Monday, January 28, 2013

Sleeping Giant Stirs

I was surprised and delighted to read in Sunday's Sunday Times that Magistrates' Association chairman John Fassenfeld was extensively quoted in an article about out-of-court disposals, and now today I saw him interviewed on BBC London News, where he made a decent fist of it.

I wonder if this badly-needed  raising of the MA's profile has anything to do with Chris Brace, the new Chief Executive. I have met Chris, and his skills are a mile ahead of the sclerotic old guard that used to run the MA.

12 comments:

  1. Comment by anon reposted from the 'what a nose' piece below:

    Totally irrelevant but I think important. Why was JF on BBC today suggesting that littering should be dealt with in court and not by fixed penalties when the MA has been virtually silent on the low levelwork that mags are now required to do? Is it because he anticipates (correctly) more mag courts closing and is desperate for work? Far more sensible to be moving work from CC to MC; that really would speed up, but not impair, justice, and reduce costs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous @15:27 - I assume it was partly triggered by this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21200058 I didn't hear the Today programme - but there is obviously a concern that FPNs are being used to generate revenue rather than prevent offending.

    Personally, this was the most worrying quote, "Unlike with parking fines, the only appeal option is before magistrates - where Ms Cullen said was warned she might face a £2,000 fine." Ordinary members of the public not familiar with the judicial system might believe that such a substantial fine is a likelihood if they chose to fight the claim. Whilst I've no time for those who litter I can't believe that any system is without fault and _some_ people must be accused in dubious circumstances, especially if those charged with identifying them has a financial incentive. Is it in the best interests of justice that people in such circumstances face a "threat" of £2000 fine v's an £80 FPN.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I too am hopeful that Chris Brace might bring the MA into the 21st Century. At least he did engage directly with those of us who complained during the 'consultations' farago over judicial blogging even if the end result was not as many of us would wish. That is a start. I sincerely hope that it continues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too - Chris Brace has brought a breath of fresh into the MA, and was extremely pro-active in dealing with the blogging issue, all credit to him. John Fassenfelt has done the same during his tenure, and won a lot of friends in our county bench when he came to speak at our annual meeting - a fellow magistrate who spoke the same language and thought the same way as us.

      Delete
  4. I think the MA needs to be careful how far it goes. It is for the courts to determine matters brought before it, not to dictate to those who prosecute what matters to bring. There is a distinct difference.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Was not impressed given that CJ stats. say that out-of-court disposals have gone down not up. Too much reliance on the Daily Mail?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Those issuing penalties sometimes inform the recipient of the maximum possible fine if the individual chooses to challenge the 'ticket'. Few realise that actual fines imposed will often be much less than the maximum (and related to means) but will nearly always be more than the penalty. Plus costs.

    In reality, many people prefer penalty notices IF in accepting it they avoid a conviction.

    There is no way whatsoever that government is going to return to all these minor cases having to go to court. The reality is that they will continue to develop and use out of court methods - they are much cheaper and that's all that matters to the bean counters.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Any person who believes that they have wrongly been issued with a fixed penalty notice should write to the local authority concerned and ask for it to be reviewed. Any local authority which does not have a fair and transparent review process is in my view leaving itself open to a complaint to the Ombudsman.
    Regrettably whilst many people in this country are keen to shout about their rights few have any idea of their responsibilities, knowledge of the laws they are subject to or the judicial and quasi judicial processes used to enforce those laws.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For low level stuff is court really the answer for someone who is guilty? Probably not; and very expensive.
    On the otherhand should serious stuff be disposed of by inaction or fixed peanlties? Probably not; can the system afford it? Probably not; but has to otherwise anarchy rules.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It occurs to me that FPNs are potentially disproportionate. A £30 FPN is nothing to someone on a decent wage, but for someone on benefit or low income, it could be a significant proportion of their means. I thought financial penalties were supposed to be proportionate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the crime

      Delete
    2. Fines are based on relevant weekly income was the point I was alluding to. They are of course proportionate to the offence, another factor which FPN can't take account of.

      Delete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.