If an offence had been committed, then I suppose it depends upon how seriously one takes the oath that one swears.
One cannot simply ignore this:
'where his views differ from the letter of the law, he will enforce the letter of the law because that is what he has sworn to do'
Because it involves one's own children. No magistrate, no judge and no police officer can ever swear to uphold and enforce the law, without fear or favour, making the exception of family or relatives.
It is a difficult position to be put in but you cannot exempt your children from the punishment of the law, while you make statements that seem contradictory.
If it's enough for Jack Straw, then it's good enough for me - speaking as a middle aged non-parent. So what do I know.
There is nothing contradictory about it. Magistrates swear to enforce the law without fear or favour IN COURT, not in their private family lives.
There is no legal duty to report anyone for a drugs offence. Of course magistrates have a responsibility to uphold the law outside court as well as in court, and to behave properly, but the notion that this translates into some duty to automatically rat on your own children to the police, without exercising your best judgement as a parent, is totally preposterous.
(The sort of people who are unworldly enough or unthinking enough to do so are probably not the best people to sit in judgement on their peers in the magistrates' courts anyway.)
Applicnats should be assessed on how they would behave in court, and whether they behave themselves generally -- not on their parenting skills. This is a matter for the individual conscience of each parent -- the idea that there can be a definitive "right" or "wrong" answer about this is daft.
And I bet that the majority of Crown Court and High Court judges would never dream of shopping their own kids to the police for a minor cannabis offence, knowing that their child would acquire a criminal record. Why hold magistrates up to a higher standard?
In short, whoever came up with that selection criterion is obviously unsuited to that work. It makes you wonder how many other ridiculous criteria are being applied to candidates.
Incidentally Bystander, I had assumed that the selection criteria for new magistrates were the same across the country -- are there still local variations? Do you think it is right, or should there be a single national standard? Personally I think it seems like a "postcode lottery" of justice.
I wouldn't shop either. If turning a blind eye was good enough for Nelson then facing a much greater danger I can't see why it shouldn't work now. And before somebody picks on 'turning a blind eye' as meaning doing nothing, it doesn't. It means using common sense which these days seems to have been replaced by an urge to do the PC thing - no matter how daft that it.
One might also point out that it is no offense against morality to lie to a question which the questioner has no moral right to ask. Bill Clinton took advantage of that, as he had every right to do.
I haven't seen Labour Party Family members reporting each other recently, for sins of such a nature that they have far more serious implications as regards the miscreants' integrity in handling our fellow citizens' affairs
Their excessive Pharisaic law making, its use to 'send signals' regarding unenforceable tenets as opposed to providing sensible boundaries on reasonable conduct, and the stupidities engendered in its literal application just makes for a society which denigrates the authority of, and lacks respect for, the rule of law in that it is seen to lack the proper sense of credibility, justness and fairness that it should have
I won't be letting any public agencies near my children. The idea that they should be subject to the ministrations of some programmed zombie who can do no more than merely regurgitate the letter of a set of rules set by these authoritarian nonentities is appalling. I'll deal with my children myself, thank you
It is, I fear, symptomatic of a general inability to take responsibility - and, moreover, of an inability to appreciate where responsibility could and should lie.
I am not a JP, but I am a school governor and take an interest in various other aspects of public life. The PC way do deal with a perceived problem is not to actually do anything about it, but to "escalate" it to a higher authority. You have then done your bit and can be absolved of any blame that may be thrown around later on. ("I saw him in difficulty in the river, but I called an ambulance / told a CSO, it's not my fault he drowned"... even if you could have pulled him out with ease first - it's the ambulance folks fault, you see, for not providing an instantaneous response. They must be understaffed! Require more tax payers money! Who could deny that!)
Once a problem has been escalated, it may be escalated again. And again. Until either it reaches someone with some level of common sense or someone who has a manual and is able to fit the criteria that define the problem into one of the selections in the manual, and then dispense the solution they are directed to, which, of course, may actually be entirely inappropriate.
This sort of guidance helps no-one. When school staff are told that they should not comfort a child who might come to them in confidence, anxious or upset about bullying at school or worse at home, they should simply "escalate the issue" to the Head"Teacher", or whoever the designated person responsible is. There may be a slightly odd, systematic logicality to that approach, but it certainly isn't going to reassure or help and children, or encourage them to come forwards and talk about - sometimes serious - problems that they might face .
Back to the case in point, then - the correct answer to the question is indeed that you, as a parent, bypass dealing with the cannabis issue yourself, and escalate the issue to the appropriate authority. The fact that the resulting caution from a member of Her Majesty's finest will cause the breakdown of the parent/child relationship, and prevent the parent from doing much more useful in future is symptomatic of the type of unintended consequence that occurs whenever the State attempts to meddle and instruct people how to live their lives.
