Judge criticises police
Aside from the silly mason argument, I wonder if the general public is capable of reading and absorbing information properly. The lad hasn't gone unpunished, I hate to tell you folks, his punishment has been deferred to a later date for him to show that he's not the "little scroat" (not my spelling) he's been labelled as. On top of that, he's also spent time on remand. I would like to see some of the commentators say that wasn't punishment in itself had it been them or a family member in that position.
Rather than criticising the judiciary, who at the end of the day have their hands tied by public policy and government busybodies most of the time, surely people should be asking why the police are allowed to be judge and jury. The powers levied to them in recent years, and increased further with the introduction of fixed penalty notices for public order offences etc means that the police can effectively deal with potentially criminal behaviour on the spot. This looks good for clear up rates, no doubt. I say potentially criminal behaviour; I have known people issued with a notice having actually done very little, and had the person(s) been brought before a magistrates' court, the prosecution would fail to convict based on what actually had taken place.
I was shocked as well when these people told me that they had not been made aware of any process to enable them to appeal the notice. It seems to me that the police have been given a tool with which they can administer justice as and when they see fit. This is clearly wrong. If a person has been accused of behaving criminally, they must be given the chance to answer the accusations in a fair and just way. Every person I know who has received one of these notices had grounds to appeal, and should have done. But in every case, that person did not want to run the risk of being found guilty, and felt that the easiest thing to do would be to pay up, and forget about it. I feel that this is something that is relied upon when such notices are issued. I can feel some further research coming on....
In this particular case, both youths should have been brought before the courts where a judge can listen to the evidence of both to determine where the truth lies. Punishment proportionate to the role played by each could then have been administered. Fairly and justly. Both admitted playing a part in the incident, but the chance to deal with both proportionately was lost the minute a police officer decided to reprimand just the one.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Not a great start to the week...
When I got into my car today, Killing Joke's "Love Like Blood" was playing on my CD player - it seemed, musically speaking more than lyrically, to reflect my current mood. Only Blur's "This Is A Low" would have been more appropriate.
I have had my first ever pupillage interview. As it currently stands, I won't be having a second. Not with this set of chambers, in any case. I feel dejected, rejected and totally disheartened. I rue not filling in the special request form and re-sitting Opinion Writing, Drafting and my Family assessments. I wish I'd never gone to that 6th form college, and taken those A levels. Yes, I have life experience, and I have work experience. It doesn't paper over my academic failings.
I have asked for feedback, and hope to receive something constructive back. Anyone who knows me, will know that I will have analysed the interview, and pulled it, and myself, to pieces. If the pupillage committee can give me any positive feedback, I'll be clinging onto it for all that it's worth.
My malaise is having an affect on my pre-holiday excitement; in that I am not excited. I pity the poor husband who is away on business, and doesn't get the benefit. I may snap out of this mood, and be my usual hyperactive self by the time he gets back. We've got a fair bit planned, including whale watching and a game at Fenway Park. In between, we plan to see the Grand Canyon and the Hoover dam. Not to mention shopping.... The dollar has been weakening against sterling, what are the chances of a crash by this weekend?
On top of this, I will be called to the Bar this week. At least I'll be able to call myself a barrister, even if I won't be working as one. Yet.
I have had my first ever pupillage interview. As it currently stands, I won't be having a second. Not with this set of chambers, in any case. I feel dejected, rejected and totally disheartened. I rue not filling in the special request form and re-sitting Opinion Writing, Drafting and my Family assessments. I wish I'd never gone to that 6th form college, and taken those A levels. Yes, I have life experience, and I have work experience. It doesn't paper over my academic failings.
I have asked for feedback, and hope to receive something constructive back. Anyone who knows me, will know that I will have analysed the interview, and pulled it, and myself, to pieces. If the pupillage committee can give me any positive feedback, I'll be clinging onto it for all that it's worth.
My malaise is having an affect on my pre-holiday excitement; in that I am not excited. I pity the poor husband who is away on business, and doesn't get the benefit. I may snap out of this mood, and be my usual hyperactive self by the time he gets back. We've got a fair bit planned, including whale watching and a game at Fenway Park. In between, we plan to see the Grand Canyon and the Hoover dam. Not to mention shopping.... The dollar has been weakening against sterling, what are the chances of a crash by this weekend?
