Outside the Law

Quiet week?

2007-05-11T20:30:00.000+01:00

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

2007-05-06T01:04:00.000+01:00

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

2007-05-01T19:40:00.000+01:00

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

2007-04-24T19:11:00.000+01:00

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

2007-04-22T07:56:00.000+01:00

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

2007-04-20T00:06:00.000+01:00

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

2007-04-01T11:37:00.000+01:00

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

2007-03-30T16:41:00.000+01:00

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

2007-03-28T11:10:00.000+01:00

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?

2007-03-23T19:14:00.000Z

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.

Lawyers on the rampage

2007-03-22T17:40:00.000Z

Pakistan today. UK tomorrow? See here.

Beauty is in the eye of ...

2007-03-22T09:11:00.000Z

Ugly defendants 'more likely to be found guilty than attractive ones'.

Of course I only represent the really good looking ones.

National Training Day

2007-03-17T16:49:00.000Z

Along with all my regional criminal practitioner colleagues I will be participating in the CLSA National Training Day on 21 March. It seems likely that the region will reflect the national picture.

The effect? No solicitors will be available to deal with non-duty solicitor cases in magistrates' courts and police stations. Solicitors will meet their contractual obligations in relation to the duty solicitor scheme. However, inevitably there will be disruption to the administration of justice.

The question, therefore, is what justification is there for the withdrawal of solicitors from courts and police stations in favour of commitment to undertaking training? It must not be forgotten that the participation in training will come at considerable cost to individual firms. While solicitors are engaged on training they will not be fee earning.

The point is that, almost without the public noticing, the government is introducing cataclysmic changes to the provision of publicly funded criminal defence as a result of Lord Carter's review. This is happening with unprecedented haste. Solicitors are obligated to making sure that the changes are fully understood with steps being taken to properly disseminate them to staff. Hence the need for intensive assimilation and training on 21 March.

One of the things my partners and I will be considering carefully is whether our business will remain viable following implementation of the changes. A short history may be of interest.

We started our firm in September 2001. The then current framework of contracting for publicly funded criminal defence services had been in force from the preceding April. Our assessment of what was required for high quality legal services in crime at reasonable cost led to a business model based on low overheads achieved through keeping the firm small and heavily dependant on IT.

Our problem now is that the Carter report, which is the driver of the current reforms, suggests that we got it wrong in terms of size. The strategy of not putting too much fat on the bones has backfired.

We are based in modest premises. There are six fee earners who are all self-reliant in terms of administrative output. However, it is questionable whether we fit into the Carter model for the size of firm the Legal Services Commission will contract with in the future.

Carter, of course, has a solution. Amalgamate or form an association with other firms. The inherent danger in this is that our central values and ability to operate as an efficient unit would be dissipated. The paradox is that to grow the firm we inevitably increase overheads without any clear path to achieving a proportionately greater fee income.

Even if we do survive as an entity in our current form it is inevitable that this will be on a reduced income. The days of fat cat criminal solicitors milking the legal aid fund are (if they ever existed) long gone.

I have a modest family home. We enjoy one, very average, holiday per year. OK, so the car is an Audi but it is definitely not in the first flush of youth. If I remain a specialist criminal lawyer even this unostentatious lifestyle is under threat.

Not very long ago a friend did a 3 day course in tiling. He bought himself a van and some equipment. A highly successful business is now established with his services in great demand. I am not being melodramatic when I suggest that there is a real risk of the theme of this blog becoming ceramic decoration in the not too distant future.

Postscript - Sally Clark

Whatever my problems they are as nothing compared to what the Clark family have been through. See more here.

At the risk of seeming facile, Sally's tragedy underlines the fact that miscarriages of justice can and do happen; the disincentivisation of good quality legal representation endangers one of the essential balances in our legal system and makes miscarriages more likely.

The sentence of the court

2007-03-09T18:49:00.000Z

A day of contrasting reports in relation to sentencing.

It started with the report, this morning, of the spot of consternation caused the government by Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, when he told an audience at Birmingham University on Tuesday that some murderers are serving too long in prison. He said that it was regrettable that government guidelines on the length of time murderers should spend in prison had had the effect of "ratcheting up" sentences. By coincidence, we then had two high profile sentencing cases jockeying for media attention this afternoon.

In the first, 52 year old crime boss, Terry Adams, received 7 years after pleading guilty to conspiracy to launder income from crime between 1997 and 2003. It is said that he was such a prolifically successful offender that he was able to "retire" at the age of 35. He was sentenced, effectively, for living the high life off the proceeds of crime, not the original offences from which his wealth derived. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 he will be eligible for release on licence at the half way point of his sentence. He could be released even earlier on "Home Detention Curfew" if exceptional circumstances are found to be applicable (prisoners who receive more than 4 years are assumed to be unsuitable for HDC but there is discretion).

