Quiet week?

Much to ponder on this week in the world of criminal justice?

Well, there has been a seismic shift in the UK constitution flowing from the creation of the Ministry of Justice. To my mind one of the most worrying aspects of this is that the judiciary will no longer be represented in government by a lawyer. After Lord Faulkner hands over the new department of state in a few weeks the cabinet member in charge will not have any judicial function (with no longer, therefore, a foot in both camps; legislative and judicial). Further, the courts and access to justice through public funding will be competing for resources against other facets of the justice system in a more direct sense than ever before.

On being handed the keys to the aforementioned Ministry of Justice Lord Faulkner promptly announced that prisoners who are recalled from licence following commission of minor offences should only remain in custody for a maximum of 28 days. Dressed up as application of liberal principles the initiative is clearly intended to go some way to addressing prison overcrowding. This should, in my view, be an all or nothing area of policy. Either take the position that prisoners who commit any offence, no matter how trivial, should be returned for a substantial portion of their remaining sentences or say that there is nothing to be gained from resource hungry incarceration following minor infringements. Lord Faulkner's compromise position between these two extremes makes no sense, from whichever direction it is looked at.

So, despite a fundamental realignment of the constitution, slipping in the destined to be unpopular early release of prisoners just ahead of the PM's resignation, the decision not to prosecute police officers in the De Menezes case and the jailing of two people for offences under the Official Secrets Act (leaking a memo detailing discussions between Bush and Blair), its been a quiet week then.

White heat of technology

I like a gadget or two. To be honest, I am a bit of a geek on the quiet. Therefore, one of my frustrations is the continuing failure to apply current technology to making the criminal justice system more efficient.

I have a laptop that connects to my office network remotely. With Wifi I am not restricted by location when working with my case management system.

My mobile is a 3G smartphone. I can access email and browse the internet when I do not have my laptop.

I use a PDA for its portability. With its plug in keyboard it enables me to work on documents discreetly while waiting in court.

With all this kit at my fingertips (literally) why is there a complete absence of any sensible digital connection with the other criminal justice agencies? Why can’t I –

• Receive disclosure of evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service electronically?
• Link to my local Magistrates' Court’s listing system to check the scheduling of my clients’ cases?
• Obtain a digital copy of a client’s custody record from the police and check on the diarisation of bail backs?
• Check on a client’s fine account with the court’s system?
• Link to the Probation Service to ascertain progress on community orders and the commencement of breach proceedings?
• Receive confirmation of the status of a client’s review of detention by the Parole Board?

I could go on ad nauseam.

It goes without saying that there are security issues. However, if I can utilise on-line banking services surely a number, if not all, of the examples here of how technology might achieve greater efficiency within the criminal justice system are achievable?

Told you so

Its official. Forget the bleating of a rattled solicitor staring down both barrels of commercial oblivion. The House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee has pronounced on the unsustainability of the Carter reforms of legal aid. The full report can be found here.

The fragility of the supplier base is recognised. While the need to do something about the legal aid budget in relation to Crown Court criminal defence (and child care cases) is acknowledged the fear is that access to high quality public funded legal aid will be drastically reduced, if not wiped out, in certain areas as firms of solicitors go out of business or leave publicly funded work behind. The Committee concludes that, "Access to justice and "value for money" for publicly funded legal work, which are major considerations behind the current reform proposals, are not only about the quantity of legally aided acts, but equally about the quality, nature and adequate geographic spread of those acts of assistance ... Providing effective access to justice is a basic tenet of the rule of law and a core characteristic of the welfare state. The reform proposals must not be allowed to cause irreversible damage to the legal aid system."

My fear is that the electorate are not sufficiently engaged with this issue for the government to heed the warnings and change track. The passing of good quality, accessible publicly funded legal services shall only be lamented when it is too late to restore all the firms that will disappear from the market place under the reforms.

Self-deprecation

I am not sure about the direction of this blog.

I would like to introduce more humour. The problem is I am stymied by the nature of the legal profession and the public’s perception of it.

To illustrate what I mean, it is a lot easier for police officers who blog. There is some really clever and witty writing out there. However, having sampled the delights there does appear to be a distinct formula for success. Usually the humour is self-deprecating with the subject of the blog cast as the front line hero battling, on the one hand, the stupidities of senior management dictats and, on the other, the utter crassness of the British underclass. The reader always has sympathy for the writer because, no matter how daft his or her actions are, they result from the absurdity of the situations they have been forced to endure and, at the end of the day, they come across as the last bastions of that greatest of all attributes of the public servant – common sense.

It is axiomatic to me that this formula cannot work for solicitors in criminal defence. Instead of being over-worked, under-paid, put-upon doers of good (à la police officers) the perception of us is as over-paid purveyors of lies on behalf of criminals. The only reason we are in it is to make a fast buck out of the public purse. If the humour is self-deprecating the response is we have no one but ourselves to blame. Should we take the p**s out of other groups we come across as smug, shallow, money-grabbing gits who don’t give a s**t about anyone else.