On top of this, I will be called to the Bar this week. At least I'll be able to call myself a barrister, even if I won't be working as one. Yet.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Is The Law An Ass?
Or is it just the perception of the general public?
I'm getting increasingly fed up with people criticising the criminal justice system (CJS) who quite clearly no idea how it works. I'm not suggesting that the current system is perfect, and that there doesn't need to be any improvement, but some of the criticisms levelled at the CJS are at best mistaken, and at worst downright ridiculous.
The most common complaint is sentencing; I've read on various forums many criticisms. Yet none of the articles referred to by the authors of reason, as they like to think of themselves, contain any of the full details. There's usually no mention of pleas in mitigation, and if there is any reference to it, it's normally just a snippet, and not the full picture. Similarly, the article doesn't give all of the details of the crime itself, just the juicy parts that make for interesting reading. I've observed hearings from the public gallery, and the newspaper report on any case will skirt over the issues, not go into any detail.
Whilst criticising the length of a sentence, the reader is not usually made aware that the defendant in that case pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, Even where this has been alluded to, or in the rare case it is explicitly mentioned, the reader is not informed that the defendant may be entitled to up to a third off the total sentence. Many friends of mine aren't aware that this is the case, so I assume that the reporter believes that it's common knowledge. Er, wrong. If the general public were so au fait with the law, there would be no need for lawyers.
Earlier this year, one local man was jailed for robbery after taking a traffic warden's camera. His family, outraged at the two year sentence, launched a campaign to have his sentence cut. There's no mention that he was given the maximum credit for his guilty plea; the judge was looking at a three year sentence. But as robbery carries a maximum life sentence, three years needs to be considered with some perspective. The Sentencing Guidelines for Robbery suggest a maximum of five years for street robbery, the nearest pigeon hole for this particular incident. The Guidlelines go on to say:
So, in effect, a minority of people do not go to jail if they plead or are found guilty of robbery. Having listened to the evidence, the Judge found that this offence warranted the top end sentence for the offence. I must admit that I was surprised the guy wasn't charged with criminal damage, but he admitted the more serious offence. If he did that without taking any legal advice, then I have no sympathy for him. However, I would suspect that he did have advice, in which case he must surely have been told what the consequences of his actions could be. It then also begs the question, what wasn't reported in the newspaper or in the campaign? After all, it does seem harsh at first glance.
The appeal was turned down, but it was interesting to see that the judge made reference to his previous offences. Hmmm.... It was also interesting to see that the Judge referred to this as a planned robbery, not a spontaneous act as previously suggested. So what exactly did happen on that day? There's certainly more to this than meets the eye, hence my reservations towards criticising the judiciary for sentencing.
What makes this even more ironic is that many of the people I know who criticised the judges who dealt with this matter, also have been critical when judges are seen to be too lenient. It seems that they can't win. Show a bit of compassion, give an offender the benefit of the doubt, and it's wrong; come down hard on offenders, and that is also wrong.
It may be argued that it's the consistency that is the problem. Each case is decided on its own facts, and each offender is sentenced on his or her own circumstances. It's rare to see a Crown Court sentencing where there isn't some form of pre-sentence report recommending an appropriate sentence. These decisions aren't made lightly. But for me, whilst judges are human and are liable to make mistakes, they can only sentence based on the guidelines given to them, and it's the Government who decide what these should be. So instead of criticising judges when you don't agree with a sentence handed out, first of all see if they've acted within the limits given to them by the people you've elected into power.
For anyone who wants to see what goes on, any member of the public (over the age of 14yrs, of course) is allowed to sit in the public gallery and watch proceedings. It's a real eye opener, and you'll see that sentencing is not as simple as it looks. I recently visited Loughborough Magistrates' Court, and the Bench I observed outlined all of the aggravating and mitigating factors that lead them to the decisions that they had made. If you really want to do something about it, become a Magistrate, a lawyer, or even a Judge!!
I'm getting increasingly fed up with people criticising the criminal justice system (CJS) who quite clearly no idea how it works. I'm not suggesting that the current system is perfect, and that there doesn't need to be any improvement, but some of the criticisms levelled at the CJS are at best mistaken, and at worst downright ridiculous.
