The Rambler celebrating 56th birthday with friends.
That friend is my future sister-in-law. Anne caught that "what's she thinking" moment. It invites a caption contest.
Thanks to everyone there for such a wonderful time.
Cheers
t
posted by Tony @ Monday, December 20, 2004
0 comments
I wonder what Tony Blair’s family have in Number 10 by way of Christmas decorations. He may get some ideas from his old chum George W, who has helpfully put them on the White House website. Click on the link for a bit of festive fun!
But by way of a spoiler, here is one of the more bizarre examples:
"Vignette of All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth."
Cheers
t
posted by Tony @ Sunday, December 19, 2004
2 comments
Jon Snow, in last evening’s Channel Four News, fell into the same trap when interviewing the Home Office minister Hazel Blears.
The principle underlying Section 4 of the Human Rights Act is that a declaration of incompatibility does not affect the “validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the legislation” against which the declaration is aimed.
When the Bill was debated in the House of Lords, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg said:
“Clause 4 provides for the rare cases where the courts may have to make declarations of incompatibility. Such declarations are serious. That is why Clause 5 gives the Crown the right to have notice of any case where a court is considering making a declaration of incompatibility and the right to be joined as a party to the proceedings, so that it can make representations on the point. A declaration of incompatibility will not itself change the law. The statute will continue to apply despite its incompatibility. But the declaration is very likely to prompt the Government and Parliament to respond. In the normal course of events, it would be necessary to await a suitable opportunity to introduce primary legislation to make an appropriate amendment. That could involve unacceptable delay when Parliamentary timetables are crowded. We have taken the view that if legislation has been declared incompatible, a prompt parliamentary remedy should be available. Clauses 10 to 12 of the Bill provide how that is to be achieved. A Minister of the Crown will be able to make what is to be known as a remedial order. The order will be available in response to a declaration of incompatibility by the higher courts. It will also be available if legislation appears to a Minister to be incompatible because of a finding by the European Court of Human Rights.”
The government need not release the detainees because of the ruling. Of course the nine may now be able to re-apply for bail before the appropriate tribunal. Though it’s difficult to see how their lordship’s decision, by itself, strengthens such an application!
So the question Snow should have asked was “what steps have the government taken in the last six months to deal with the possibility that the House of Lords declare some, or all, of the provisions in the 2001 Act incompatible with the Convention? The Committee under Lord Newton of Braintree, set up by the former Home Secretary to look into the working of the Act was scathing of its provisions -almost as scathing as their Lordships.
“We strongly recommend that the powers which allow foreign nationals to be detained potentially indefinitely should be replaced as a matter of urgency. New legislation should:
a. deal with all terrorism, whatever its origin or the nationality of its suspected perpetrators; and
b. not require derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights.
We have identified several alternative approaches that, either alone or in combination, merit further development by the Government.
For example, the blanket ban on the use of intercepted communications as evidence in court should be lifted to make it possible to prosecute more terrorists.”
Doing nothing is no option. The solution to the government’s difficulties was outlined by Newton, over a year ago.
If there is enough admissible evidence, the detainees must be charged and tried in the criminal courts-or released. Indeed if a change in the law is required to allow the use of intercepted communications in court then the Home Office should bring forward the appropriate legislation without delay. I suspect there may be all-party support for such a step. The government, about to fight a “Law’n’order election next May, are unlikely to do so.
Interesting times indeed! Cheers t
posted by Tony @ Friday, December 17, 2004
0 comments
And really enjoy Cuba!
Cheers
t
posted by Tony @ Tuesday, December 14, 2004
0 comments
These are from local Youth Courts.
A lad appeared before the Youth Court and not surprisingly, after pleading guilty, he is told to report to the Youth Offending Team’s representative within the precincts of the court.
For whatever reason, things kick off and the youth is excluded from the court building. He is in fact subject to an exclusion order imposed by the court.
He returns to the court in response to his bail. The court officials, in accordance with the exclusion order, refuse him entrance and he goes home. His case is called on, and not surprisingly, miladow is nowhere to be seen. The magistrates issue a warrant not backed with bail. The warrant is duly executed and the lad arrested. He is detained overnight and appears before the court the following morning where he is charged with an offence of failing to attend court on the appropriate day!
Eventually the whole story is unpacked and the offence under the Bail Act is discontinued!!!
