So.. if it was the police that triggered the accident... will they be charged with Death by Dangerous Driving?
Should the law apply equally to all, and most especially to those charged with defending it?
The law does indeed apply equally.
The burden of proof is a very high one, and just as it may (and I am speculating, pure and simple) prevent a certain charge against the twoccer from succeeding, it may equally preclude a similar charge against the officers who were after all carrying out their duty.
My original question was whether they should have been asked to carry out their duty in that way, in view of the potential risks.
"Should the law apply equally to all, and most especially to those charged with defending it?"
Equally and most especially, interesting.
Bystander, I take it that your final paragraph related to the problem of "causation" of the death?
Our criminal law takes a robust view of causation. The action of the accused need not be the only contribution, nor even the major contribution, but it must be a `substantial and operating cause'
That is well-established by the considerable case law on causation.
Hence, in my view, it should not matter that the driver was trying to get away from the Police.
That would surely also be in accordance with the moral position.
I agree with you asking the question Bystander, however I believe we live in a warped society when we apportion blame in this type of incident anywhere other than on the shoulders of the offender.
Society is currently turning on to it's own head. I am a Guardian reader, I dislike the scare-mongering of the Mail and Express and the ill-considered opinions of the Sun. But the time has come to re-balance the scales and blame those who rightly deserve it.
It may also be worth considering that until a stolen vehicle is stopped the police officer will not usually know the identity of the suspect. In these cases it is difficult to 'write-off' these fail to stop incidents as simply theft. An offender, so determined to escape the police may very well be a murderer, terrorist or simply a vehicle thief. Hindsight is not yet a benefit afforded to the inadequacy of the human condition.
Is "I don't write the sentencing guidelines" the new version of "I was just following orders"?
If your hobbies include letting criminals off with light sentences and blogging about how the police are to blame for the actions of the lunatics they try to arrest don't be surprised when people think this tells us something about you rather than just the people who write sentencing guidelines.
Whats the issue here Bystander? Your liberal credentials or doing your job as the public expect. Justice cuts both ways you know. The guilty should be punished and the innocent set free. Not the former set free time and again to commit repeat offences and walk out of court every time sniggering at the latest gimmicky 'community punishment'. You'd be better off standing down than being complicit in a judicial charade at the behest of a bunch of apologists for crime and the causes of crime.
@Andrew,
If bystander, or any of us, depart too far from the guidelines without good reason, we risk having the sentence overturned at appeal.
So no, it's not a case of "only obeying orders" but of having to play by the rules.
As to who sets the rules, turn your gaze towards Westminster...
Bystander says
"I have broad shoulders and I am no stranger ... etc"
Yeah, so broad that you had to devote a complete posting to answer the criticism instead of dealing with it in the comments.
Sounds like someone is rattled to me.
I posted this also in the previous blog as both are linked.
Seeing how quickly blame or lack of was decided in this case - how come Nigel Gresham the unfortunate driver of the land rover that rolled over into the River killing 4 of his kids is STILL waiting to see if the CPS will take prosecution action against either driver involved???????!!!!!!!!
The suspense must be absolutely agonising for him - see his blog at http://www.adadsheartbreak.co.uk/
Hey! Somebody who wishes to stay anonymous complains that Bystander cannot stand criticism...
Irony, anybody?
Hey somebody who types in any old name (such as Arnaud) makes a point about someone not typing in any old name.
Too much wine, anybody!!
Oooops, forgot to put my name in.
Bystander, I see you used part of my response with the added comment "where did I say that?" I quote from your blog "the public might be better served on occasion by allowing a car thief to get away, rather than taking positive 'action' to stop him when the potential price to innocent passers-by is so high."
This person WAS a danger to the public which is why the police were after him. The eye-in-the-sky would not have prevented any accident, minor or major, it would just have recorded the incident to be shown on TV at a later date.
Having just read further on through the previous comments on your blog Bystander, I can assure you I am neither an armchair hero, I have seen active service during my short life which I suspect is more than you have, having received a more than adequate education makes me suspect I am not an idiot either - just someone who does not agree with your take on this matter.