The most common complaint is sentencing; I've read on various forums many criticisms. Yet none of the articles referred to by the authors of reason, as they like to think of themselves, contain any of the full details. There's usually no mention of pleas in mitigation, and if there is any reference to it, it's normally just a snippet, and not the full picture. Similarly, the article doesn't give all of the details of the crime itself, just the juicy parts that make for interesting reading. I've observed hearings from the public gallery, and the newspaper report on any case will skirt over the issues, not go into any detail.
Whilst criticising the length of a sentence, the reader is not usually made aware that the defendant in that case pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, Even where this has been alluded to, or in the rare case it is explicitly mentioned, the reader is not informed that the defendant may be entitled to up to a third off the total sentence. Many friends of mine aren't aware that this is the case, so I assume that the reporter believes that it's common knowledge. Er, wrong. If the general public were so au fait with the law, there would be no need for lawyers.
Earlier this year, one local man was jailed for robbery after taking a traffic warden's camera. His family, outraged at the two year sentence, launched a campaign to have his sentence cut. There's no mention that he was given the maximum credit for his guilty plea; the judge was looking at a three year sentence. But as robbery carries a maximum life sentence, three years needs to be considered with some perspective. The Sentencing Guidelines for Robbery suggest a maximum of five years for street robbery, the nearest pigeon hole for this particular incident. The Guidlelines go on to say:
The Court said that, irrespective of the offender’s age and previous record, a custodial sentence would be the court’s only option for this type of offence unless there were exceptional circumstances, and further:
· the sentencing bracket was 18 months to 5 years, but the upper limit of 5 years might not be appropriate ‘if the offences are committed by an offender who has a number of previous convictions and if there is a substantial degree of violence, or if there is a particularly large number of offences committed
· subject to the same qualifications, the upper limit would normally be three years in cases where no weapon was used
· an offence would be more serious if the victim was vulnerable because of age (whether elderly or young), or if it had been carried out by a group of offenders
· the fact that offences of this nature were prevalent was also to be treated as an aggravating feature.
Although the Court stated that there could be ‘exceptional circumstances’ in which the perpetrator of a street robbery might receive a non-custodial sentence, no appellate decisions have come to light in which a non-custodial sentence for street robbery has been upheld. However, statistics show that for offences of robbery sentenced in 2002, non-custodial sentences were imposed on 8% of adult offenders.
So, in effect, a minority of people do not go to jail if they plead or are found guilty of robbery. Having listened to the evidence, the Judge found that this offence warranted the top end sentence for the offence. I must admit that I was surprised the guy wasn't charged with criminal damage, but he admitted the more serious offence. If he did that without taking any legal advice, then I have no sympathy for him. However, I would suspect that he did have advice, in which case he must surely have been told what the consequences of his actions could be. It then also begs the question, what wasn't reported in the newspaper or in the campaign? After all, it does seem harsh at first glance.
The appeal was turned down, but it was interesting to see that the judge made reference to his previous offences. Hmmm.... It was also interesting to see that the Judge referred to this as a planned robbery, not a spontaneous act as previously suggested. So what exactly did happen on that day? There's certainly more to this than meets the eye, hence my reservations towards criticising the judiciary for sentencing.
What makes this even more ironic is that many of the people I know who criticised the judges who dealt with this matter, also have been critical when judges are seen to be too lenient. It seems that they can't win. Show a bit of compassion, give an offender the benefit of the doubt, and it's wrong; come down hard on offenders, and that is also wrong.
It may be argued that it's the consistency that is the problem. Each case is decided on its own facts, and each offender is sentenced on his or her own circumstances. It's rare to see a Crown Court sentencing where there isn't some form of pre-sentence report recommending an appropriate sentence. These decisions aren't made lightly. But for me, whilst judges are human and are liable to make mistakes, they can only sentence based on the guidelines given to them, and it's the Government who decide what these should be. So instead of criticising judges when you don't agree with a sentence handed out, first of all see if they've acted within the limits given to them by the people you've elected into power.
For anyone who wants to see what goes on, any member of the public (over the age of 14yrs, of course) is allowed to sit in the public gallery and watch proceedings. It's a real eye opener, and you'll see that sentencing is not as simple as it looks. I recently visited Loughborough Magistrates' Court, and the Bench I observed outlined all of the aggravating and mitigating factors that lead them to the decisions that they had made. If you really want to do something about it, become a Magistrate, a lawyer, or even a Judge!!