So, dear reader, over to you. Do you think I should try to introduce more humour? Should I keep it serious and just report the experiences straight? When you read my blog what do you think I could do better, to make it more entertaining or informative?

Surcharged

It is now incumbent on magistrates, when ordering a fine on conviction, to impose a so called "victim surcharge" of £15. The addition is made irrespective of the nature and seriousness of the offence or the amount of the fine.

The stated aim behind implementation of the surcharge is to provide additional support for the victims of crime, particularly domestic violence. The effect is to require the arbitary imposition of an additional penalty irrespective of the circumstances of the wrongdoing.

The discomfiture of the magistrates tasked with imposing the surcharge is palpable. My experience is that the imposition is usually prefaced with words to the effect of, "We are now required to impose a surcharge of ..." The accompanying body language suggests a duty done with little enthusiasm or agreement.

It is easy to understand why there is this discomfort. It is making magistrates behave in a non-judicial fashion. Instead of deciding on a penalty that is specific to the offence under consideration the court is reduced to little more than a functionary of government required to impose an additional "tax".

Eventful

Eventful and varied few days in the mad, bad world of criminal justice -

• Police are warning people to make sure their wireless broadband connections are secure. Miscreants are apparently parking up outside the houses of the unsuspecting and gaining broadband access by connecting laptops to in-range wireless networks. The police warn that this could put the unwary householder in the potential firing line as a suspect if the access is used for nefarious purposes; exoneration is always possible but not without the inconvenience of having computer equipment seized and examined by the police first.
• 81 year old Abergavenny grandmother, Dorothy Evans, has been imprisoned for six months following breach of her ASBO.
• Nottingham solicitor, Daniela Scotece, has been sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for smuggling cannabis concealed in her bra to a client in custody.
• Michel Sams, notorious murderer and kidnapper who is serving 4 life sentences, boasts he is materially better off as a pensioner inside prison in a letter written to “Inside Time”, a newspaper for inmates.
• AND, by the way, 32 people have been shot dead by a lone gunman at Virginia Tech.

Goat needs help

I'd be grateful for help with advising a client. He has received a summons for keeping a goat without a licence. Despite housing it in his loft for years in order to evade liability the law has finally caught up with him (and the goat). I am struggling to find the maximum penalty. Does anybody know what it is?

Ministry of Justice

The establishment of a Ministry of Justice in this country is long overdue. Sadly, the changes announced yesterday do not achieve that objective. Responsibility for the administration of justice will remain fragmented with no single cabinet member carrying overall responsibility for criminal justice policy.

A life time ago I started my career in the Magistrates' Courts Service. In those distant days the Home Office had responsibility for Magistrates' Courts. This was inconsistent with the fact that all other courts in the system came under the aegis of Lord Chancellor’s Department (LCD). It was sensible, therefore, when the summary courts were shifted to the LCD. However, policing, prisons and probation have remained with the Home Office. The LCD has, of course, become the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) in the meantime.

When the DCA becomes the Ministry of Justice on 09 May it seems it will acquire responsibility for punishment, resettlement and offender management from the Home Office. However, policing and counter-terrorism will remain where they are at present. Responsibility for the Crown Prosecution Service and prosecuting authorities will also remain where they are present - with the Attorney General.

Is this a shuffling of the pack rather than a comprehensive reorganisation? Whatever the motivation behind the announcement (although the official line is that it will enable the Home Office to focus more on security, the suspicion has to be that the Home Office just cannot cope without offloading some areas of responsibility) it seems all that will be achieved is the maintenance of a situation where implementation of criminal justice policy is split across three departments of state. Battling for priority in relation to finite funding with little evidence of properly joined up government will continue.

Anonymous Alcoholic

Obtaining instructions from a client, the following conversation took place.

Exlex ARE YOU USING DRUGS?

Client NO.

Exlex DO YOU DRINK ALCOHOL?

Client YES.

Exlex HAVE YOU HAD A DRINK TODAY?

Client YES.

Exlex DO YOU DRINK EVERY DAY?

Client YES.

Exlex WHEN YOU DRINK DO YOU ALWAYS BECOME INTOXICATED?

Client YES.

Exlex DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE ALCOHOLIC?

Client YES.

Exlex HAVE YOU SOUGHT HELP WITH YOUR DRINKING?

Client NO, I DRINK IT ALL MYSELF.

Lord Chief Justice speaks, will anyone listen?

Lord Phillips strikes again. Not content with sticking the boot into the government over mandatory life sentences (see here) he has also now laid into the trend towards the police giving conditional cautions and on the spot fines rather than bringing offenders to court. More detail to be found here.

Its nice of the LCJ to give it a go but if the government's performance in relation to the consultation on legal aid reform is anything to go by his comments will fall on deaf ears.