Number 2
A juvenile girl is charged with handling stolen goods (hair dye). During the proceedings, there is a gathering of the clan in Jarrow and they all get legless. Police are called, but they are unable to sort out who assaulted whom. They are also in difficulty in finding “a person of reasonable firmness would fear for his/her safety”-the elements of the offence of affray. The only charge the police could look at because there is unlikely to be a complaint of assault from the injured party). They pass the matter on to social services who spirit the girl to Scotland to live with sober and restrained relatives.
On pleading guilty, the court take the view that the custody threshold is not met; a 4-month Detention and Training Order being inappropriate for handling hair dye. The girl is in breach of a discharge for similar matter. However, none of the sentences in the Crime and Disorder Act can be implemented across the border. There is no Youth Offending Team, no Reparation Orders, Action Plans, Supervision Orders, Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes (ISSP’s) and the like, beyond Hadrian’s Wall! Apparently in Scotland Youths who transgress for less serious matters are diverted through family type courts designed to put them on the straight and narrow. Not flogged and named and shamed in the Shields Gazette. The result is another conditional discharge.
Number 3
A local solicitor recounts this. As Duty Solicitor, she represented a client who lived near London. One night she, the client, was involved in a 'domestic'. The offending male was duly arrested. But whilst the victim was in her local nick giving a statement, a warrant for her non-appearance at South Tyneside was discovered. Apparently the court had been writing to her old address asking her to attend to face a "drunk and disorderly" allegation, an offence for which a defendant cannot be incarcerated. She had been found guilty in her absence.Apparently the court had announced that she was to be fined but issued a fail to appear warrant anyway because she hadn't paid her existing account. The court does not have power to do this. The client, visibly pregnant, was kept in the police station in Basingstoke. A request was made to Group 4 to transport her to the 'palais de justice' in South Shields. Group 4 duly transported her from Basingstoke in her nightie but she arrived in the afternoon and the court refused to take her. After another night in South Shields police station she duly appeared and was informed of her sentence. As it was a fine she was released but with no money to get back to Basingstoke. I would not like to have been him when she got home. Seriously though, what a waste of cash! She owed less than £150 in outstanding fines.
t
posted by Tony @ Sunday, December 12, 2004
0 comments
This is a Tetra brick carton containing a concoction, which if mixed with hot milk, makes quite a decent drink. But whereas most of us can work out how to get at the stuff inside, the producers label the white plastic insert on the top of the carton a “Retrieval Portal”!
Any similar rubbish welcome!
posted by Tony @ Monday, December 06, 2004
0 comments
A month before he retires as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir John Stevens, former Chief Constable of Northumbria, has decided, in a interview with the Daily Telegraph to reignite the debate about the force a homeowner can use in defending himself, his family and his property, when faced with an intruder.
The law at present is that he is in no different position from anyone else faced with an attack. He must honestly believe that force is necessary at all and the force he uses must be reasonable. The “honesty” test is a subjective one. “Did this person believe in all the circumstances that he needed to use force at all”? The test of reasonable force is a subjective one. The Specimen Directions used by all crown court judges to juries is clear.
“You must then decide whether the type and amount of force D used was reasonable. Obviously, a person who is under attack may react on the spur of the moment, and he cannot be expected to work out exactly how much force he needs to use to defend himself. On the other hand, if he goes over the top and uses force out of all proportion to the attack on him, or more force than is really necessary to defend himself, the force used would not be reasonable. So you must take into account both the nature of the attack on D and what he then did.
I suggest few juries have much difficulty in working through both tests and reaching a verdict.
Today, The Telegraph screamed “Time to let people kill burglars in their homes, says Met chief”.
Sir John is suggesting something much, much less. But his ideas are muddled. He believes the “reasonable test”, only one of the two used at present, seems “to be weighted against householders and left the public confused about their rights”. He continues, “Of course you don't want to have gratuitous or excessive violence… but you have to be given the power to use what is necessary. "I'm not talking about guns but people being allowed to defend themselves and use whatever is necessary to defend themselves against someone who may well be armed with a knife. There should be a presumption in law "that the person using the force to defend themselves is acting within the law, rather than the other way round".
He suggests that the “reasonable test” is replaced by something he calls the “necessary force test”. I’m sure linguists will be able to distinguish the meanings of these two words. But it’s difficult to see homeowners descending their stairs facing what looks like a human figure in the early hours of the morning, working it out! Is “necessary” force different from “reasonable” force? And if so what test is to be used to work it out-an objective or subjective one?