I am rather surprised that you can see a problem if he is charged with Death by Dangerous Driving if it transpires that it was a police driver whose actions triggered, however inadvertently, the fatal crash. A person drives dangerously when the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. I would have thought that attempting to avoid a police containment operation might itself fit that definition, without even looking at the precise manoeuvre he attempted. After all, a single incident of failing to stop at a give way sign has been held to be dangerous driving. Bear in mind also that although the defendant's driving must have been one of the causes of the death and "something more than de minimis", it need not be "a substantial cause or a major cause or any other description of cause, of the collision" (R v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133).
Bystander, to address the first commenter's point, as far as I know, the Police have the benefit of having their actions in relation to the prevention of crime being judged with a slightly different mental element from the rest of us.
I say this without the benefit of any books to hand, so you may be able to set me straight.
What in interesting discussion. Ultimately I think I have to agree with Bystander somewhat depending on circumstances. If the car theif was not driving dangerously and was being tracked then police intervention "on the ground" is surely unnecessary? However if he was driving dangerously before the police intervened "on the ground" then they had a duty to try to bring that to an end as swiftly as possible.
It all comes down to that original state of driving, and while of course blame has to lie mainly on the shoulders of the offender, if it was purely through police intervention that caused him to start driving dangerously, then they have to take some of the blame too in this situation.
As I said, interesting stuff.
Good post, Bystander. I've learnt two things from it and the ensuing comments: 1. It is impossible to read any post with complete objectivity, and 2. the internet attracts passive-aggressive types. Keep posting, I for one enjoy reading your offerings.
"So no, it's not a case of "only obeying orders" but of having to play by the rules."
Nope, I still can't see the distinction. If the rules force you to do something wrong then you stop playing the game. You don't keep doing it and then complain that you aren't to be held responsible for your actions.
Would we do better to ask why the crash barrier did not do its job. Motorway crash barriers ought to hold back a 35 tonne truck let alone a pickup truck.
As usual our administrative and physical infrastructure does not do what we paid for - it merely offers the pretence of effectiveness. Therein lies the cause of most of the UK's problems.
rogerh
Perhaps the solution is to turn to Mr Mugabe or the Taliban for the answer to "Broken Britain". The Police contributors to this and other blogs (Inspector Gadget springs to mind) would prefer power to sentence and punish to lie firmly in their hands since they know best what works - no objective tribunal, no "Not Guilty" pleas, just Judge Dread style judge, jury and literally executioner dressed in blue. And have you seen half of the 12 year old dimwits wearing blue these days? I wouldn't trust them to decide their left from their right.
So Constables, if you are finding the Courts in this land hampering your ability to deal with criminals, I believe China, Zimbabwe, Iran or Afghanistan may have vacancies for you.
The biggest problem I see is the age old issue of not fully understanding the judiciary system, whereby 'popular' media take an event and look for the headline - not the underlying issues, and fail to present a balanced article for all.
Magistrates aren't there to 'make' the law. Our role is to uphold it - whether we feel it's the right thing to do or not. Sentencing Guidelines are just that - but to go 'outside' of the said guidelines is not easy to do, not impossible, but not your everyday event either.
There are Magistrates who welcome the new guidelines, and there are some that believe some of the amendments are just knee jerk reactions to pacify the popular press.
Making decisions in the public eye is never going to appease everyone, and just as the Police seemingly get it 'in the neck' when something goes wrong, so do members of the judiciary.
"To whom should I be answerable? The Court of Appeal, the Police Federation, or the Daily Mail?"
Technically, the Crown Court and the High Court, no?
Crown Court on appeal against sentence and/or conviction, Divisional Court on bits of law, JRs and such. I've been upheld and overturned by both, but I have never got higher up the ladder than that!
If you have never been appealed, you have never taken a difficult decision, as my old Clerk used to say.
It has been asked - "To whom should I be answerable? The Court of Appeal, the Police Federation, or the Daily Mail?" In answer it was said - "Technically, the Crown Court and the High Court, no?"
