover is only available for a Breach of the Peace and it is not a conviction.
I suspect it might be a conditional discharge.Incidentally I can remember the days when people got sent to prison if they refused to accept a bind over and this was indefinite until they actually agreed to it,haven't heard that used for at least 20 years. Likewise ASBOs are a nightmare to get one inplace probably takes about 100 hours of police time and that is after they have agreed to and breached good beheviour agreements. Then the benches throw about a third of the applications out, believe me someone has to be a real nightmare for the application to even get past CPS. Then should they be breached they are given chance after chance after chance by the courts I honestly do not know why.
One woman who is probably the most prolific shoplifter in my city the 3rd largest in England has over 150 convictions for theft from shop,I wish I could name her, and has an ASBO not to enter the local shopping centre or go into any shop without money has been to prison twice, a recent 3 month sentence which she served 5 and a half weeks due to weekend release rules and the other was for 3 days when she was remanded in custody but was then granted bail on her second application. This female plunders the shops for high value designer clothing and gadgets and dvds games music etc every single day and usues sophistication with disguises, detaggers and then has the temerity to return the items to the stores for refunds which she gets in cash or more often vouchers at full price.
Obviously she is a heroin addict. I have searched her home many times and you need thick soled boots and needle resistent gauntlets. However it is a huge 5 bedroom Victorian terrace house( in a dreadful area) that could be restored palatially,that she gets free.
A decent shoplifter earns vast amounts more than any burglar as all the stuff is new with a rich seam of customers.
How many people would be tempted by a litre bottle of Bells for £7, or a pair of designer jeans for £10.
If they won't send the worst offenders down what chance for the rest of them.
Also I have never ever heard or read a probation service report that recommended prison even for the most serious of offences.
As an outsider, not a Brit, I have been reading things about the attitude of the folks of the UK toward crime and criminals that are a bit disturbing. One doesn't know how accurate or fair the media reports are of course. But the general sense of these is that civilians are increasingly seen as at fault when taking actions to protect their property and persons against criminals. Criminals coddled, defenders threatened with legal action and denied rights to safety and security that should have priority in any government. This would seem a far more important issue, a far more basic and pressing issue than who administers justice, though that is obviously important too.
"Also I have never ever heard or read a probation service report that recommended prison."
I once read a report recommending a custodial sentence for a youth who had assaulted the author of the report and a social worker at his interview for the report. We had to get a new report done because: 1) the writer of the first one was obviously biased, 2) most of the report was about offences the defendant had not yet been convicted of, 3) most importantly, the court did not have the power to impose a custodial sentence on him in the first place.
Bystander (06.02.07 - 11:35 am )said:
"What was this lady's offence then? A bindover is only available for a Breach of the Peace and it is not a conviction."
But I think that (that claim notwithstanding) you will find that a bindover appears on one's "criminal" record!
Old Man
Re my earlier missive
Yes, I meant conditional discharge. I think I must have lost the will to live halfway through reading the court round-up.
She also had to pay £35 costs. Any ideas how she is going to get the money to pay that?
She isn't a heroin addict, but her current boyfriend is.
She will probably get it from 2 minutes of shoplifting on the high street.
One outlet makes a point of no cameras or security and an ultra liberal refund policy, so as not to intimidate the customers and make them come back.
They also employ 99% female staff most of whom are Mums and will have been customers themselves in the past.
I digress!
Lifting or she will earn it on her back as prostitutes are even more victims than shoplifters these days.
Or she won't pay it and a fine warrant will be issued and it will be written off in lieu of time in the police cells.
Or reduced by 90% by another court.
If I recall correctly, Mátyás Rákosi was the one who wrote: "The way to get control of a country is to demand a little more each day, like cutting up a salami, thin slice after thin slice."
Mátyás Rákosi (March 9, 1892 - as Mátyás Rosenfeld - died February 5, 1971)
Commenting by HaloScan
