www.SilentMajority.co.UK/EUroRealist
EU ARREST WARRANT Travesty – Anne Palmer 011228.rtf

Is "The Greater Europe" taking shape?
By: Anne PALMER
December 2001.
In
 writing out these notes for you regarding the "modernisation" of our judicial system, I would like you to bear in mind the passing of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill that has just gone through, and the proposed draconian European Union wide Arrest Warrant, in which in one EU paper it states quite clearly, under the title "The Main Components of the Decision", "The European arrest warrant applies to all offences".
These notes are not in any particular order, I start however with the one that explains roughly what it is that concerns me.
Time is of the essence because should there be any need to 'comment' about the Auld Review they should be sent in before 31 January 2002. To 
Stakeholders Relations Branch,
Criminal Courts Reform Division,
Lord Chancellor's Department,
Selbourne House,
54-60 Victoria Street,
London. SW1E 6QW. Or by e-mail to Auld.Review@lcdhq.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone enquiries. Mrs Shirley Ford 020 7210 0642
Ms Karen Harris 020 7210 0642
Mrs Lorna Venters-Olajide 020 7210 8733
You will find that Members of Parliament had not had sight of this 700 page Review on 4th December, If you then take in the Christmas holiday and look at the requirement to place "comments" about the review before the end of January is, well how can I put it 'delicately'? A trifle irresponsible of a government when we are talking about altering our six hundred year old system that has worked extremely well and is/has been held in such high esteem by many in these shores as well as admired by many in far off countries.
These are only "snippets" out of many pages, but I have given the details where, should you so wish, you may browse through the whole.
I start with House of Commons-Home Affairs-Minutes of Evidence Tuesday 16th October 2001.
Lord Irvine of Lairg;….. You might expect me to start with the Auld Report (but I am not going to) because obviously it is a huge priority. The Leggatt Report is also a big priority and I would like to tell you why. That was a report that was delivered to me on 29 March and was published on 18 August and the consultation on it ends at the end of November. The reason I start with it, in answer to your question, is that, depending on its fate, of course, across Government it may come to be regarded as a historic document. I see it that way. Tribunal justice is huge business and its extent is not generally appreciated. It has not been considered in the round since 1957. Tribunals have proliferated. Now there are about a hundred of them. Every year they decide more cases than the ordinary civil courts, many more, about a million cases. Basically Leggatt has done for tribunal justice what Woolf did for civil justice and what Auld is now trying to do for criminal justice.
….The second is Auld. It is a massive report. It was published on 8 October in good time for you all to have read the 700 pages and the 328 recommendations. I am pleased that it was published in time for this meeting. It is a massive, radical piece of work. The period for public comment ends at the end of January and if it comes into effect it will represent unquestionably the largest reform of criminal justice for over 30 years. Auld himself has conducted a massive consultation exercise with about a thousand written submissions. There has also been the Halliday Report on sentencing and the Government's own document, Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead. The priority for government and for my department along with others will be to bring forward legislation in this area, again once the key decisions are made and, just as in the Leggatt area they have not been made, so obviously in the Auld area they have not been made. As shortly as I can these are my two major priorities. 
Bob Russell MP'….6. After the election some responsibilities were transferred to you, mainly, as I understand it, from the Home Office. In what ways will the transfer of those functions improve the way your department works? Secondly, is your Department now in charge of constitutional matters?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Oh yes. The Department is undoubtedly now in charge of constitutional matters. 
Mr Cameron
18. On the Human Rights Act, as you say, it has been in place for a year. What in your opinion are the chances that there will have to be some serious amendments to it because of the planned legislation on terrorism and extradition and asylum? 
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) I do not see myself that what David Blunkett announced yesterday calls for any amendment to the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act of course, like any statute, can be amended, not to the extent that, using shorthand, it incorporates the European Convention, but the European Convention allows for derogation when strictly necessary at a time of public emergency from Article 5, which is a very important article. That is what the Home Secretary indicated yesterday he was proposing to do, and I have to say that extreme circumstances do call for extreme measures, but I do not believe that this emergency, this way of proposing to deal with terrorists from abroad who are potentially grave risks to the United Kingdom and having to derogate from Article 5 to achieve their detention in any way prejudices the overall beneficial effects of the Human Rights Act and does not call for any amendment of the Human Rights Act.