I'd be far more concerned about the tobacco in the spliff.
The kind of witless robot who could turn his own child over to the police over a thing like that cannot be trusted on the bench.
Those clowns have it exactly backwards.
I think in all honesty I would be talking to the police. The police would come and talk to my 12 year old son and hopefully find out who was supplying the drugs to children.
you see without all the facts you can not give proper answer.
How old is the child in question would be my first response.
Surely, the whole point of the interview process is to identify upright, intelligent candidates, with plenty of common sense, who have a genuine interest in doing their bit for society and are able to make the necessary commitment.
It appears to me that the Advisory Committee under discussion are unlikely to produce a bench that is representative of their local community by excluding anybody who would firstly aspire to deal with such a matter within the family.
Non-Justices reading this blog may be interested to learn that all applicants are expected to answer the following question, both on the application form and at interview.
“Is there anything in your private or working life, or in your past, or to your knowledge in that of any member of your family or close friends, which, if it became generally known, might bring you or the magistracy into disrepute, or call into question your integrity, authority or standing as a magistrate?”
Whilst this is open to some interpretation, it is nevertheless a very searching question.
During my first interview to become a JP, over 5 years ago, the question of how I would deal with any serious problem with my own children came up. I was very honest and talked about how I had dealt with drugs with my teenage children - and had resolved the problem. When I left the interview room I really thought I'd blown it.
However, I did get called back for the 2nd interview. One of the original interview panel members was present and he asked me to tell the rest of the panel about my 'drug experience'. Which I did. The brief scenario was - when I discovered drugs in our house I had calmly presented them to my teenagers and explained to them the options I had available, including calling the police. We spent a great deal of time discussing it very calmly and we all agreed the drugs would 'disappear from where they came from' and they would never come near my house again and no one under the influence of illegal drugs would be in the house again (unless they needed help).
My children have since told me they really respected the way I handled the situation. They had been under peer influence, but the calm parental approach had much more influence in the long term. Drugs no longer seem to play a part in their lives.
Again, after leaving the room at the end of my second interview I thought I had blown it as I expected the 'correct' answer was to inform the police.
Thankfully I was wrong and I was duly appointed as a JP, a position I hold with respect.
I am lucky to have happy, well balanced adult children now who are a great asset to society and I enjoy wonderful relationships with. If I had of involved the police at the difficult time in their lives I think life would have taken a very different course.
Richard75 wrote ... There is nothing contradictory about it. Magistrates swear to enforce the law without fear or favour IN COURT, not in their private family lives. ... It is not contradictory with encouraging magistrates to put the state above family.
Is it the case that husband and wife cannot be compelled to give evidence against each other? If so, is Bystander’s question asked of husband/wife? If not, why not?
Is it the case that a parent/child cannot be compelled to give evidence against each other? If not, why not?
Could we have a situation with a magistrate having a drug taking spouse and child being required to report on and give evidence against one and not the other?
I would hazard a guess that a question of the form “have you ever been aware of any event by anyone which was could have been reasonably deemed as an actual or intended breach of any law and not reported it to the police?” might be forthcoming after a few iterations of guidelines.
Ho Hum wrote ... I won't be letting any public agencies near my children. ... In Germany home schooling is illegal since the 1930’s. Surely that could not happen in the UK?
UpNorthJP wrote ... “Is there anything in your private or working life, or in your past ... call into question your integrity, authority or standing as a magistrate?”
Is the same question asked of barristers, solicitors or accountants?
Is the same question asked to clients of barristers, solicitors or accountants?
It seems to me that those who framed this question would have been very much at home in the Nazi Party in 1938. At that time family members were encouraged to report to the Gestapo any deviation from the party line. I am appalled to think that the same philosophy may be emerging in our judiciary.
DJW has a good point - without involving the police, how do you get to the root of the problem (the pushers). Having said that, the police have *far* too little time to spend chasing up a 2-bit marijuana-pusher around their intense regime of multiple form-filling.
A cousin of mine was taken away by the police when he was much younger under orders of his mum. He spent a few hours in a cell in Glasgow (I can't remember what he'd done - something fairly innocuous) and it put the fear of Grud into him. So if you have nice, friendly local police then perhaps it's an option. But would you really want to risk affecting your own children's employability by giving them a criminal record?
Personally, for the very young kids (12 and under) I'd suggest involving the police on an informal "let's have a chat" level to try and introduce some fear/respect. Much older than that I'd keep it under my own roof - Liz, yours is an example to respect and admire.
