Where are the Solomons? (LONG)
Discussion
A not uncommon element of threads here is that of distrust in the process of law (starting with its drafting, progressing through its 'consultation' and onto the Statute book, then its implementation and enforcement, and finally to its application in the courts.
Many threads contain concerns about the way certain police officers act or have acted.
But what about the magistrates, who are, for the most part, the arbiters of truth and the weighers of punishment.
Judges have often been criticised for a lack of worldliness, but for the most part they are learned and they research the topic on which they are sitting in judgement. They are generally famed for their impartiality and recluse themselves if they have an 'interest' in the case before them. True, the occasionally make errors and are roundly criticised for them.
But for the majority of motorists, the magistrates are the only 'judges'.
How impartial are they in motoring cases? Should they be required to state whether they are drivers themselves? Should they be required to state their expereince of driving and their experiences in driving? I think so.
I have no involvement whatsoever in the following story, and relate it as told to me (so it's hearsay).
A friend of mine is a magistrate. He is 56, started around the age of 45 and has been sitting regularly for some 10 years. His reports of the magistrates discussions (where there are any) of cases in general and of motoring cases in particular indicates an issue, that, if widespread, means many motorists might well be correct in their assertions that they got a raw deal!
To illustrate, a driver was charged with dangerous driving. His Jaguar motor car had been involved in a damage-only accident on a rainy day, but someone called the police. He had been proceeding along a dual carriageway and collided with a vehicle that turned across his path fron the inside lane towards a break in the central reservation (apparently the driver had missed her turning and was doing a U-turn). Witnesses at the scene estimated his speed at between 50 and 70mph (in a 40 limit) and said that the he had make no attempt to stop. None of these witnesses were called by either side in court. The only witness for the prosecution was the solitary 'beat bobby' police office who attended the accident. No forensic or other expert evidence was presented by the prosecution or by the defence.
The case for the defence was that the other driver had abruptly changed lanes without indicating and that despite heavy braking the defendant had collided with their rear offside door almost square on. The damage to the one year old Jaguar did not render it undrivable, except for the lack of forward lights - so technically undrivable under C&U Regs. The 14 year old Fiat the lady was driving was badly damaged (and the Jaguar driver noticed a lot of rust and dirt on the road after the accident - which the police officer kicked into the offside gutter). These matters were not mentioned by the officer in giving his evidence but were by the Jaguar driver (who defended himself). Further, the police officer stated that both cars were undrivable after the accident, without giving details of the reasons for this.
The magistrates heard the evidence and went into a huddle. The Chairman (retired Major type) and the second magistrate (busy-body matron type) [my friend's descriptions, not mine] were both of the opinion that the accused was guilty. This was based exclusively on three things: firstly, that the police officer's report of the witness' remarks about the defendant's speed (and both the officer and the magistrates tended to focus on and continually refer to speeds at the upper end of the alleged range) indicated that he had been driving at over the speed limit; secondly, that the 'fact' that both cars were undrivable after the accident supported this; and thirdly, that the police officer's statement that there were no skid-marks on the road and his report of the witnesses that the Jaguar's wheels had not locked up indicated that the defendant hadn't braked. Collectively in their view this was 'dangerous driving'. These 'facts' were to them entirely conclusive.
My friend argued against this, and suddenly realised one vital element that had not been considered. Seeking permission, he asked the defendant a number of questions, "What car were you driving?", "A Jaguar XJS.", "Does it have ABS?", "Yes." The magistrates went back into their huddle. Neither of the other two had a clue as to what ABS was or did! My friend had to explain that ABS would have slowed the car down without the wheels locking. His colleagues apparently struggled with this concept! After further discussion, the police officer was recalled and asked about the cars themselves and the damage to them. He agreed that the Fiat was old, and that there was "considerable" evidence of rust on the road afterwards. He also agreed that the damage to the Jaguar was largely cosmetic and that the car was only 'undrivable' because of the damage to the lights. When asked what he deduced from this, he eventually agreed that the impact was probably at a speed below 40mph (the limit for the road at that point). He agreed that the Jaguar had ABS and that he knew what it did. He also agreed that his statement read out in court was based exclusively upon the witness statements' that the car was "speeding" and that the Jaguar's wheels "never locked up"!
The defendant was found not guilty, but despite my friend's protestations at the time, the police officer was not criticised.
When the sitting was over, my friend asked his colleagues why they had not criticised the police officer. He was told that 'informal advice' had been passed down from the Lord Chancellor's Department that it was "unhelpful" so to do and further, that in the past there had been 'informal advice' from the Chief Constable that it might be "unwise" so to do!
And finally, over the course of many sittings with a number of fellow magistrates, my friend has formed the view that most magistrates have adopted and strongly hold to the view that the police are always right and the defendants are always wrong -- whatever the facts of the case! Forensic and other expert evidence for the defence has been completely disregarded in favour of the (mere) word of a police officer, whose evidence is often hearsay. Magistrate's clerks (there to advise the magistrates on points of law) tend to keep very quiet about these and similar issues (perhaps they're received the same 'informal advice'!). I'm not suggesting any serious conspiracy here, but there appears to be prima facie evidence that the course of justice might be being perverted by the very people who administer it.