Leicestershire's children are the laziest in the country
According to the Leicester Mercury today. Following on from last week's posting, it would seem that the culture of driving kids to school is more than prevalent, despite what parents would like the rest of us to think. With the school holidays around the corner, it will be interesting to see if certain roads continue to be a nightmare at certain times of the day. History suggests that they won't; I don't see this summer being any different....
I walked into the neighbouring village last week, which according to Google maps was just over a mile. I must admit, the sunshine made it a nice walk, but it certainly didn't feel that far. The purpose of my trip was to get my haircut, and out of principle as much as the chance to enjoy the sunshine, there was no way I was going to drive. I had the misfortune of passing the local primary school at chucking out time. The selfishness of some of the parents shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. Looking at some of the parents, it looks like they could do with leaving the car at home and walking, as well as their podgy offspring....
I walked into the neighbouring village last week, which according to Google maps was just over a mile. I must admit, the sunshine made it a nice walk, but it certainly didn't feel that far. The purpose of my trip was to get my haircut, and out of principle as much as the chance to enjoy the sunshine, there was no way I was going to drive. I had the misfortune of passing the local primary school at chucking out time. The selfishness of some of the parents shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. Looking at some of the parents, it looks like they could do with leaving the car at home and walking, as well as their podgy offspring....
Friday, July 02, 2010
Poor people aren't living as long...
...as those who are richer. The life expectancy gap is increasing between those who have, and those who haven't. Apparently GPs need to do more to encourage poorer people to change their lifestyles. There is an assumption that poor people don't know that good diet and an active lifestyle is better for them. It's not their fault that healthy food is so damn expensive.
Or is it?
I grew up in the late 1970s, and I knew as a child that sitting on my backside, smoking and drinking wouldn't do me any good in the long term. I also knew that eating to much food would make me put on weight. Hey, I even knew what foods were healthy and not healthy, not bad for a 5 year old in Leicester City, one of the areas highlighted today as being one of the most deprived and notable for slow increase in life expectancy. So it's not rocket science, is it. My parents may not have had much, but they ensured that we had a home cooked meal on the table every day, that was an adequate portion, and using fresh ingredients. We weren't the only family who managed to cope in those dim and distant days.
Has any of these people conducting these studies ever stopped to consider that the reason why poorer families live unhealthy lifestyles isn't because they can't get fresh food at affordable prices, or can't afford gym memberships? Hasn't it occurred to them that people want to be lazy? They can't be bothered to cook, not when it's easier to phone for a pizza or a curry. One of my facebook buddies has mentioned on numerous occasions that her dole-scrounging neighour has a takeaway almost every day. She is not the only person to mention this. That's got to be a minimum of £10 a night on food. I don't spend that making food from scratch! So this suggests that it's not the cost of fresh food that's putting people off...
That's not to say that some people do struggle to make ends meet, and find food for their tables. It has been reported that more people are taking advantage of charities such as Fareshare to get their hands on fresh ingredients and advice on healthy eating. Similarly, exercise doesn't have to be expensive. Walking, running or jogging are free, and a great way of keeping fit. If you want to, of course... Just this week, it was reported this week that one dad is so fed up with parents parking their cars illegally outside his daughter's school, he has now set up a facebook group to name and shame the offenders. Good on him, I say. What happened to walking your kids to school? "I have to go to work....", well leave earlier, you lazy sod!!
It's just typical, to me, that yet again, everybody expects everybody else to sort out their problems for them. The sooner people realise that they are responsible for their own lives, the better.
Or is it?
I grew up in the late 1970s, and I knew as a child that sitting on my backside, smoking and drinking wouldn't do me any good in the long term. I also knew that eating to much food would make me put on weight. Hey, I even knew what foods were healthy and not healthy, not bad for a 5 year old in Leicester City, one of the areas highlighted today as being one of the most deprived and notable for slow increase in life expectancy. So it's not rocket science, is it. My parents may not have had much, but they ensured that we had a home cooked meal on the table every day, that was an adequate portion, and using fresh ingredients. We weren't the only family who managed to cope in those dim and distant days.