Then what about his idea that there should be a “presumption” that the person is acting within the law? I suggest most Crown lawyers reviewing these cases today would take that view. In clear cases no prosecution would follow. The Code for Crown Prosecutors is being updated next year. I suspect this issue will be dealt with then. In fact I’m not sure this whole area presents real difficulty at all to most police officers or prosecutors.
It wasn’t long before the Tories leapt in this bandwagon. After all had they not come out with similar ideas some time ago? Well yes they had. But their credibility looks a trifle shaky. After all it was Tony Martin’s case, they piled in behind to support. And even Sir John pointed out that [Martin] “did shoot the burglar as he was running away. He did use a gun that was illegal. The Martin case skewed everything and it was the wrong case to concentrate on”.
And the proposals will not remove from the suspect the anxiety caused by an investigation. In all cases, there will be a police investigation. The suspect will be arrested and questioned. There will be, at least where death results, an inquest. The idea that this is going to be over in a couple of days is simply fanciful.
.
posted by Tony @ Saturday, December 04, 2004
0 comments
For those who believe the bilious opinions emanating from some newspapers, about how soft are our judges when it comes to locking up criminals, ought to examine the evidence. The Prison Reform Trust fact file dated December 2004 contains well collated government statistics to give a true and fair view of the position.
Most people are aware that England and Wales has a high prison population, but I wonder how many are aware that the prison population is now reached 75,145- a rate of 141 per 100,000. This is the highest rate in Western Europe. In Germany and France the comparable figures are 98 and 93, respectively. Yet neither of those countries have significantly higher rates of crime, in any category you choose. But it’s not just the overall total. Since May 1997, the day when Tony Blair was to put in place the “tough on crime tough on the causes of crime”, the prison population has leapt by 25,000. To fill the jails at that rate took the entire previous four decades (1954-1994). And if you want to know how much this all costs, get the calculator out and multiply that 75,145 by 37,305. The result is the amount in pounds it cost to keep prisoners in custody this year!
According to the Home Office, on the 19th November 2004 28,360 men were incarcerated serving sentences of four years and over, more than half (56%) of the sentenced male prison population. This was a rise of 94% on the 1994 figure. “In terms of custody rates, in the magistrates courts offenders are three times more likely to go to prison compared to ten years ago, and in the crown court almost twice as likely.” So much for soft sentences!
And remember all that odium heaped on the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, when he had the temerity to suggest that burglars need not receive an immediate custodial sentence? Well, according to official statistics, the reality is that between 1994 and November 2004, the average sentence length for burglars has increased from 16 to 18 months. It can be argued, though the facts don’t back this up, that with a relatively long sentence the offender has a chance at rehabilitation thereby reducing victims 0f their crime. But the Prison Service is just burning our taxes when dealing with short-term inmates. “Between 1993 and 2003, the number of adults sent to prison for sentences of less than 12 months, more than doubled fro 21,000 to 49,000. In 2003 over half of those sent to prison were there for jail terms of 6 months or less. These Home Office
Figures refer to the sentences handed down by the courts. They will be subject to 50% remission.
But the truly horrifying statistics are those to be found in the Prime Minister’s Exclusion Unit’s Report of July 2002. It’s called “Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners”.
The average prisoner is 10 times more likely to have truanted, and 25 times more likely to have been excluded from school: three times more likely to be illiterate and innumerate than the outside population: thirteen times more likely to be unemployed when sentenced and no less than 300 times more likely to be homeless than the general population. And by factors of 10 more likely to suffer mental disorder, alcohol and drug related problems.
Is it any wonder that prison has a poor rate in reducing re-offending? Nearly 60% of prisoners are reconvicted within two years of release!
The Home Office are projecting a prison population reaching between 91,400 and 109,600 by the year 2010. The final words on this must go to research by Tony Blair’s Strategy Unit highlighted in the Carter report (Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime”, December 2003.
The 22% increase in the prison population since 1997 is estimated to have reduced crime by about 5% during a period when overall crime fell. The report goes on: “ There is no convincing evidence that further increases in the use of custody would significantly reduce crime”.
posted by Tony @ Thursday, December 02, 2004
2 comments