Actually, NO. Magistrates are individual office holders under the Crown and they can be personally liable for their actions in the performance of their duties. However, due to statute, they are not likely to attract personal liability unless they act in bad faith.
Bystander, you might like to reflect occasionally on the advice I was once given by a mentor: "Never argue with an idiot. People watching may not be sure which of you is the idiot."
I think it's safe to say the one who is being sensitive about criticism here is you.
Or were you hoping the Guardian and their readers would rush to your defence?.
Nope, I still can't see the distinction. If the rules force you to do something wrong then you stop playing the game. You don't keep doing it and then complain that you aren't to be held responsible for your actions.
Andrew
Do you mean that Magistrates and JPs and Judges should ignore the guidelines of the legal system and decide for themselves in each case what's "right", regardless of the law?
Then by the same logic, if the Police don't like the sentencing the law provides, they should stop being police and go be something else.
What a stupid and immature point of view.
Andrew at 07.20.08 - 7:37 am:
If the rules force you to do something wrong then you stop playing the game. You don't keep doing it and then complain that you aren't to be held responsible for your actions.
Which is a perfect summary of why, after some thought and with some regret, I decided not to apply for the Magistracy.
@ Dai
"having received a more than adequate education makes me suspect I am not an idiot"
Laying yourself open to it a bit there, aren't you? I mean, where to start?
Suffice to say that I'm sure we have all come across highly 'educated' 'idiots' in our time.
Care to define 'more than adequate'?
Education does not equate or amount to intelligence or probity.
@ Former Tory
Since when have the police been an arm of the judiciary? It's not their function to prosecute or, indeed, defend, the accused. It's certainly not their function to sit in judgement.
A. Miller: "You'd be better off standing down than being complicit in a judicial charade at the behest of a bunch of apologists for crime and the causes of crime." - So are YOU willing to step up and take Bystander's place when there's a vacancy, A. Miller? Sounds like you think you could do a better job.
Dai - I think you'll find that it was someone called "Ed" who made the "armchair hero" comment on another thread. Bystander signs as "Bystander". [Desperately resisting urge to say only an idiot would make that mistake...!]
@ Chuck Unsworth
Yes, I know. That was rather my point; a number of them do sit in judgment on the judicial system as well as on the sentences handed down to the toerags. If the Police don't like what the law provides when they've arrested someone, then let them bugger off and be teachers, like Andrew.
Left to their own devices they have this tiresome (and slightly worrying) tendency to sit around on their arses and snipe at sentencing. I mean, if they just lock all us inconvenient proles up (not for what we've done - just for what we might do), they'll be able to cruise onwards to their early index-linked retirements in peace and harmony.
It seems to be becoming impossible to find, these days, any copper with a bit of scrambled egg on the tunic who won't criticise the judiciary, or the guidance to them. That is categorically not the role of the Police.
@ Former Tory
And I'd further suggest that this constant sniping and ill-considered criticism is merely camouflage for their own professional inadequacies.
This is a very old game, one which the Police have mastered over decades. In the main the judiciary is not fooled, but the pity is that the public frequently is.
Do you mean that Magistrates and JPs and Judges should ignore the guidelines of the legal system and decide for themselves in each case what's "right", regardless of the law?
I am saying that if they don't approve of the guidelines they shouldn't be magistrates, rather than following them and then making excuses for their own actions.
Then by the same logic, if the Police don't like the sentencing the law provides, they should stop being police and go be something else.
That's not the same thing at all. Magistrates are volunteers. You expect volunteers to believe in what they are doing. It's why Tory voters don't tend to join the Labour Party, or Muslims join the Church of England. Unfortunately people often don't always have the same flexibility in their careers.
What a stupid and immature point of view.
Whatever.
@ All the "only obeying orders" crowd: there is, I think, a difference between obeying orders to the extent of doing something that you think might not be the best option for society as a whole, when society (via the legislature and the senior courts) tells you to do it, and doing something that you believe is personally, morally, wrong because you are told to do so (like participating in genocide).
Well, now we know: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...and/
7516537.stm
"A 23-year-old man has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving after a man was killed during a police pursuit on a motorway in County Durham.