If it got out of hand - past dope and into the cat2/cat1 levels - and bringing other crimes into the scenario then yes. Police would be involved. By that stage I'd likely have disowned them anyway.
Many sensible comments above. When I (successfully) underwent the JP application process last year, the first interview was broadly about my attitudes, potential prejudices and how I'd react to various situations on the Bench. I'd hope that pragmatism in dealing with situations such as this would be a sign of someone with good potential to be a Magistrate. If a candidate's first reaction to cannabis use in the family is to report them to the police, then would the first reaction on the Bench be to send them to prison? In the future should I confess every time I nudge over 30mph driving down a steep hill?
As mentioned elsewhere, this presumably appoints an unrepresentative and pious Bench.
I'm sorry, but at what age are children no longer the responsibility of their parents?
Sixteen?
Eighteen?
Or Fortyseven?
Well, not ten years ago, I was 'crossed off the list' because I was gay (and open about it). Seems that not much has changed. After all, we wouldn't want 'ordinary, common-sense' people being magistrates, now, would we (Bystander excluded, of course)?
More interestingly, since the substance in question is likely to be upgraded to class B, would said magistrates still brush it under the carpet and not feel a tad hypocritical when locking up Joe Public for up to 5 years?
This sort "moral dilemma" question is hardly appropriate for interviewing people to be magistrates. The key qualities required of a magistrate are well stated on this website:
http://www.southtyneside.info/co...strate/
type.asp
Questions should be carefully framed to test for those qualities and only for those. This particular question seems to me to go beyond what one might think to be reasonable at such interviews. Indeed, it would be a very strange parent who would bring in the Police in the situation which this question poses.
All this reminds me of the fascinating topic of "jurisprudence" which asks questions such as - "Under what circumstances, if any, can it be right to disobey the law?"
"An unjust law is no law at all", said St Augustine, providing the foundation of civil disobedience movements across the globe. Martin Luther King articulated this view in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".
In particular, laws which have denied people civil rights enjoyed by others have frequently been condemned as "unjust." There are many examples: votes for women; apartheid laws in South Africa and segregation laws in the USA etc.
I digress! Decent and sensible people are the stock of the magistracy and always have been in my lifetime. Long may this continue.
To Mosh I would ask - "How does one involve the Police informally?" Note sure that is possible.
To Bert Rustle - there is no evidential privilege in law which protects a parent (or child) from giving evidence against a child (parent). However, to try to compel a parent to testify against their child (or vice versa) raises significant ethical concerns apart from the risk of alienating the jury/magistrates. As far as I know, it is never done and there is no really effective sanction anyway.
Peter - I suppose in this day and age it may not be possible. In "the old days", it would be a matter of asking the local bobby to have a quick word.
However, there's now a distinct lack of local bobbies and the paperwork resultant from "a quick word in the ear" would deter most police officers from bothering, I fear. No criticism to them - all aimed at the paperpushers that are taking them off the streets and putting them behind desks.
"..It seems to me that those who framed this question would have been very much at home in the Nazi Party in 1938. At that time family members were encouraged to report to the Gestapo any deviation from the party line."
In my view this government has already moved us a long way down the road towards this destination. So far, in fact, that I would not be surprised to find the children of a prospective magistrate being interviewed by the authorities for any little items to bulk out their report.
I wonder how many would behave like 'good little citizens', given the current overarching role of the state in telling us how to behave and what to think...
Andy - "Well, not ten years ago, I was 'crossed off the list' because I was gay (and open about it)."
In my experience unsuccessful candidates are not told why they have been rejected. There are usually many applicants for each available post and lots of highly suitable people are bound to be 'crossed off' as a consequence.
For example, if a Bench's gender mix contains too many men, they will strive to recruit women, even if they consider some of the male applicants to be superior candidates.
Richard75 sums up my own feelings perfectly.
For the benefit of Andy (rejected for being gay) all I can say is that one of the four of us appointed to my bench 18 months ago is gay and was open about it throughout the selection procedure and subsequently. He even argued that it was one of the reasons he thought he would make a good magistrate. The selection panel must have agreed.
You're right UpNorthJP. If you're rejected you don't get told (as far as I know). I was 'informed' by another magistrate on that bench because, apparently, there were some complaints about the reasons for the 'crossing off'.
Yes, JJ-JP,I understand that things have changed since that time, especially for the bench to which I applied.
The problem, I feel, is that, at the time, I did wonder about being totally honest. I felt that, if I were to be a magistrate, I should be honest. But, as Bystander implies, a really good person may get rejected just because of one answer or one thing that doesn't quite fit with the current thinking. Not that I'm saying I was the perfect person, just that, if a good person didn't quite fit the 'standard' they would be crossed off out of hand.