Mrs Dean. 21. Which leads me on to the next question. What do you expect to report to Parliament by the end of this month on the progress towards implementation?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) I led with my chin there of course. How do I put it? Because we have not yet finally decided and because the report is not yet ready and decisions have not yet been made, I cannot tell you what I am going to say in the report to Parliament. I think there are two basic approaches, and let me share this with you and say that there is much to be said for both approaches and tell you quite honestly that we have not actually decided between the two. It is basically the difference between what you could call a big bang approach and a stage by stage approach. The Act has to be fully in force by 30 November 2005. (Now there's a telling remark. Who says it has to be completed by 30th November 2005? [My comment]) It is important to mention that because that is the period of time that we are talking about. We could implement the Act in stages by a type of public authority, perhaps—probably—starting with central government. Then of course what you would have to do is decide on some kind of time programme. Because, as you know, these publication schemes are hugely important, the publication scheme of each department has to publish with the assistance of the Information Commissioner, it seems to me that on a stage by stage approach it would be sensible to have the publication scheme published on a date and then for the individual's right of access under the Act to come into force a period of time after the publication of the publication scheme in the particular area. What might that period of time be? For argument's sake, six months or nine months. Do not start adding up my notional figures because I might get beyond November 2005 which would not do. You could have a publication scheme date for central government first and then you could have local government, for argument's sake, nine months or a year later. Then you could have a bit later, let us say, the police authorities, the armed forces. Then you could have the health service. Then later you could have the schools and the universities, and then you could have, if you like, all the rest. You could have a staggered process of publication schemes which would obviously have broadly to correlate to readiness within each area, and then you would have to take a realistic stab at the interval of time that should elapse before the individual's right of access can be engaged, always remembering that you are working to a deadline of November 2005. The other way of looking at it would be to roll out the publication schemes perhaps across a similar model, but then have a big bang so that the individual right of access does not come until a single date before November 2005, obviously. I will be quite frank: there is discussion going on around these two alternatives. Both can be argued but what I can say is that one or the other, a variant, is going to happen and that we will of course comply with the statutory outer limit of November 2005. Again I have been hinting about delay and I do not apologise for this delay because I said in answer to your colleague that a large part of the success of the Human Rights Act has been attributable to taking the necessary time. (My comments, What is the point of sending "Comments" if the Government is going to go ahead and destroy our long established legal system and replace it with an inferior system? If it ain't broke, why fix it?)
Chairman 22. Is that not the case for not going for a big bang?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Yes. There is a powerful case for not going for a big bang, for doing it gradually, and modulating how you go according to readiness in particular areas. On the other hand, there are in fact arguments the other way as well but that is the broad outline. What you should also know is that this is a hugely ambitious Freedom of Information Act. It applies retrospectively as well as prospectively. We could have made it apply only to future paper. It applies to all past paper. That is quite staggering in itself. It also applies to about 50,000 bodies, so it is big stuff………
…………... This is what Auld is saying. This is why this is really a hugely radical document which will also be highly controversial in particular areas, not least in its impact on jury trial. He says that the crown court and the magistrate's court should be unified into a single criminal court. It is going to be called the criminal court. It is going to have the same powers, the same practices, and it is going to have a common administration. All cases should start and finish in the same court; no more of this nonsense of committing for trial from one court to another doing half of a case in the magistrates court and then committing it to the crown court. The criminal court, he says, should be divided into three divisions: the magistrates division, the district division and the criminal division. I dare say you will be very interested in each of these. Then, importantly, he says there should be a single, centrally funded, executive agency as part of my department, the Lord Chancellor's Department, responsible for the administration of all courts, civil, criminal and family, replacing the court service and the magistrates' court committees but with a huge amount of delegated local responsibility. That, he says, would, among many other beneficial things, promote electronic sharing of information between courts. Then he proposes a big new IT agenda, that there should be a new, single IT system for the unified criminal court. Then, getting into the area of big controversy, he says that in either way cases, that is to say, the cases where today the defendant can decide whether to be tried in the magistrates court or to go for jury trial, allocation is to be decided by the court. It is not going to be decided by the prosecution; it is not going to be decided by the defence. These are big controversies, as we know, not merely from the fate of the mode of trial bills of more recent memory, but also because that is what the Runciman Royal Commission recommended, that is what the Narey Committee recommended on delay. Because of this district division, where a professional judge could sit with two lay magistrates, it is actually a huge vote of confidence in the lay magistracy because these two lay magistrates in trials in the district division would be a sort of quasi lay jury. (My emphasis, plus---keep the magistracy happy (flatter them) and in tact for a while, until there are enough 'District Judges' in place and then have another 'review'. After-all, if the magistrate resign en bloc now, what would happen to the 90% of work they do?!!)Then he has got very important things to say about hearsay evidence and evidence of previous misconduct and so on. [Taken from Chapter 2 Auld Review- Summary and Recommendations. Hearsay (paras 95 - 104) 258. There should be further consideration of reform of the rule against hearsay, in particular with a view to making hearsay generally admissible subject to the principle of best evidence, rather than generally inadmissible subject to specified exceptions as proposed by the Law Commission. 