The second case concerned Perry Samuel. This 35 year old manic depressive received life sentences for the murders of his two children, Aidan, 3, and Caitlin, 5. The minimum term specified by the Judge was 35 years. The first formal review of a lifer's case by the Parole Board takes place 3 years before the end of the minimum term. The purpose of this review is not to consider release but to look at whether the offender has made sufficient progress to be moved to an open prison regime in order to establish a release plan. Accordingly, it will be 32 years before there is any possibility of a formal review of progress towards rehabilitation, if any, made by Perry Samuel.

The BBC has reports in relation to all the above. Click the following links;
Lord Phillips
Terry Adams
Perry Samuel

Judge for yourself

2007-03-08T20:47:00.000Z

Reasonable restraint?

Assault?

You be the judge.

BBC report here.

You WILL plead not guilty

2007-03-07T13:52:00.000Z

Classic stand off before the hapless bench landed with the domestic violence court today.

Unrepresented defendant pleads guilty.

The CPS outline a fairly typical "misunderstanding" between husband (defendant) and wife resulting from the consumption of about 10 pints of Paul Weller (Stella), each. The happy couple ended an otherwise idyllic evening with a lot of pushing and shoving and the injured party suffering the indignity of a fat lip after being punched.

Defendant is then asked if he has anything to say to which the considered response is, "I never twatted the fat cow like it says in that statement. She was arse holed when we got home. She was well wound up because I'd had a skinful with me mates. Stupid tart then slapped me and pushed me out of the front room, tried to bang the door behind me, it bounced back and gave her the fat lip."

Court Clerk, "So you didn't hit her?"

Defendant, "No."

Clerk, "In fact you seem to be saying that you didn't really assault her at all."

"That's right."

"So why did you plead guilty?"

The response, to the effect of "to get it over and done with", met a standard spiel about an equivocal guilty plea and the duty of the court being to direct that a not guilty be entered if necessary. The Clerk was backed up by the Chairman. No head way was made. The only sensible fall back position was then utilisied and the weary duty solicitor was drafted in.

Oh Lord, thank you for it not being me on rota. After about 30 minutes the red faced duty solicitor came back and reported that despite her best efforts the defendant was still intent on pleading guilty although he was also sticking with his version of events. Called back in to court, he was asked directly to confirm both his plea and his version of events. He did. The court duly explained its duties, again, directed a not guilty plea be entered and a trial date was fixed. The Chairman announced that conditional bail would be extended but then made the fatal mistake of asking if the defendant understood. There was that moment when you could have heard the proverbial pin following the reply, "Yes ta, but why can't I just plead guilty?"

When it was finally all over the time elapsed (including that spent with the duty solicitor) was 55 minutes. Achieved; one trial fixed. Thirty minutes of sitting time remained with about 10 cases to go. No pressure.

Self-induced intoxication

2007-03-06T19:42:00.000Z

The Times today reports the case of R v Head. Self-induced intoxication, decided the Court of Appeal, could not remove the element of intention in a charge of sexual assault under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offence was categorised by the court as one of “basic intent” as opposed to “specific intent”. It was the defendant’s case that, as he was drunk at the time of touching the injured party sexually, it could not be proved that the touching was intentional. The evidence was such that it was clear that the touching was not an inadvertent accident. The Court of Appeal said that whether his drunkenness meant he did something he would not have done if sober or he did not remember it afterwards did not destroy the intentional character of his touching.

In many respects this is a re-statement of the law as it applied to corresponding offences prior to the 2003 Act. Perhaps the most interesting comment comes towards the end of the judgment of Lord Justice Hughes when he observes that there is no universally logical test for distinguishing between crimes in which voluntary intoxication could be advanced as a defence and those in which it could not. There is a large element of public policy with categorisation to be achieved on an offence-by-offence basis.

Out of the blue

2007-03-06T19:38:00.000Z

Have been suffering nostalgia overload for a couple of days as a result of buying the recently issued 30th anniversary edition of Out of the Blue by the Electric Light Orchestra. I was 16 first time round.

Listening to Out of the Blue was something you kept to yourself in 1977. This was the year that punk really started to oust the old rock dinosaurs with releases such as No More Heroes by the Stranglers and Never Mind the Bollocks, Here Come the Sex Pistols. In my peer group you were either for the Stranglers or the Sex Pistols. I was firmly in the Stranglers camp. Even so, I was never very “cool” – I had no conception that the Strangler’s Golden Brown, released in 1982, might be a song about the enjoyment to be had (apparently) from heroin.