The 23-year-old, of no fixed abode, also faces a charge of burglary."
Andrew - you seem to have a very simple view of a very complex world! Of course, if a JP didn't agree with the principles governing the judicial system or the majority of rules governing court procedures or sentencing then they really ought to find something else to do. But do you really expect every JP to agree with every rule and every guideline to doing the job? I suggest that is unrealistic and if taken to its logical conclusion would result in the resignation of the majority of JPs (and solicitors, barristers and higher court judges) as there will probably be few who would wholeheartedly agree with the hundreds, if not thousands, of laws, rules and conventions which govern the way we do business.
Magistrates are volunteers. You expect volunteers to believe in what they are doing. [snip] Unfortunately people often don't always have the same flexibility in their careers.
That's the trouble with the public sector; people think there's something sacrosanct about their career, and that reality should be adjusted to suit their opinions and thoughts.
People volunteer for careers at the outset, Andrew, and in the real world, if they don't like what the career's becoming or the way the job's developing, they have the simple choice: go with it or go somewhere else.
Whatever
QED, I'd have said. Over-exposure to the Little Britain Tendency.
"People volunteer for careers"
Thus, being a Magistrate is therefore some sort of career? How so?
What's the difference between a vocation and a career?
Nope, "people volunteer for careers at the outset" in the sense that they make a choice and pursue it. The career doesn't pursue them.
So, if a career develops in a way that isn't desired, then there's a need to reassess whether it's the right one - so there's no difference between a volunteer Magistrate or a career Policeman from that particular perspective. Which was my point to Andrew. Very few of us get to change the world into a place that suits our career progression.
Mind you, since you ask, I would say the key characteristic of vocational employment is that when you play the "awww, look at me, moved to do this because of my lofty ideals and desire to help people" card (nurses, and a few others) then the Government answer tends to be along the lines of "What a splendid, heroic, example to us all you are! How would we manage without you? But since you're doing it for love, and we're a bit strapped for cash, we can't really afford to renew your budget / pay you more this year".
Of course, if a JP didn't agree with the principles governing the judicial system or the majority of rules governing court procedures or sentencing then they really ought to find something else to do. But do you really expect every JP to agree with every rule and every guideline to doing the job?
No, that would be an extreme parody of my position, but nor do I expect them to go to the other extreme and shrug their shoulders and say "nothing to do with me, guv" when the issue of sentencing comes up.
People volunteer for careers at the outset, Andrew, and in the real world, if they don't like what the career's becoming or the way the job's developing, they have the simple choice: go with it or go somewhere else.
People do. The point is that it is considerably easier to understand why someone might not immediately give up their career, even when they find what they are doing to be pointless, than it is to understand why someone would continue to volunteer to do something they don't believe in. Presumably magistrates must believe they are doing some good in continuing to hold the position?
@ Former Tory
So perhaps you'd suggest that higher ideals and motivation - over and above that of filthy lucre - do not exist? Maybe you'd also regard most Magistrates as bent upon some sort of career?
I wonder if there is general agreement with those notions. And I'm not too sure that many Magistrates are playing the "awww, look at me, moved to do this because of my lofty ideals and desire to help people" card - although I'd be interested in any evidence to prove/disprove that statement.
Julia,
Thanks for that. Let's see what a jury makes of it if he goes Not Guilty, gets a decent brief (at this seriousness it ought to be a good one) and offers an alternative plea of Guilty to Dangerous, NG to the death because of the police action. I have no idea - just a thought. Time will tell, as ever.
Bystander, you seem to suggest that a jury may acquit on the charge of Causing Death By Dangerous Driving, due to the police action in the incident. I can see your point of view but I do not believe a jury would acquit, simply due to the lawful police action - however, I can understand a bench of lay magistrates or a single DJ acquitting on this basis though, if the case were ever to be heard in a lower court.
Having always held the judiciary and magistracy in high regard, I do believe that the honesty, true impartiality and lack of 'case-hardening' increases the value of the lay jury weighted against the efficiency that magistrates bring to court. It is the case-hardening that I have referred to that could not only disadvatage a defendant but also the prosecution, depending on the individual mind of the JP.
