A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

Given bail.
To return 12 Sept. 2011

How bad do you have to be to be refused bail?

Baz

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

On 15/08/2011 18:00, in article , "Baz"
wrote:

Given bail.
To return 12 Sept. 2011

How bad do you have to be to be refused bail?

The Bail Act 1976 asserts a presumption in favour of bail for all people
awaiting trial except those on charges of murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter, rape or attempted rape. The legislation presumes that an
individual will be remanded on bail with various conditions attached unless
there are strong reasons to remand them into custody. These include:

- They have been accused of carrying out a particularly serious offence
*
- They have previous convictions for similar offences

- There are reasons to believe that they could disappear before their trial.

- They have been accused of carrying out a particularly serious offence

- There are reasons to believe that they may interfere with witnesses

- They is a belief they are likely to commit further offences before their
trial
*

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

Sacha wrote in :


I thought Baz's perp qualified for most of those. But as a judge has
just handed down an 11 month sentence instead of a 12 month one to a
drug dealer, thus avoiding his third deportation from this country,
it's hardly surprising most of us have given up any hope of real
justice for real criminals.

Sacha,
Was it a judge or a magistrate?
Until the other day I thought they were the same (judge and magistrate) but
it was explained to me at court that they are very different.
I took it all to mean that a judge is a career lawyer so obviously knows
the law inside out and is unlikely to be swayed by a load of bull.
A magistrate however knows little of the law and are easilly conned into
making the wrong decision.
I might have gotten the wrong end of the stick, but a judge works in the
Crown court for serious matters when a defendant pleads not guilty and is
decided by a jury.
A magistrate is only in a magistrates court for less serious crimes and
doles out tea and sympathy to all who look a bit remorseful.
So, a real hardened criminal is caught by the police and put in the local
cells until next morning, and his first port of call is the local
magistrates court in front of a do-gooder of a magistrate(not a judge)and
smarms his way to freedom, much to the disgust of the police and the
public. It makes no sense that a shoplifter for example can be remanded and
a violent psychopath can go free (not free, but to return).

I have put all of this understanding of mine to the clerk of the court over
the 'phone this morning because I thought I must have it all wrong and was
told, yes thats basically it.
It worries me very very much and I was better off not knowing. Its going to
take a long time for me to live this down.

Baz

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:06:01 GMT, Baz wrote:

Sacha wrote in :


I thought Baz's perp qualified for most of those. But as a judge has
just handed down an 11 month sentence instead of a 12 month one to a
drug dealer, thus avoiding his third deportation from this country,
it's hardly surprising most of us have given up any hope of real
justice for real criminals.

Sacha,
Was it a judge or a magistrate?
Until the other day I thought they were the same (judge and magistrate) but
it was explained to me at court that they are very different.
I took it all to mean that a judge is a career lawyer so obviously knows
the law inside out and is unlikely to be swayed by a load of bull.
A magistrate however knows little of the law and are easilly conned into
making the wrong decision.
I might have gotten the wrong end of the stick, but a judge works in the
Crown court for serious matters when a defendant pleads not guilty and is
decided by a jury.
A magistrate is only in a magistrates court for less serious crimes and
doles out tea and sympathy to all who look a bit remorseful.
So, a real hardened criminal is caught by the police and put in the local
cells until next morning, and his first port of call is the local
magistrates court in front of a do-gooder of a magistrate(not a judge)and
smarms his way to freedom, much to the disgust of the police and the
public. It makes no sense that a shoplifter for example can be remanded and
a violent psychopath can go free (not free, but to return).

I have put all of this understanding of mine to the clerk of the court over
the 'phone this morning because I thought I must have it all wrong and was
told, yes thats basically it.
It worries me very very much and I was better off not knowing. Its going to
take a long time for me to live this down.

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?

--
Mike.

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

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.

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!

Baz

I read in today's Daily Telegraph that someone was remanded in custody following first court appearance accused of stealing two ice creams from Patisserie Valerie during the recent riots. Since it seems to me unlikely that a custodial sentence would normally arise from a theft of two ice creams, even at Pat Val prices, I suspect the DT is not telling us the whole story. Amusingly, the thief discovered he didn't like the flavour and gave them to the shop assistant.

I confess I am intrigued by your comments and have been unable to find the first part of your story, ie what you are accused of etc. Can you point me somewhere? Thanks.

If you read the full story, it is a bit more complicated than that. The 11 month sentence means that the criminal is not automatically deported, but it does not necessarily save him from deportation, he may still be deported following a review of his situation. The judge therefore properly allowed for a considered review of the situation, rather than automatically triggering it, and I think that is in general a proper way of doing it. The criminal has 3 children properly resident in this country. I am rather inclined to the view that once we have given people residency, assuming they have not lied to obtain that residency, they become our problem and we shouldn't be allowed to palm them off on some other country when they misbehave. Of course I don't know if he has residency, but it seems likely given his children here.

An interesting question is why he was here at all, and moreover probably resident, having been deported twice before. We have presumably consciously let him in and allowed him to stay despite his previous two deportations, so presumably we think that record didn't matter. If the mother brought the children here should reasonably have appreciated that the father would not necessarily be able to come here or stay here, then I would have no compunction about deporting him, but I do not know that is the case.

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

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.

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

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

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

In article , Baz
writes
Was it a judge or a magistrate?

Magistrates can only sentence to a maximum of 6 months in jail for an
offence. (Although they can go up to a year for multiple offences, I
think). If the sentence needs to be higher than that, they have to pass
the case (or just the sentencing part of it) up to the crown court.

--
regards andyw

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

In article , Baz wrote:

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

Bring back hanging for even minor offences! Since the UK has so
successfully restored the 18th century economic model, it should
restore the 18th century penal one as well.

While revenge-based penalties may make some people feel better,
there is a mass of experience that they don't reduce crime - quite
the converse. God alone knows why we are trying to ape a country
that has much worse crime problems than we do, rather than learn
from ones closer to us and with much less serious problems.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

Sacha wrote in :


Part of that - not all of it - is the political will behind the
directives given to the judiciary. Quite a lot of politicians seem
to live in a sort of glass cage, unaware that the general public is
becoming mightily frustrated at a lot of the things going wrong
which we used to take for granted.

and the closing of things that could be afforded even during the
great depression, things like public libraries, and mobile libraries
in rural areas, maternity wards in hospitals in remote places etc.

bus services, village shops, price of petrol in rural areas, planning
decisions but I'd say education, crime and NHS are top of many
agendas.
I wonder if we'll ever see the day when the middle-classes revolt!

I find most of them already revolting. Joking.

Baz

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

In article , Baz wrote:

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

Such as a life sentence for murder, or the deportation of illegal
immigrants.

In a magistrate's court?

The first is required by law and the second is normal practice.
The (deliberate) inefficiency of the administration has nothing
to do with the courts.

I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

You may not think that you do, but that IS what you are asking for.
The past 60 years of experience is uniformly that treating the
criminals is vastly more effective at reducing crime than punishing
the criminals.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

Generally, they are, but the consequence of doing that too widely
include making crime worse. And mere property damage is not violence,
in the normal (common usage legal) meaning of the word.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

In message , Sacha
writes
On 2011-08-17 11:54:58 +0100, Martin said:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:50:57 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2011-08-17 10:09:51 +0100, Martin said:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:00:26 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2011-08-17 09:57:56 +0100, Baz said:

Mike Lyle wrote in
:

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

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

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


I understand what you mean, Mike.
I just wish the magistrates or JP's would toughen up and make

punishment fit the crime.
Baz
Part of that - not all of it - is the political will behind the
directives given to the judiciary. Quite a lot of politicians seem to
live in a sort of glass cage, unaware that the general public is
becoming mightily frustrated at a lot of the things going wrong which
we used to take for granted.
and the closing of things that could be afforded even during the
great
depression, things like public libraries, and mobile libraries in
rural areas, maternity wards in hospitals in remote places etc.
bus services,
They close because few use them.

village shops,
They can't compete with supermarkets.

Indeed but I think this is where quite a lot of people would like to
see a halt to the march of the supermarkets.
Stopping them being sub-post offices was the last straw.

Yes. Our village shop/post office closed because when the owner tried
to sell it, the PO would only allow them 15 hours of PO selling per
week and that was the most lucrative source of income. The PO in
Ashburton has been up for sale for years but nobody wants to take it on
because of the bureaucracy and red-tape. Our local PO owner gave up
when the powers-that-be insisted he, his wife and their one employee
learned how to use the computer and said that only they could do so. Of
course, not only did this mean a steepish learning curve for them, it
meant that they couldn't go on holiday as the HQ wouldn't approve
anyone else using the computer.

price of petrol in rural areas, planning
decisions
yes

but I'd say education, crime and NHS are top of many agendas.
Village schools died in the early 1950s.

Ours is a CoE school and is still going strong.


Paradoxically, although village populations may grow, attendance at the
school may diminish, not because there are fewer children living there
but because parent commutes out of the village to work and so places
child in a school nearer to her/his work place.
--
hugh

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

In article ,
Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is required
for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually delivers what
it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence that the high level
of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually increases the danger
to the public.

The truth is rarely pure and never simple.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

On 17/08/2011 22:57, Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

But they are comparatively rare. We had our village hall repainted by a
bunch of reprobates on the Community Payback Scheme. I will retell the
experience here as it might help the debate somewhat.

I would say the people we got varied enormously but there were five main
types - almost all young men and a scary number were illiterate:

Individuals so simple and gullible they should be in sheltered housing.
(typically caught by the police because they didn't try to run away)

Tradesmen caught speeding or drunk driving and sometimes both.

Otherwise reasonable guys drunk and disorderly and/or for assault after
a night on the town who took a swipe at someone. A disturbing subset of
these were recent returnees from Iraq or Afghanistan which suggests to
me the Army was failing in its duty of care to its employees.

Drug addicts caught stealing or in possession.

All of the above were quite reasonable if a bit unruly when sober though
we did have a guy who could see pink elephants one day! Most of the
trademen got stuck in and did what needed doing until their hours were
up. A couple were really good decorators and carpenters too.

There was a tiny hardcore of bone idle absolute wasters for whom the
system simply did not work. They knew their rights and knew detailed
sections of the law. They were not the brainless idiots portrayed in the
media. The really annoying thing for me watching them was that whilst
the front line guys did their best to teach them useful skills (like how
to paint a door or windowframe) the next tier of management up the chain
was to put it in a nutshell absolutely f*cking useless. The guys on the
front line had no effective support from their bosses.

There were no adequate sanctions against the tiny handful of persistent
troublemakers. For my money they should have been chained together and
put on litter picking duty on motorways or dropped in the middle of the
Pennine way with a large supply of rock and told to get on with it. Food
and water only supplied in the unlikely event of good behaviour.

It sounds to me like Baz got landed with a member of this latter group
who know *exactly* how to play the system.

Regards,
Martin Brown

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

In article ,
Danny Colyer wrote:

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is required
for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually delivers what
it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence that the high level
of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually increases the danger
to the public.

I wrote nothing to suggest that high levels of imprisonment were beneficial.

Perhaps you have some convincing evidence that a violent criminal is no
less likely to perpetrate violence against the general public while
incarcerated than when at large? If not, my statement stands.

This is ridiculous. This will be my last posting on this matter.

The problems with excessive incarceration are well-known. Firstly,
it often turns curable criminals (including ones who have been
violent) into habitual criminals. And, secondly, it means that
the innocent and relatively so get corrupted by the hardened
criminals.

If there were a simple classification into habitual violent
criminals and non-violent suspects and criminals who will respond
to other penalties, then your black-and-white ideas would work.
Now, here, in the real world, things are not like that!

I suggest that you read up some serious studies on penology.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

On 18/08/2011 06:27, wrote:
In ,
Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is required
for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually delivers what
it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence that the high level
of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually increases the danger
to the public.

I wrote nothing to suggest that high levels of imprisonment were beneficial.

Perhaps you have some convincing evidence that a violent criminal is no
less likely to perpetrate violence against the general public while
incarcerated than when at large? If not, my statement stands.

The truth is rarely pure and never simple.


--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

Janet wrote in
:


Baz has only just discovered there's a difference between a
magistrate
and a judge.

Janet


Yes that is true, Janet.
Are you being sarky?

I don't have many talents, and might not be too bright, never been at court
before. I have never needed to know the difference, but now I do thanks to
a ******* who has made our life 'more difficult than it was'

Baz

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

Martin wrote in
:


It took us years to get over being burgled several times.

Burglary is a particularly nasty horrible crime.
I bet they got away with it? Or absconded whilst on bail?

Chin up mate.

Baz

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

In article , Martin Brown
writes
On 17/08/2011 22:57, Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

But they are comparatively rare. We had our village hall repainted by a
bunch of reprobates on the Community Payback Scheme. I will retell the
experience here as it might help the debate somewhat.

Despite the way in which this thread started, I can't help feeling that
it has very little to do with gardening.

Roy.
--
Roy Bailey
West Berkshire.

A nice day at court(magistrates, not tennis)
 

"Roy Bailey" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin Brown
writes
On 17/08/2011 22:57, Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

But they are comparatively rare. We had our village hall repainted by a
bunch of reprobates on the Community Payback Scheme. I will retell the
experience here as it might help the debate somewhat.

Despite the way in which this thread started, I can't help feeling that
it has very little to do with gardening.

Roy.
--
Roy Bailey
West Berkshire.


but Roy, didn't you know, it's a social chat newsgroup/forum by some as
well. ... Just watch.

Mike


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................