Has any of these people conducting these studies ever stopped to consider that the reason why poorer families live unhealthy lifestyles isn't because they can't get fresh food at affordable prices, or can't afford gym memberships? Hasn't it occurred to them that people want to be lazy? They can't be bothered to cook, not when it's easier to phone for a pizza or a curry. One of my facebook buddies has mentioned on numerous occasions that her dole-scrounging neighour has a takeaway almost every day. She is not the only person to mention this. That's got to be a minimum of £10 a night on food. I don't spend that making food from scratch! So this suggests that it's not the cost of fresh food that's putting people off...
That's not to say that some people do struggle to make ends meet, and find food for their tables. It has been reported that more people are taking advantage of charities such as Fareshare to get their hands on fresh ingredients and advice on healthy eating. Similarly, exercise doesn't have to be expensive. Walking, running or jogging are free, and a great way of keeping fit. If you want to, of course... Just this week, it was reported this week that one dad is so fed up with parents parking their cars illegally outside his daughter's school, he has now set up a facebook group to name and shame the offenders. Good on him, I say. What happened to walking your kids to school? "I have to go to work....", well leave earlier, you lazy sod!!
It's just typical, to me, that yet again, everybody expects everybody else to sort out their problems for them. The sooner people realise that they are responsible for their own lives, the better.
Friday, May 14, 2010
I'm sorry if driving properly inconveniences you....
....actually, I'm not. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than that dirty look you give me when I am waiting to turn right out of a T-junction, and you want to turn right and cut the corner, but can't. All because I am positioned correctly in the road. Thinking of clipping my car? Please do, your insurers will be glad to sort that one out.
Standards of driving in the UK are shocking. I wonder how people managed to pass their driving tests, the incompetence on display really is that bad. I honestly believe that there are too many cars on the road. How on earth can this be allowed, you may ask yourself? Well, I ask myself that, and I've come to this conclusion; cars are enormous revenue earners for the government. VAT on new car sales and other necessities, road tax, tax on fuel, it all adds up. Why spend money on a working public transport system when people can be given their own vehicles which fill up the coffers? It's a no-brainer.
But is it right?
Today, I've almost had the front end of my car taken off by people who "need to drive for their living". AKA White Van Men. Give way line? You'll come out worse than I will, mate. On top of that, I've waited, unnecessarily at roundabouts, because you apparently don't have to use indicators these days. I believe all new cars are fitted with telepathy. Or something. As for the white lines in the middle of the road, that's not to separate traffic, it's a guiding line one must follow. If my driving instructor is still alive, he wouldn't be if he'd seen what I had seen.
Thank goodness for the weekend and wine. No more driving for me, today....
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Play Offs - reward or heartache?
As a Leicester City fan, I've experienced both the highs and lows of play offs. This year saw the first time a City side failed to reach Wembley having made it to the play offs. This does not have any bearings on my current feelings - the play offs should be scrapped.
I can see the reasoning behind them. It's to keep the season alive and for longer. To create some excitement as the season reaches its climax. To give more teams something to play for. But is that the case? I don't think so.
A league structure is a true reflection of the season. It rewards, or punishes, consistency. The teams that win the most games go up, the teams that lose the most go down. It's simple. So why should a team that has had a less consistent season be fighting for promotion? It sends out the message "ok, we're not good enough to win promotion in our own right, but hey, we have another bite at the cherry". A club that has invested in the right management structure, the right players, and the right training system, but narrowly misses out on the top two spots enters the lottery that is the play offs. Fourty-six games of hard work, and consistency, is swept aside to give three, four, maybe five less consistent clubs another chance to get promoted. Why, then, bother? It's not just football; rugby union's top prize is decided, not by awarding the team that has scored the most points over the season the title, but by setting up qualification for a mini cup competition! Clubs are getting wise to this, and coaches may decide to rest players for games, whilst expecting the fans to pay full price for a game of rugby involving reserve team players. How long before football managers decide that this is the 'most effective' way of managing a squad?
The excitement argument would be more persuasive if there were play offs at both ends of the table. Why should it just involve promotion? Lets have more teams fighting for their divisional status, be it remaining in the same one, or the next step up. The original play off format did involve a battle for relegation and promotion. Why change it?