The general public seems to feel and is constantly barraged with information from the popular media about how crime is now spiralling out of control and how impotent the law and courts seem to be as a prevention and punishment. I believe that this general 'feeling' amongst the public will lead to a possible increase in convictions for any offence, although I am not aware of any academic study to support this.
Magistrates have a legal duty to do, not what is right, but what is lawful. Juries have no such obligation, they may, if they so wish, return a completely perverse verdict - but they may just do what is 'right'.
'To do right' is part of the Judicial Oath.
Bystander, as G.A. Goodban said:
"To be in authority, is also to be under authority"
Anyone in authority must have broad shoulders and will be subject to unfair criticism,
The politically correct mantra come in the words - accountability and transparency.
It sounds as though we need to bring back felony murder.
I think the police doing Bystander-bashing are missing the point.
Police should come here to find out what some magistrates think. So should solicitors, young barristers, new magistrates.
I have no direct interest in the criminal law save as an occasional victim, whose activities are slightly curtailed by the fear of crime. I come here because I value hearing of different people and different ways of viewing the World, and because I respect Bystander, whom I find interesting even when I think him wrong.
Abigail.
We should perhaps all remember that since charges have now been brought this matter is sub judice and we should now all shut up and leave it to a judge and jury.
So perhaps you'd suggest that higher ideals and motivation - over and above that of filthy lucre - do not exist? Maybe you'd also regard most Magistrates as bent upon some sort of career?
@ Chuck U - heavens, no. I'm entirely confident that higher ideals and motivation *do* exist.
I'm also entirely confident that any group using that status as a pay bargaining tool is going to get pished on by Government (and others) who'll attempt to use it, for instance, as a "balancing item" in offering reward packages. Listen to the ads trying to encourage people to become teachers or nurses.
The point was originally about Magistrates "having the decency", in effect, to resign if they don't like the sentencing guidelines, and seems to have crept over into something else. If that's been the result of my contribution, I apologise.
@ Former Tory
Thanks for the clarification. I think most here would regard being a Magistrate as something akin to Holy Orders - very little thanks for doing one's best, but struggling on in the hope of doing some good and, possibly, being rewarded in the Hereafter.
I say 'most' rather than all. I have met one or two Magistrates who appeared to have entirely different motivations...
Not 'liking' the Guidelines does not necessarily mean that Magistrates should resign. I think it perfectly possible to execute the law without agreeing its content or thrust. To give but one example - that old favourite, Speeding.
As to your view of (the?) Government, well it was ever thus. Personally I'd rather have the 'status' that a large yacht or two moored in Cannes or the Bahamas affords. Perhaps we can get the Government to raise the bar on its definition of 'status'.
Not 'liking' the Guidelines does not necessarily mean that Magistrates should resign. I think it perfectly possible to execute the law without agreeing its content or thrust
Certainly.
And I'm sure you'll agree with me when I suggest that the Police should be capable of executing their duties without agreeing the content or thrust of the prescribed legal remedies. And, like Magistrates, without complaining publicly. Or, they should decide the job's not for them, and go be something else - which was my point to Andrew.
Not 'liking' the Guidelines does not necessarily mean that Magistrates should resign. I think it perfectly possible to execute the law without agreeing its content or thrust.
But surely volunteering to execute laws when you disagree with the thrust of them is pointless?
Ah Bystander, you are correct in your statement RE: the judicial oath. But equally the police oath states 'without fear or favour', and alas, this too seems lost on some officers. Much as the 'to do right to all manner of people...' in the judicial oath may also, sometimes, be forgotten. However, the judicial oath only compells magistrates to do what is right 'after the laws and usages of this realm...', whereas a jury need not necessarily bear heed to the law.
@ Peter,
Quite right. Although I have had something to say on this matter, it is quite inappropriate to comment on this exact case now that charges have been brought.
I don't think Magistrates and police are so very different. We are both expected to be fair, impartial and use commonsense whilst adhering to guidelines and policies that are unfair, biassed and at times ludicrous. We both take "calculated risks" in how far to breach policies or take liberties with people's safety.
