Mike Lyle wrote in
:

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

Mike Lyle wrote in
m:


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.


I understand what you mean, Mike.

I just wish the magistrates or JP's would toughen up and make the
punishment fit the crime.

Baz