Oh, yes, and I don't think it helped that I lived (actually I still do)with a black man. Quite often the two things go together (homophobia and bigotry). Unfortunately, it coloured (so to speak) my view of the system as a whole.
Its this sort of foolishness that has nearly had me throwing in the suffix a couple of times.
Class C coming to court without supply or previous? Probebly not. I would make sure that I found out the source my daughter had received the drugs and take that to the Police.
What is the law? Are we all obliged to report cannabis smokers to the police, or is there a special requirement for magistrates to do so?
Just like the earlier debate on prostitution, drug use should be an entirely private matter. It should be a medical issue in the case of abuse, and only become a criminal matter if acts are performed as a result of drug use.
As far as most class C drugs are concerned, I accept that they do pose risks to health, but don't see that they pose much more risk than tobacco and alcohol.
I'm generally of the belief that the law should be there to protect us from others, not necessarily to protect us from ourselves.
I was asked this and gave a reply very similar to your post, with the rider that I would report the dealer if I had any information. That seemed to satisfy them last year and I got under the net!
Well clearly magistrates are made of different stuff than the rest of us. Everyone else would have answered the question with the correct answer and then proceeded to the next stage.
This might explan why when these criminals all cry and say they didn't mean it magistrates say 'he is clearly sorry so let's just give him a smack on the wrist'. The criminals then laugh their socks off in the pubs that evening.
Magistrates are no different from other people. I bet most that said they would wouldn't even consider it if their kids did have drugson them.
I certainly wouldn't but I would have passed that simple idiot test.
@ Dave Petterson 01.14.08 - 12:42 pm
I'm so glad you would have given the correct answer, and that you think that as a result you would have passed the test you referred to. However, I doubt if that would qualify you to be a magistrate.
Would I report my kids to the police?
By the time I am through with them the little tykes would wish to christ that I had merely called the police.
I found this post very interesting - I have just had my second interview and am now waiting to see whether I will be recommended for appointment.
I was asked some very difficult questions in the first interview but not the question mentioned above (just as well because my answer would have disqualified me if what Bystander says is true). I have a teenage son so the question could have been seen as being an appropriate one to ask me.
Most of the questions asked were a matter of common sense or testing for any prejudices and some where testing how I would react in a court situation.
I am now waiting to hear but as the process so far has taken over a year I will not be holding my breath!
@Anon - sadly the selection process can take a very long time indeed depending on the Advisory Committee. A year (while far too long in my view) is nevertheless not that unusual. You should hear one way or another - they shouldn't leave you just hanging...
Grassing on your children should disqualify you as a human being and a parent , let alone a magistrate.
One of the way a dictatorship is run is by dividing people (spouse reporting on spouse in East Germany for example, or children on parents), and also by letting the state getting involved in every nook and crannies of your life.
That such a question is even asked is depressing, let alone the answer required.
Good luck Anon. As others have said, the process is a long one and is the only factor to account for the lack of young magistrates. Apply at 21, you could have heard back from the AC by the time you are 40.
That said, I am distressed to read some of the comments on here, only in that they do not reflect my own experience of the Interview process which (and I speak as someone who has employed well over 100 people in my time) I found to be both gruelling, challenging and uniformly excellent.
As for drugs : the Committees should not be surprised to hear of some youthful dabbling, just as we the Public were not surprised when it seemed as though the entire Cabinet and Shadows had indulged in the odd toke.
When being interviewed to become a mag, I was asked if any member of my family had done or could do anything which might embarrass either me or the judiciary. I amswered that I had a student daughter who I strongly suspected as being an occasional cannabis user. The interviewers nodded understandingly and we moved on to another topic. I was eventually appointed a mag and the issue has never come up again.
I am appalled at the thought that use of a Class C substance (I know it might be reclassified shortly) by a member of the family should require a JP to report the matter to the police.
And friends who drive badly? And the colleague who forgot to renew his insurance for a week or two? Where would it end?
Hang on a sec - I thought cannabis was effectively decriminalised in the UK? In which case, why involve the police?
Now, I live in one of the more "colourful" parts of Glasgow, and even if dope isn't decriminalised the only way you could get them to lift you for it is if you put a couple of pounds of hash in a sock and hit a policeman with it repeatedly.
Gordon - a popular misconception I'm afraid (not least on the part of the various users up before us for possession!!)
It is correct to say that many offences that might at one time have been dealt with by way of a court appearence may now be disposed of by caution but get caught twice in a short space of time or with more than just a spliff or two and you will still get done - at least in my area...
It's also often an 'add on' to some other offence too...a bit of taking and driving away for instance - quick search of car and person reveals a little stash...you get the picture...
Commenting by HaloScan