259. In this respect, as with evidence in criminal cases generally, there should be a move away from rules of inadmissibility to trusting fact finders to assess the weight of the evidence.] Basically we should be getting rid of a lot of the highly technical rules which may be food and drink to the lawyers but are a needless technicality. Maybe we should trust fact finders more to give relevant evidence the weight it deserves. Then he makes really quite dramatic recommendations about the conduct of the trial itself and what the judge should do, really heralding an end to these huge summing up that judges give at the ends of trials. He suggests that there should be a case and issues summary settled right at the beginning of the trial. It may have to be modified as the trial progresses and the issues are refined, and a check list for the jury of what this is really about, and then a really very bold recommendation indeed, on which I look forward hugely to the results of consultation: the juries at the end of the day should be asked questions, they should be asked a whole list of questions, on each of which they have to give an answer and, depending on the answers they give, the result will ineluctably be either guilty or not guilty, and that carries with it the implication of getting rid of these hugely time-consuming summings up at the end. This is dramatic stuff. 
David Winnick
33. The critics, Lord Chancellor, paint a different picture. They say that the recommendations regarding juries would undermine the jury system except in the most serious cases. Is that not an accusation that should be taken very seriously by all those who believe the jury system has served this country well over many centuries?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) First of all the jury system does occupy a hallowed position and nobody is suggesting that the jury system should cease to be the system that applies to really serious crimes. Our present system of either way offences only arises out of a report of a committee in 1975 by Lord Justice James and a statute of 1980. There is no magic in freezing what was the position at a particular moment in time. The fact is that a colossal number of trials take place in the crown court. I think the figure is that in about 55 per cent of the trials in the crown court sentences are imposed which were well within the magistrates' competence. I get letters all the time from disgruntled litigants but nobody says that the magistrates provide an inferior form of justice. The truth is that you will get a fair trial in this country by a number of different means and the issue as I see it is whether there is a broad range of cases where you do not need the full panoply of trial by judge and jury in order to do justice. I know this is the argument over the mode of trial bill again. You have probably heard it ad infinitum, but if Auld's recommendations are going to be taken up again, then you are going to hear it again.
34. What about the slippery slope argument? You start with what is being recommended. It is implemented and then there is pressure that more serious cases should not be subject to a jury.
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) People can always use the wedge argument and say, "where will it ever end?", but we are a pragmatic country. There is general acceptance I think in this country, and it has huge judicial support too, that in really serious cases there should be a judge and a jury. What we have to ask ourselves is whether it is really necessary in order to do justice in this broad range of either way cases. What Auld is recommending, and we will all have to consider, is that yes, there is a medium category of case. Why can justice not be done by a qualified judge, a district judge, who has two lay magistrates, who are experienced lay magistrates, the same people who try daily summary cases in the magistrates courts, where on matters of fact they will have an equal vote with the judge and they will be able to out-vote him on factual questions of guilt or innocence? Why is that not a perfectly fair trial? That is what Auld says and we will all be expressing our views about it in the weeks of consultation that lie ahead.
(Me again--are we not forgetting Magna Carta here? By your peers Sir, by your peers)
35. Your responses seem to give a very strong indication that you are in favour of the recommendations. Would that be a wrong interpretation?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) I think you really misunderstand an old hand as an advocate who is just putting the Auld case to you.