But there is one difference: police frequently experience the magistrate's workplace by attending court, discussing cases with clerks and lawyers, and watching cases/giving evidence. How often can magistrates say the same about the police's workplace?
Bloggs;
Rarely of course (although I have sometimes done so off-the-record) because we are not allowed to do so officially, for fear of bias. I have had many invitations to see more police work, including a night in the Area Car, but the word from above is 'no'. This may change, since a Very Senior Judge of my acquaintance thinks it ought to, but don't hold your breath. Before the rules changed I have done a couple of interesting visits in a borrowed Hi-Vis, but I must confess that most of my interaction with front-line coppers has taken place in licensed premises.
Why is that Bystander? Understanding the community is surely an underlying principle of being a magistrate.
After all from what I have heard (and please correct me if I am wrong) do JPs not visit a prison as part of initial training?
I feel that the comment by PC Bloggs encapsulates much of the debate. In particular the respective roles and responsibilities.
What Bloggs has confirmed is that the Police routinely make judgements prior to taking action or laying charges. Indeed this happens long before any CPS involvement (where yet further judgements are made). Magistrates, however, cannot (should not) make judgements prior to hearing all evidence. Thus I would argue that they are not so similar.
I'm not aware of great levels of mutual misunderstanding - at least one sees few reports of this. However I am aware of considerable public criticism of both the police and the judiciary. Equally it is common to see the police standing on Court steps after trials expressing satisfaction or otherwise with the outcome of cases. It is unheard of that members of the judiciary might stand on Court steps criticising the actions of the police and/or prosecutors.
So what might be the purpose of increased familiarity with the police and their daily lives? Is it something to do with an increased probability of successful convictions? If so, how does that help real Justice?
I see their is no reponse on the question of JPs having experience within the community.
I am lost for words.
Drinking from a bottle of water whilst in a traffic jam has been prosecuted as dangerous driving, yet a member of the judiciary thinks that killing someone whilst trying to escape from the police in a stolen vehicle is not.
Give him a 6months (suspended) for TWOC.
@ PC Midlands
Would you define 'experience within the community', please?
What does that actually mean and entail?
"the public might be better served on occasion by allowing a car thief to get away"
I'm assuming that you don't want to provide a phone number for the police to call whenever they enter into such a pursuit? Then you can face the 20:20 hindsight critics on their behalf.
Senior officers make these decisions all the time and it appears that this case is no different. The factors are weighed, the risk assessed but in the end it is all just educated guesswork conducted under extreme pressure. Most of the time they get it right.
Also don't forget that there is a risk in not attempting to stop the car. Often the dangerous driving continues even if there are no police around. Also the lack of enforcement will encourage future behaviour to be criminal. He thinks the police won't stop him and if they try he'll drive aggressively and the police will let him go.
A tragic case but as all the various investigations have found there is only one person to blame and he is facing charges. Not that this will help the officers involved much.
Anon - because I like my job and the rules say I shouldn't comment in public.
"What does that actually mean and entail?"
It means having a direct experience of the pain and misery causes by the effects of crime.
We cant merely assume that the judiciary know this anymore, given the lack of fath from the public and other agencies within the system.
A court room hears plenty of mitigation from the criminal.
Its time to listen to the victims.
So, PCM, you'd argue that unless Magistrates have such 'direct experience' they are unfit for the task?
Would you go further, maybe, and suggest that Magistrates should also be victims of crimes that they try? That way they'd have a much clearer understanding of the 'pain and misery', would they not?
And it appears that you disagree with the concept of mitigation. Or is it that you'd wish to limit mitigation in some way?
The thinking here seems to be that 'experience' is a prerequisite. I'm interested in what levels of experience you'd regard as adequate, and what levels of mitigation would be satisfactory.
It's clear that you regard the courts as failing the (majority of?) victims - i.e. the justice 'system' is not working. Is this related to the lack of convictions and/or the levels of sentence on convition?
" So, PCM, you'd argue that unless Magistrates have such 'direct experience' they are unfit for the task?