As I suggest, appreciating Out of the Blue was not equated with street credibility. However, I am sure I was not the only one who enjoyed ELO’s straightforward tunes far more than most of punk’s angry raucousness.

Salt Case (2)

2007-03-02T13:46:00.000Z

Angela and Ian Gay have been acquitted after their retrial. See here.

See my earlier post concerning this case here. Clearly, Mr and Mrs Gay would say the Judge got it absolutely right.

Nisha Patel-Nasri

2007-03-01T23:23:00.000Z

The husband of Special Constable Nisha Patel-Nasri has been charged with her murder. Is it just me or has it become a statutory requirement that the grieving relative who makes an impassioned plea for witnesses on TV is ultimately charged? I make no comment on the merits or otherwise of the evidence against the husband in this particular case but shouldn't there be some form of caution administered at the same time as make up is applied pre-press conference?

Pro bono or not pro bono?

2007-03-01T23:13:00.000Z

A client faced trial today for which he had the benefit of legal aid. The case has been running for some time with a Representation Order granted under the pre-means testing system. For reasons that have no relevance to the point of this post the trial was put off until a later date.

Running concurrently are proceedings for breach of a Community Order. The breach was admitted at an earlier hearing and the case adjourned until today for preparation of a pre-sentence report with a view to revocation. The adjourning court made it clear that custody is the most likely outcome on sentence being re-imposed for the original offence.

Legal aid was applied for in relation to the breach proceedings. Due to the timing this was under the new means testing regime. Although the application passed on the interests of justice test it was refused on means. The client considered his position but decided that he cannot afford to pay me privately. He appreciated that I cannot work without remuneration, commenting himself that no-one would expect a plumber to turn out free of charge.

At the conclusion of deliberations on the trial matter I explained to the court my difficulty over acting in respect of the breach. The bench was understanding and released me from the proceedings without critical comment. With prosecution papers concerning the original charges to be located the case was put back in the list and I departed.

Despite having no other logical commercial option the fact that I left court unaware of the fate of my client left me with a feeling of unease. The Duty Solicitor could not act because legal aid had been refused. Should I have represented him pro bono?

Bail application 2057

2007-02-28T11:10:00.000Z

Prisoner FP129 was awake, as usual, a few moments before the morning alarm sounded. After the customary 6 beeps the prisoner information system provided an audible reminder that he would be appearing in court after breakfast.

As a pre-conviction remand prisoner, FP129 was allowed canteen association status. This meant he could have breakfast with other inmates rather than alone in his cell. However, he was soon returned to his "pad" to make final preparations for the hearing.

Once the prison security system had detected the presence of FP129 a metal screen in one of the cell walls, about 1 metre by 1 metre, slid back to reveal the PIP or Prisoner Interaction Panel. A computer rendered prison officer appeared on screen, told FP129 to sit down and took him through his pre-hearing preparation.

The first set of options concerned his appearance. Having been scanned on arrival in custody the default setting was for FP129's holographic avatar to appear in court as he was when first remanded. However, using the PIP touch screen he was allowed to select a limited number of enhancements. FP129 opted for a haircut and a suit instead of the T shirt and jeans he had arrived in.

Next FP129 was able to access his advocate's avatar. There was only one MDLP (Multi Disciplinary Legal Practice) that dealt with criminal cases in his home city and, therefore, his choice of legal representation was limited. The PIP linked FP129 to the MDLP computer which confirmed the availability of a virtual lawyer for court. Having analysed the type of case and information held on the prisoner an optimised avatar was generated.

Having introduced itself as Jeremy, the advocate avatar confirmed that prisoner FP129 was remanded in custody 7 days ago in respect of a denied allegation of assaulting a community recycling enforcement officer. The full file of evidence to be disclosed by the SPS (State Prosecution Service) was outstanding; Jeremy advised that the SPS computer, which was linked to the MDLP’s, predicted a period of 16 weeks for disclosure although, of course, there was no guarantee the target date would be met. Jeremy said that all he could do was try to persuade the court that bail should be granted in the meantime. Standard bail application 12G had been filed that morning.

FP129 asked why a standard bail application had been submitted. There were personal things he needed the court to be aware of. Jeremy explained how the court’s computer undertook a risk assessment based on the filed bail application. 10,000 euros had been transferred from FP129’s account to the MDLP’s to cover the cost of submission of a standard bail application. To design and submit a bespoke application would cost twice that sum and Jeremy stated his firm was aware he did not have the funds to cover it.

At that point the prison officer came back on screen and announced that the court session was about to commence. FP129 was told to sit still and look at the screen. His facial expressions would be projected on to his virtual presence in the court room.