36. Do I take it that you can put the case against as well?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Oh, I could do that too.
37. Because I would like to hear the case against, Lord Chancellor.
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) I could of course do it. There are some very extreme views, as you know, regarding juries. Auld certainly does not espouse them. Auld attacks them but from his standpoint of course he would. There are some people who go so far as to regard juries as an aspect of popular democracy and set up juries almost on a level with Parliament itself. There are some people who seriously say that juries are entitled by their verdicts to say no to laws that they do not like or to say no to prosecutions that they do not like, even although, if they were to deliver a true verdict according to the evidence, they would be convicting. We all know from history that juries have done that in centuries past to avoid convictions of capital offences where you could get your head chopped off for stealing something worth 20 shillings. The jury is written into a huge traditional popular affection in this country and the extremist form of putting it is that it is virtually a sort of check on the executive and a means of saying no on the part of the 12 good men or women and true to what the state is trying to get them to do. That is the extremist argument on the other side.
38. All lawyers can put both cases eloquently. Otherwise they would not be lawyers.
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) I just do not get paid for it any more.
39. Well paid, some may say. Tell me, Lord Chancellor: the recommendation is the way juries are going to be asked questions. (Me again--juries should not be asked questions--they are not the ones who are on trial!)
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) That is one idea.
THE RT HON LORD IRVINE OF LAIRG QC AND SIR HAYDEN PHILLIPS KCB
40. Is this going to be in the form of a jury or individual—
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) It is a good question. He does not answer that. As I say, although it is a very long document, it is a consultative document,—
41. I am sorry to interrupt. This is a totally new departure, is it not?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) It is a wholly new concept. 
42. For juries to be virtually cross-examined? 
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Oh no, not cross-examined. No, no, not cross-examined. They would have their issues summary and these would be agreed between prosecuting and defence counsel, with the approval of the judge, the list of the questions which it is necessary for the jury to answer in order to do justice to the case. That is of course exactly what juries ought to be doing anyway if they are trying the case properly……..
( Me again--if the Juries are to be questioned, why cannot Judges, District Judges, Magistrates be questioned? It need not stop there, why not attorneys, solicitors etc?-what a mess?)
………43. There is also a recommendation about allowing an appeal against what is described as a perverse jury verdict. Have you given consideration to that?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Obviously I have read the whole report. It links in very closely to the point that we were discussing a moment or two ago. Auld has nailed his colours to a very simple proposition which may not appeal to you, I entirely appreciate. He has nailed his colours to the simple proposition that juries are sworn to give a true verdict according to the evidence, and if they do not give a true verdict according to the evidence and it is quite obvious that they have not done so and they have just been completely perverse, then the Court of Appeal should be able to correct them. (Me again--The jury seemingly have to come up with the "right" verdict!) That is what Auld says. What others would say is — it is always dangerous for me to mention the name of a case but it might be said about the Clive Ponting case, it might be said about acquittals of MS sufferers who take cannabis or whatever to ease their suffering, that if juries acquit, they ought to get a clap on the back and you should not be saying that these are perverse decisions. I understand the argument very strongly, but I am not going to commit myself to any government position in relation to whether we embrace his recommendation that a specific ground of appeal should be the perversity of the jury verdict because I can see how very controversial that would be. In a clear case where a jury was just saying no to a law that it did not like but Parliament had passed, that might be a clear case of perversity, but how you define perversity in the much broader range of cases I see very great difficulty with.
Sir Hayden Phillips. 44. People are bound to see that as undermining the jury system, but I have listened very carefully to what you have said, Lord Chancellor. It is also recommended—and perhaps this is less controversial—that in court cases there should be a way for the prosecution to give details of previous convictions at the beginning of the proceedings. (My emphasis) There has been a lot of argument where people have been acquitted in certain controversial cases where, had it been known of their previous convictions, and usually it is plural and not necessarily so, the jury may have reached a different verdict. Are you sympathetic to the idea or is that a leading question?