Would you go further, maybe, and suggest that Magistrates should also be victims of crimes that they try? That way they'd have a much clearer understanding of the 'pain and misery', would they not?
"
I do think that lack of experience of crime and its effects can have an effect on judgements.
The next comment is ridiculous.
Why is that highlighting lack of training makes one so defensive.
"And it appears that you disagree with the concept of mitigation. Or is it that you'd wish to limit mitigation in some way?"
Yes. Absolutly. The fact that a criminal is starting a new job on monday or is expecting a child should have no basis in decision making.
Either that or victims circumstances should also be allowed to be read out in court, including guilty pleas.
Until their is an equality in this area a judgement will always be seen to flawed if not flawed itself.
"It's clear that you regard the courts as failing the (majority of?) victims - i.e. the justice 'system' is not working. Is this related to the lack of convictions and/or the levels of sentence on convition?"
Directly to the level of sentence upon conviction. Sufficient attendtion isnt given to previous offences, leading to habitual criminals with multiple crimes under their belt who pose a real danger to society.
"The thinking here seems to be that 'experience' is a prerequisite. I'm interested in what levels of experience you'd regard as adequate, and what levels of mitigation would be satisfactory."
A training course? A session with victims groups? Coming out with the police on patrol?
Seeing actual victims of crime. It should not be upto the police to manage or suggest this.
Why is that such a hard concept to accept. You serve the public.
After all it is in a JPs training to visit a prison. Why should the opposite not apply?
Well, PCM, I can only speak for myself, but in my time running a business I had many thousands of pounds stolen from me. I have had my car stolen, a van loaded with goods stolen, my office and warehouse burgled, my wife had her handbag snatched, with the thieves using the cards inside, my neighbours were burgled, my brother was sold a stolen car, and last month my credit card was cloned. Two weeks ago while accompanying my wife to A & E, I witnessed a drunken oaf who actually walked in holding a cup of wine, and proceeded to harass the hospital staff. When police arrived I gave my card to an officer and offered to be a witness - no need, he pleaded at court. I have driven over a million miles in 40 years, so I have quite a bit of experience of traffic offences. A few years ago I assisted at the scene of an accident and watched a young motorcyclist die on the grass verge. I wrote here about low-level disorder: http://tinyurl.com/5gyh7s
I have spent full days with Police (can't say where) and with other agencies. I have regular meetings with Victim Support and Witness Support
Will that do, or am I still an out-of-touch old duffer in an ivory tower?
@ PCM
"A training course? A session with victims groups? Coming out with the police on patrol?"
You're suggesting 'training' but you have not described what that 'training' should comprise.
"Seeing actual victims of crime."
Are they not seen daily in the courts?
"It should not be upto the police to manage or suggest this."
You're absolutely right. It is far beyond their remit - rightly so. What the police should understand is that they are certainly not part of the judicial process. Their job is to apprehend and to provide evidence within the context of the law. That is all.
"Why is that such a hard concept to accept. You serve the public."
Accept? Give a good reason why such a concept should be accepted. Serve the public? Precisely. Magistrates swear to serve The Queen, hence the public. They do not swear to serve what the police may regard as 'justice'.
It seems to me that the burden of your complaint is based on the notion that justice is not being done. Actually it is. Whether you like that justice or not is another matter altogether. This victim-centric emotional clap-trap is not a sound basis for a decent society.
Bystander:
That may well be and I appreciate your honesty. But the same can not be said for other JPs. Especially young ones.
I reiterate the fact that you must not only impartial but be seen to be impartial.
Chuck Unsworth:
"Are they not seen daily in the courts? "
No not really. Have a look on this blog to see what some think of a victims right to speak in open court. On a guilty plea the victim rarely comes into it.
"You're absolutely right. It is far beyond their remit - rightly so. What the police should understand is that they are certainly not part of the judicial process. Their job is to apprehend and to provide evidence within the context of the law. That is all."
I have no wish to be part of the executive and have never stated otherwise. Although in the absence of sufficient punishment I feel obliged both as a police officer and a member of the public to comment on what can only be described as a national tragedy.