The next person FP129 saw was the Summary Judge who explained that, although the hearing was taking place in virtual reality, it would proceed as if FP129 was corporeally present. It was confirmed that Jeremy and a virtual representative of the SPS were also present.

The Summary Judge then stated that he had received the prosecution's application to adjourn 16 weeks for disclosure of evidence to be provided to the defence. He asked, with just a hint of irony, whether the SPS were being a little optimistic about their ability to clear their longstanding backlog. The virtual representative said they could only do their best within the constraints of available resources.

The judge addressed FP129 again. He was told that his 12G bail application had been received and analysed by the court's computer. The resulting risk assessment provided an actuarial 52% probability of a further offence being committed during 16 weeks on bail and, therefore, he would be remanded in custody for 4 weeks when there would be a further review.

FP129 was then asked by the judge if he wanted to make an immediate change of plea to guilty. This, it was explained, would be on the basis of a 20 weeks term of imprisonment, the one week spent on remand so far coming off his sentence. Despite Jeremy's interjection that the MDLP computer suggested a 78% probability of conviction after trial, the prisoner stated he had acted in self-defence and was not guilty. The judge directed that a further plea bargain would be considered in 4 weeks, the sentence then increasing to 26 weeks and the time spent on remand not counting if he pleaded guilty at that point. FP129 was asked whether he wanted to reconsider now. "No" was the emphatic response.The hearing was terminated.

The prison officer came back on screen and directed FP129 to take his statutory tranquilliser. He was informed that he would be woken in 3 hours for exercise.

LSC support for the PDS

2007-02-22T09:57:00.000Z

In a press release yesterday the Legal Services Commission outlined its vision for the future of the Public Defender Service. See here.

The LSC have managed to contradict themselves magnificently. On the one hand it is stated that impartial research found that the PDS provides a better quality of service "overall" than private practice. On the other, however, the LSC will not be re-opening the Middlesborough PDS office which closed part way through 2006 and the Birmingham, Chester and Liverpool offices will be closed as, "They all operate in areas with ample alternative Criminal Defence Service supply [this means private practice - exlex], which is likely to be why they did not capture enough of the work to give value for money". Wouldn't be anything to do with private practice being more attractive to punters because of the service provided, would it?

£150m

2007-02-16T18:54:00.000Z

The cost of the two new jails announced by Home Secretary John Reid today will be £150m. This investment will provide 1300 places. That's £115,384.62 per bed.

If 1300 new homes were made available to social housing provision what reduction would that produce in relation to the prison population given that 1300 opportunities for, say, families of 4 to stay together would be created?

Summary justice

2007-02-15T22:32:00.000Z

The following chronology is not untypical.

11/02/06 Date of offence - common assault alleged.
10/04/06 First hearing. Offence likely to be denied. Adjourned for full prosecution file.
19/05/06 Second hearing. Not guilty plea entered but case adjourned to interim date for completion of disclosure.
08/06/06 Third hearing. Trial fixed 08/01/07. Pre-trial review fixed.
19/06/06 Full file received from the Crown Prosecution Service. Noted that CCTV footage remains undisclosed.
27/07/06 Fourth hearing. CCTV confirmed received by CPS – to be copied and forwarded. Trial date confirmed.
07/08/06 CCTV footage received.
20/10/06 Fifth hearing. Case listed at request of the CPS for an application to vacate the trial due to a witness being on holiday. Court, bizarrely, manages to bring the trial forward to 12/12/06.
09/11/06 Schedule of unused material received from the CPS.
16/11/06 Defence Case Statement dispatched to the court and CPS.
12/12/06 Sixth hearing. Insufficient court time available for the trial. Noted CPS not responded to the Defence Case Statement. Trial refixed 26/01/07. Pre-trial review fixed for 04/01/07. CPS directed to respond to the Defence Case Statement by 22/12/06.
21/12/06 Email from CPS indicating that none of the material specified in the Defence Case Statement will be disclosed as, in the opinion of the reviewing lawyer, it discloses nothing that would undermine the prosecution or assist the defence.
04/01/06 Seventh hearing. Pre-trial review adjourned for the defence to make an application for disclosure under section 8 Criminal Proceedings and Investigations Act 1996.
16/01/07 Eighth hearing. Application under section 8 Criminal Proceedings and Investigations Act 1996 results in order for disclosure of all the material specified in the Defence Case Statement. Trial fixed for 26/01/07 vacated. Further pre-trial review fixed 15/02/07.
15/02/07 Ninth hearing. The section 8 order had not been complied with, no material having been dispatched within the 14 days. Some handed over in court. Earnest promises made by the CPS in relation to the remainder. Adjournment allowed for those items to be supplied but with the court file noted that there will be an application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process if not received.

The case proceeds ...

Summary justice?