(Me again, I assume here that they have or should have already served time for previous offences, and had, as far as the law was concerned at one time, had wiped the slate clean at that point. If however they re-offend and particularly repeated the same crime, and found guilty, a greater penalty could be brought into play) 
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) It is a leading question but you are well entitled to ask me leading questions. I sat myself as a recorder for many years in the crown court. I have witnessed exactly what you have described. Usually it is when the jury convicts. In fact, it could not really be otherwise. The jury convicts and it has taken a long time. This good honest jury has been away for a couple of hours, anxiously making up its mind, and comes back and convicts, and then hears that the defendant has got a list of previous convictions as long as your arm and you see them exchanging glances in the juror box, "Well, there you are: I told you so". On the one hand that makes the point that if the juries knew in advance they would be very influenced and maybe others would say prejudiced. At the other side of the argument you can say that it is a very poor prosecution case that has to rely on previous convictions to prove itself and that the risk of prejudice to a defendant is too great to allow previous convictions to go in. There are also in this area some very plain facts of life to be discussed. Very often defendants have previous convictions. Very often the prosecution witnesses who give evidence against them have previous convictions. Then both would go in and that in itself gives food for thought.
(If there is any shadow of doubt, they should be found "Not Guilty- or so I was taught--Me)
Bridget Prentice
68. There appears to be a reduction, Lord Chancellor, in the number of magistrates this year, I wonder if you have any views on that? Are there more people resigning rather than being appointed and is that an abnormal figure?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) We have about 30,500 magistrates; they got a nice ringing endorsement out of Lord Justice Auld. (Some ringing endorsement, the magistrates are just to become 'side-kicks') There was a lot of media speculation about their future; the result is that I made speech after speech saying how highly we value the lay magistrate. We did conduct research into relative efficiencies of lay magistrates and stipendiary magistrates, as they used to be called, District Judges as they are now called, and the future of the lay magistracy is absolutely secure, as I have said many times. As I said in answer to an earlier question, when we were talking about Auld, this aspect of Auld is not necessarily accepted yet and it will also be controversial, for the reasons that Mr Winnick gave, but it is a very strong vote of confidence in the lay magistracy to propose that either way cases should be tried by a professional judge along with two experienced lay magistrates who on a question of guilt or innocence on the facts can outvote the professional judge. I take this opportunity of saying that magistrates are highly valued, much appreciated and they have a permanent and, as I see it, a stable future in the justice system. I am not aware of any abnormal number of resignations nor am I aware of any reduction in applications. The impression I have is that people highly value becoming magistrates and becoming involved in local justice. There were stories that were blown up out of proportion about a small number of experienced magistrates who objected, for example, to training under the Human Rights Act, that got a bit of currency. I have to say in relation to these magistrates I do not have sympathy for them, it is in a way—it is a tiny number, a tiny number—a privilege to have enhanced jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act. It is a strong decision of Government to trust lay magistrates to decide Human Rights Act points and the overwhelming majority of magistrates accepted training and were trained successfully and accepted it in a good and proper spirit.
88 David Winnick asked "On another aspect, if I may, are your judicial appointments asked if they are freemasons? The answer given was "yes, all written applicants for judicial appointments have now to state whether they are freemasons or not.

COMMONS HANSARD WRITTEN QUESTIONS 6 MARCH 2001
Lay Magistracy
41. Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on her plans to reform the lay magistracy. [150777] 
Jane Kennedy: The report by Rod Morgan and Neil Russell, "The Judiciary in the Magistrates' Courts", published on 14 December, concluded that to abolish or greatly diminish the role of the lay magistracy would not be widely understood or supported in the country, and the Government agree with that view. (And I can hazard a guess that this is another reason, a very good reason that the magistrates should be kept on for a while longer)
Lord Justice Auld is currently conducting his independent review of the criminal courts. It would be premature to comment on that until he submits his report. 
Commons debates April 2001
Mr. Fabricant: Hardly. After all the closures of magistrates courts that we have witnessed up and down the land, including my own--which had lasted for 600 years until this Government came into power--what assurance can the Minister give lay magistrates that they will not be replaced by stipendiary magistrates? 
Jane Kennedy: I simply offer the same assurance that I have given on many occasions in the House. The Government recognise the valuable role and service that the lay magistracy offers to society. Their civic responsibilities are very wide. We admire the work that they do and we are confident that they will continue to do that work long after the hon. Gentleman has retired………. 