Many Magistrate's Courts never see a reporter these days, unless there is something 'sensational' going on, and they tend not to attract many of Joe Public either (who wants to go?), so public scrutiny of the actions in those courts in minimal at best. Whilst it is the case that the proper following of laid down processes and 'parity' of sentencing - among other parameters - are monitored, this monitoring is done behind closed doors with only aglomerated 'statistics' being presented.
Where are the Solomons?
Streaky
PS - once again, please note that I am criticising the 'system', not individuals within it - most of whom, I'm sure, try to do the best they can against a background of public suspicion and continual top-down pressure to meet all sorts 'targets'. - S
Many threads contain concerns about the way certain police officers act or have acted.
But what about the magistrates, who are, for the most part, the arbiters of truth and the weighers of punishment.
Judges have often been criticised for a lack of worldliness, but for the most part they are learned and they research the topic on which they are sitting in judgement. They are generally famed for their impartiality and recluse themselves if they have an 'interest' in the case before them. True, the occasionally make errors and are roundly criticised for them.
But for the majority of motorists, the magistrates are the only 'judges'.
How impartial are they in motoring cases? Should they be required to state whether they are drivers themselves? Should they be required to state their expereince of driving and their experiences in driving? I think so.
I have no involvement whatsoever in the following story, and relate it as told to me (so it's hearsay).
A friend of mine is a magistrate. He is 56, started around the age of 45 and has been sitting regularly for some 10 years. His reports of the magistrates discussions (where there are any) of cases in general and of motoring cases in particular indicates an issue, that, if widespread, means many motorists might well be correct in their assertions that they got a raw deal!
To illustrate, a driver was charged with dangerous driving. His Jaguar motor car had been involved in a damage-only accident on a rainy day, but someone called the police. He had been proceeding along a dual carriageway and collided with a vehicle that turned across his path fron the inside lane towards a break in the central reservation (apparently the driver had missed her turning and was doing a U-turn). Witnesses at the scene estimated his speed at between 50 and 70mph (in a 40 limit) and said that the he had make no attempt to stop. None of these witnesses were called by either side in court. The only witness for the prosecution was the solitary 'beat bobby' police office who attended the accident. No forensic or other expert evidence was presented by the prosecution or by the defence.
The case for the defence was that the other driver had abruptly changed lanes without indicating and that despite heavy braking the defendant had collided with their rear offside door almost square on. The damage to the one year old Jaguar did not render it undrivable, except for the lack of forward lights - so technically undrivable under C&U Regs. The 14 year old Fiat the lady was driving was badly damaged (and the Jaguar driver noticed a lot of rust and dirt on the road after the accident - which the police officer kicked into the offside gutter). These matters were not mentioned by the officer in giving his evidence but were by the Jaguar driver (who defended himself). Further, the police officer stated that both cars were undrivable after the accident, without giving details of the reasons for this.
The magistrates heard the evidence and went into a huddle. The Chairman (retired Major type) and the second magistrate (busy-body matron type) [my friend's descriptions, not mine] were both of the opinion that the accused was guilty. This was based exclusively on three things: firstly, that the police officer's report of the witness' remarks about the defendant's speed (and both the officer and the magistrates tended to focus on and continually refer to speeds at the upper end of the alleged range) indicated that he had been driving at over the speed limit; secondly, that the 'fact' that both cars were undrivable after the accident supported this; and thirdly, that the police officer's statement that there were no skid-marks on the road and his report of the witnesses that the Jaguar's wheels had not locked up indicated that the defendant hadn't braked. Collectively in their view this was 'dangerous driving'. These 'facts' were to them entirely conclusive.
My friend argued against this, and suddenly realised one vital element that had not been considered. Seeking permission, he asked the defendant a number of questions, "What car were you driving?", "A Jaguar XJS.", "Does it have ABS?", "Yes." The magistrates went back into their huddle. Neither of the other two had a clue as to what ABS was or did! My friend had to explain that ABS would have slowed the car down without the wheels locking. His colleagues apparently struggled with this concept! After further discussion, the police officer was recalled and asked about the cars themselves and the damage to them. He agreed that the Fiat was old, and that there was "considerable" evidence of rust on the road afterwards. He also agreed that the damage to the Jaguar was largely cosmetic and that the car was only 'undrivable' because of the damage to the lights. When asked what he deduced from this, he eventually agreed that the impact was probably at a speed below 40mph (the limit for the road at that point). He agreed that the Jaguar had ABS and that he knew what it did. He also agreed that his statement read out in court was based exclusively upon the witness statements' that the car was "speeding" and that the Jaguar's wheels "never locked up"!
The defendant was found not guilty, but despite my friend's protestations at the time, the police officer was not criticised.
When the sitting was over, my friend asked his colleagues why they had not criticised the police officer. He was told that 'informal advice' had been passed down from the Lord Chancellor's Department that it was "unhelpful" so to do and further, that in the past there had been 'informal advice' from the Chief Constable that it might be "unwise" so to do!