I fail to see what this comment adds to my suggestion of training?
"Serve the public? Precisely. Magistrates swear to serve The Queen, hence the public. They do not swear to serve what the police may regard as 'justice'."
It’s not just the police though is it?
On speaking to people it becomes apparent to me that persistent criminals should not be given paltry sentences as they are now. It undermines the whole idea of law and order and the consequences are evident to see.
"This victim-centric emotional clap-trap is not a sound basis for a decent society."
Whereas the criminal rehabilitation process is working well? :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/62.../uk/
6293889.stm
"On speaking to people it becomes apparent to me that persistent criminals should not be given paltry sentences as they are now. It undermines the whole idea of law and order and the consequences are evident to see."
If the sentences given by the courts are so paltry, how is it that more people are in prison than ever before, when, so we are told, crime is falling? What are these evident consequences, the fall in crime?
@ PC Midlands
In reverse order:
I'm not in the business of defending the current criminal rehab process. It's not an either/or, anyway. But I am in the business of examining your position.
You're complaining about sentencing without making any suggestion as to how the legislation and guidelines should be altered to coincide with your views. Well, so be it. Who are these 'people' that you are speaking to, anyway? The man in the pub? The lady in the supermarket queue? Presumably you believe that Magistrates do not 'speak to people'. You may have a point.
No, it's not just the police. But the police - as I've said - are not part of the judicial process. Politicians are heavily involved in determining ranges of penalties, so maybe you should address your views to them. The judiciary operate (or should operate) within the law and the sentencing guidelines as handed down by Parliament.
You've advocated 'training' without the slightest indication as to what that training should comprise. 'Training' to do what, exactly? It's all very well repeating this mantra but it actually means nothing until you explain what this entails. We can then debate the relevance of your proposals. 'Training' is simply Motherhood and Apple Pie.
You "feel obliged both as a police officer and a member of the public". As a professional should fully understand the difference. If you can not, then we are in murky waters. Is it a policeman's job to comment on sentencing?
You say "to see what some think". Exactly - 'some' victims. Your position seems to be that the law and sentencing should be changed in some way to accomodate 'some' victims - a self-selecting and unrepresentative grouping? Why, and perhaps, how?
"how is it that more people are in prison than ever before"
Because people are reoffending at an increasing and alarming rate.
We have a revolving door justice system. Its only down to the criminals mindset (that the state will never punish them) that they keep reoffending.
Chuck:
"It's not an either/or, anyway"
No but it is heavily balanced on the wrong side.
"You're complaining about sentencing without making any suggestion as to how the legislation and guidelines should be altered "
I am and have. 1st offence- caution. 2nd offence - caution 3rd offence - 4 weeks.
And create a sliding scale. The current system is not working.
I charged a shoplifter recently for his 48th conviction. He received 2 weeks inside. One can get 7 years for theft. Now that is extreme but half that should be given for persistent offenders. What is the point otherwise. They laugh at you, maybe not in court but believe me they do.
"Who are these 'people' that you are speaking to, anyway? The man in the pub? The lady in the supermarket queue? "
Victims of crime. You know the people who live in disadvantaged areas, victims who’s offenders may never get caught and have their say.
JPs rarely talk to victims and to suggest otherwise is non-sense.
"Politicians are heavily involved in determining ranges of penalties, so maybe you should address your views to them. "
That is correct and I agree. However the decision ultimately falls to the JP. They are not robots. Not to mention this blog rarely criticises the sentencing guidelines.
What is one supposed to conclude from this?
"? It's all very well repeating this mantra but it actually means nothing until you explain what this entails."
See above for my suggestions!
"As a professional should fully understand the difference. If you can not, then we are in murky waters. Is it a policeman's job to comment on sentencing?"
No I am both and am proud to be both.
If police officers don’t speak out then who does? Certainly not Judges or Magistrates, or the many think tanks or people in the human rights industry.
The balance is dangerously wrong and in the last 15 years I have seen a shift in this country which amounts to an irreparable damage. From youths to adults we are creating a monster and it will come back to haunt us.
Someone needs to talk about it.
Commenting by HaloScan
