Given bail.
To return 12 Sept. 2011

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

Baz

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
*

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

wrote in :

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.


Yes but why does a magistrate give a known violent criminal bail, and who
also has absconded previously? The same magistrate remanded a shoplifter
into custody. I can't make sense of it.

Baz

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.

wrote in :

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.

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.


Ahem,
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.

Baz