And finally, over the course of many sittings with a number of fellow magistrates, my friend has formed the view that most magistrates have adopted and strongly hold to the view that the police are always right and the defendants are always wrong -- whatever the facts of the case! Forensic and other expert evidence for the defence has been completely disregarded in favour of the (mere) word of a police officer, whose evidence is often hearsay. Magistrate's clerks (there to advise the magistrates on points of law) tend to keep very quiet about these and similar issues (perhaps they're received the same 'informal advice'!). I'm not suggesting any serious conspiracy here, but there appears to be prima facie evidence that the course of justice might be being perverted by the very people who administer it.
Many Magistrate's Courts never see a reporter these days, unless there is something 'sensational' going on, and they tend not to attract many of Joe Public either (who wants to go?), so public scrutiny of the actions in those courts in minimal at best. Whilst it is the case that the proper following of laid down processes and 'parity' of sentencing - among other parameters - are monitored, this monitoring is done behind closed doors with only aglomerated 'statistics' being presented.
Where are the Solomons?
Streaky
PS - once again, please note that I am criticising the 'system', not individuals within it - most of whom, I'm sure, try to do the best they can against a background of public suspicion and continual top-down pressure to meet all sorts 'targets'. - S
spot on m8
in the magistrats court the sun shine out of the pigs arss
I had 3 trials for the same thing once
a pig give 3 difrent vertions at all 3
got court red handed try to pervert the course of justis
and still got away with it even my solisitor said if it had gont to crow he would have got nicked there and then for perjury and preverting the course of justis.
magistratis are as bent as there rest of the system.
and ushaly dont know F all about anything.
in the magistrats court the sun shine out of the pigs arss
I had 3 trials for the same thing once
a pig give 3 difrent vertions at all 3
got court red handed try to pervert the course of justis
and still got away with it even my solisitor said if it had gont to crow he would have got nicked there and then for perjury and preverting the course of justis.
magistratis are as bent as there rest of the system.
and ushaly dont know F all about anything.
Streaky,
I used to go to magistrates court a great deal when I was a probationer - I was very keen and felt a day without reporting half a dozen people was a day wasted. I used to have an afternoon dedicated to my cases every other week or so and I got used to the foibles of the bench.
I found that most magistrates use common sense and their experience, rather like your friend, and there wasn't much that got past them. Around 15% were dreadful but not all of them were living in fantasy land. We had one politically motivated solicitor who used to sit as a magistrate who was so dishonest that he could have been a barrister.
For some reason he hated police officers and would abuse the process in order to bully. I was once criticised in court for charging a prisoner. When I pointed out that it wasn't me, he threatened to imprison me. I was thrown out of his court twice for telling him he was wrong. His clerk, legally qualified, was also told to be quiet once.
But he was in the minority and, whilst it is wrong that such a man should have been allowed to continue in his post, he should not be used to critise the majority who are honest and wish to put something back into society.
Good on your friend and well done to him. I have seen a much higher percentage of travesties of justice in crown court than magistrates. Much, much higher.
Derek
I used to go to magistrates court a great deal when I was a probationer - I was very keen and felt a day without reporting half a dozen people was a day wasted. I used to have an afternoon dedicated to my cases every other week or so and I got used to the foibles of the bench.
I found that most magistrates use common sense and their experience, rather like your friend, and there wasn't much that got past them. Around 15% were dreadful but not all of them were living in fantasy land. We had one politically motivated solicitor who used to sit as a magistrate who was so dishonest that he could have been a barrister.
For some reason he hated police officers and would abuse the process in order to bully. I was once criticised in court for charging a prisoner. When I pointed out that it wasn't me, he threatened to imprison me. I was thrown out of his court twice for telling him he was wrong. His clerk, legally qualified, was also told to be quiet once.
But he was in the minority and, whilst it is wrong that such a man should have been allowed to continue in his post, he should not be used to critise the majority who are honest and wish to put something back into society.
Good on your friend and well done to him. I have seen a much higher percentage of travesties of justice in crown court than magistrates. Much, much higher.
Derek
Derek Smith said:
Streaky,
We had one politically motivated solicitor who used to sit as a magistrate who was so dishonest that he could have been a barrister.
For some reason he hated police officers and would abuse the process in order to bully. Derek
I like the sound of this guy.
about time some one bullyed them around.
streaky said:
So, it's Latin tag time is it? Well here's one for our friend above:
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultus habebunt.
Streaky
Sona si Latine loqueris.
Me transmitte sursum, caledoni!
Honk Honk
problem is no one is guarding the guards
the PCA is a joke
streaky said:
So, it's Latin tag time is it? Well here's one for our friend above:
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultus habebunt.
Streaky
Sona si Latine loqueris.
Me transmitte sursum, caledoni!
I'm gonna report this post to the mods.
This language is innapropriate!
;-)
toad_oftoadhall said:"Innappropriate" eh? Are you saying it's bar-room talk?
So, it's Latin tag time is it? Well here's one for our friend above:
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultus habebunt.
Streaky
Sona si Latine loqueris.
Me transmitte sursum, caledoni!
I'm gonna report this post to the mods.
This language is innapropriate!
;-)
- Streaky
(the nearest I could get to a Wizard smiley!) 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff