"God and my right shall me defend"
Covering Magistrates courts does make you slightly cynical about the meaning and dispensing of "justice."
It's a legal system, that goes back to King John and the Magna Carta and the plebs having the right to be judged by their peers. It's something to do with fairness but there is nothing fair about British justice.
The problem is that now we are a few centuries on, the average defendant is not being judged by his or her peers, they are being judged by three people who are of a different social class and mindset and can't possibly relate to the third generation Chav stuck in poverty without hope of getting a job let alone being somehow "equal" to those that sit in judgement on the bench.
I guess that's why there are certain "statutory" penalties in a bid to ensure some kind of "fairness" which does make me wonder why on earth three magistrates sitting on a bench often go out to retire and consider sentence for so long that they fail to get through an average court list during one morning's sitting.
There have been times when sitting in a magistrates court and trying to make a living from each case I pick up is like sitting and having teeth pulled. For example, when someone's up on drunk and disorderly the penalty is always going to be a fine. So why on earth do some benches have to go out and take half an eternity to come back and fine the defendant? I end up coming out sometimes lucky to have just covered my petrol costs.
The court I cover had a district judge last week. One man sitting on the bench with actual legal knowledge who whizzed through each case and in the main dishing out what I considered to be "fair" sentences.
I say "in the main" because there was still the odd occasion when his judgements or comments when sentencing made my blood boil.
There was the case of the Lituanian who came to this brave new world of NuBritain looking for work. Instead of finding his share of gold in this Promised Land, he found the odd few days of work for which he wasn't always paid. With rent to pay, and a need to eat, he accepted an offer to lend him money in the hope that he would be able to find more permanent and fair work to repay the debt. He couldn't.
His benefactor then moved in to demand the loan be paid back. The Lithuanian couldn't oblige and the loan shark couldn't have been more pleased because he now had a new "foot soldier" to do his dirty work. He was part of a gang who preys on migrant workers who fall on hard times to get them to go out shoplifting high value goods.
The Lithuanian was taken to certain stores, given a foil-lined bag (which deactivates the door alarm) and told to steal certain goods. He got caught and he alone had to face the music. He'd never been in trouble before but the comfortably off district judge had no sympathy. He said the defendant shouldn't have allowed himself to be used by this gang. He jailed him immediately, without pre-sentence reports, to six months jail - although he's likely to serve three.
In other words, the district judge played into the gang's hands. They'd used the Lithuanian as a human shield and the judge shot him. He said that he had a duty to protect the multi-billion pound retail industry that loses "million and millions every year". And I thought the system was about being judged by your "peers" and protecting the little man against the power of those with enough wealth to oppress you into submission.
I know I'm quite naive at times, and too soft-hearted, but I would have at least given him a chance. If the ultimate aim was to protect the "industry" then surely by allowing him his freedom, backed up with a police operation to follow him and find the people behind his offending, then the industry would have been better protected by finding the root cause.
I guess that with this "foot soldier" out of the way, the gang will just continue with another desperate and wretched migrant without work. It doesn't feel as if "justice" for anyone has been done in this case.
That case made me sad but two others - one involving a migrant worker and the other a local both on drink driving - made me angry. The judge statutorily banned them from driving and fined them. That didn't bother me but what made me angry was when the district judge looked over their means forms to decide the level of fine they could pay.
In both cases he noted that they were smokers. In both cases he made comment about how they obviously had lots of money if they could afford to smoke. In both cases he said he was minded to fine them more because of it. In both cases he ticked them off and said they were damaging their health. He didn't, however, increase the fine following his threat. I would have reported him he if had. I would have done the same if a man wearing a designer shirt was fined more because he liked nice clothes.
Thanks to the district judge's efficiency, I came out of court with an armful of cases which helps the income a lot but I think when it comes to "fairness" perhaps three heads are better than one. Perhaps three wouldn't be anti-smokers. Perhaps three would have come to a different view about the Lithuanian. Perhaps this antiquated legal system is the best we've got.
British justice may have started with the aim of fairness but it's evolved into a means of revenge, bureaucracy and tax collection.