On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:59:36 GMT, Baz wrote:

Mike Lyle wrote in
:


You spoke to the Clerk to the Justices, or a clerk working for the
Court? A slight difference, as the latter is, well, a clerk; the
former isn't what we'd commonly call a "clerk", but a lawyer, who will
usually ensure the Justices don't commit bloopers: on the whole I'll
be surprised if a learned Clerk would tend to agree with what you say
above. The criminal justice system would crash and burn without JPs.

Oh, and what _is_ a "do-gooder", please?


I spoke to the viperous person who explains to the magistrate in court what
the offender is here for and just what a bad lot the defendant is and
advises the JP, magistrate or whatever you need to call them, do-gooder is
a good description of an idiot I saw give liberty to a callous, no good
trash criminal who invades everyone it comes across. This person is the
clerk of the court.

Certainly, the person who advises the magistrates on the law is the
Clerk to the Justices. I'm surprised this "viperous" one stepped out
of line with you: I don't think he should have criticised the JPs.

The do-gooder is that the person, on the bench with 2 others who has no
idea how much they hurt a victim of crime by giving a soft sentence.

All of this is fresh in my mind, and I have spoken to this clerk of the
court, the same person who was physically in court who was advising the
bench.

I hope this explains to you just how good our magistrates courts are.
Crash and burn indeed!

Well, crash and burn is what the system _would_ do without them.
Imagine if the Crown Court had to deal with every offence instead of
only maybe ten per cent of them: the waiting list would make the
slowest hospital look brilliant, and they'd probably run out of jurors
in a few years.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience; but it isn't usually like that.

--
Mike.