If those who run the leagues wanted to make the season more exciting, why not change the points structure, and scrap the play offs? Go back to the days of two points for a win. Three points were introduced to encourage wins, but rather than making the gap between a win and draw bigger, it should be as small as possible. If you want to get ahead and give yourself a breather from the chasing pack, you have to win your games if you only get two points. If it's three points, you can afford to win a few, and not be too worried by the occasional defeat or draw. Make it two, and a team cannot rest on its laurels.
As for our opponents, Cardiff City, they have managed to stave off yet another stay of execution. Their involvement in the play offs has meant that they have been given the chance to trade their way out of their financial predicament. As a Leicester fan, it would be wrong to question the rights and wrongs of such a decision. What I do wonder is, what will happen if Cardiff fail to make the Premier League? Will they have made enough to make themselves safe? Or will they be forced into administration? What will happen if they are promoted, but the High Court decides to issue the winding up order? Or Cardiff voluntarily go into administration? Will the Premier League agree to them joining? When will they face a points deduction? Should it be for this season that is ending, or should it be next? Can of worms; I'm thinking it's a barrel! I, for one, hope that whatever happens doesn't open it up. It would be unfair on us, who missed out on a spot in the final, and Swansea, who missed out on the play offs altogether. Replaying the play offs would be impractical. I get the feeling that Burnley would be spared relegation rather than giving us or Swansea another chance of Premier League football. And after the heartache and sleepless nights, I am more than happy to wait until next season before going through it all again!!
I can see the reasoning behind them. It's to keep the season alive and for longer. To create some excitement as the season reaches its climax. To give more teams something to play for. But is that the case? I don't think so.
A league structure is a true reflection of the season. It rewards, or punishes, consistency. The teams that win the most games go up, the teams that lose the most go down. It's simple. So why should a team that has had a less consistent season be fighting for promotion? It sends out the message "ok, we're not good enough to win promotion in our own right, but hey, we have another bite at the cherry". A club that has invested in the right management structure, the right players, and the right training system, but narrowly misses out on the top two spots enters the lottery that is the play offs. Fourty-six games of hard work, and consistency, is swept aside to give three, four, maybe five less consistent clubs another chance to get promoted. Why, then, bother? It's not just football; rugby union's top prize is decided, not by awarding the team that has scored the most points over the season the title, but by setting up qualification for a mini cup competition! Clubs are getting wise to this, and coaches may decide to rest players for games, whilst expecting the fans to pay full price for a game of rugby involving reserve team players. How long before football managers decide that this is the 'most effective' way of managing a squad?
The excitement argument would be more persuasive if there were play offs at both ends of the table. Why should it just involve promotion? Lets have more teams fighting for their divisional status, be it remaining in the same one, or the next step up. The original play off format did involve a battle for relegation and promotion. Why change it?
If those who run the leagues wanted to make the season more exciting, why not change the points structure, and scrap the play offs? Go back to the days of two points for a win. Three points were introduced to encourage wins, but rather than making the gap between a win and draw bigger, it should be as small as possible. If you want to get ahead and give yourself a breather from the chasing pack, you have to win your games if you only get two points. If it's three points, you can afford to win a few, and not be too worried by the occasional defeat or draw. Make it two, and a team cannot rest on its laurels.
As for our opponents, Cardiff City, they have managed to stave off yet another stay of execution. Their involvement in the play offs has meant that they have been given the chance to trade their way out of their financial predicament. As a Leicester fan, it would be wrong to question the rights and wrongs of such a decision. What I do wonder is, what will happen if Cardiff fail to make the Premier League? Will they have made enough to make themselves safe? Or will they be forced into administration? What will happen if they are promoted, but the High Court decides to issue the winding up order? Or Cardiff voluntarily go into administration? Will the Premier League agree to them joining? When will they face a points deduction? Should it be for this season that is ending, or should it be next? Can of worms; I'm thinking it's a barrel! I, for one, hope that whatever happens doesn't open it up. It would be unfair on us, who missed out on a spot in the final, and Swansea, who missed out on the play offs altogether. Replaying the play offs would be impractical. I get the feeling that Burnley would be spared relegation rather than giving us or Swansea another chance of Premier League football. And after the heartache and sleepless nights, I am more than happy to wait until next season before going through it all again!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)