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): As a result of court closures in Devon and Cornwall, there have unfortunately been a number of resignations from the lay magistracy. I hope that the Minister agrees that we need a representative lay magistracy. It is much to be regretted that a young mother in my constituency has had to resign as a lay magistrate because she is unable to afford three hours per day travelling to the court in Plymouth. Are any steps being taken by the Government to assist magistrates, witnesses and other court users to get to the large city courts, now that the Government have closed so many magistrates courts in our local rural towns? ……….
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Having heard today of the closure of courts in the west country, in Staffordshire--from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)--and in Wales, does the Minister recognise that although she comes to the Dispatch Box month after month, smiling sweetly and talking fine words about keeping the magistrates going, there is friendly fire from her hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), who has mentioned the Home Office's not very well hidden agenda to undermine the lay magistracy? Are not the Government imposing huge costs--as we warned--as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998? The Act states that prisoners cannot be seen handcuffed because that is somehow inhumane and somehow equates to torture. Is not that undermining magistrates courts and causing them to close? The Minister's fine words are incapable of being believed. 
 
Jane Kennedy: My fine words and sweet smile, as the hon. Gentleman describes them, contrast with the fine rant that he brings to the Chamber. The Government's policy is that the magistrate's courts are best managed locally by the magistrates courts committee under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. 
On the 4th December William Cash MP said "On November 6th the Minister told the house that the Government wanted wide debate on the Auld report. The report as he knows, includes proposals for judicial appointments by the Lord Chancellor in respect of the proposed unified criminal courts, with the inevitable substantial magistrate court closures and serious potential damage to local justice, despite what the Minister just said. Does he deny that-according to a memorandum by a senior civil servant discovered in the Adam and Eve Pub by St James's park-the Government, before the consultation period has ended, have in preparation a draft Bill of no less than 400 clauses to deal with those and all the other matters referred to and included in the Auld report? Does he deny that the unified court system is ranked second in priority for the Bill and does he accept that unless the draft Bill is made available to the public before the consultation -period ends on 31 January 2002 the subsequent few weeks of consultation will be a sham? Will he be good enough to let me have a copy of the Draft Bill now?
Mr Wills: Unlike the hon Member for Tatton, the hon Gentleman has obviously done some research, but I am sorry that it was not of better quality. We are conducting the process properly, not through documents left in pubs, but through a full-blooded process of consultation. We have made it clear that the consultation will continue until 31 January 2002 and we will publish a White Paper in the Spring. At that point, we will be happy to discuss all our proposals with the hon Gentleman.
(Me. I simply find it very difficult to accept that Government Ministers can behave in this fashion. To not have had sight of this important document at this time, a document with 700 pages and to be limited to making comments about it until 31 Jan is completely irresponsible. It shows an utter and complete contempt for Parliament and more so for the people who voted for them, and placed their trust in them. Their attitude is despicable.)
Westminster Hall Wednesday 31 October 2001.
Mr Edward Davey MP
The combination of recent Government policy initiatives and proposals could produce drastic changes in the bedrock of London's legal system, the magistracy. In a few years' time we could wake up to realise that we had undermined something precious because we did not realise its true value. I shall give a flavour of the changes that London magistrate's courts face with three examples of recent initiatives and proposals. First, last April; the administration of London's 22 former magistrates' courts was centralised under the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority. That was a major administrative change. 
Secondly, GLMCA has introduced a wide-ranging consultation on London's 40 magistrates court houses, which covers everything from which courthouses are to close to whether the post of justices' clerk should be widely maintained. Thirdly, a recent review of the criminal courts of England and Wales by Lord Justice Auld proposed a unified criminal court system, including a new district division that consists of a district judge and two experienced magistrates. There are many other proposals that would impact London's magistrates' courts. 
The GLMCA consultation is not yet complete, and the Auld review is not yet published, but if all such changes were combined, their extent would be huge. The changes exercise the minds of court staff, magistrates, lawyers and many others. Many worry about how the changes add up; they worry not just for themselves, but for the nature and quality of London's justice system, the prime task of which is to serve the people of London, our constituents. The democratic arm of Government should focus on the scale of what could happen to the legislative arm of London. We must question such changes and demand explanations from the Government……
The tome "Delivery of summary justice in Greater London: the GLMCA's strategy" was launched last June. It has provoked much sound and fury throughout the capital, which does not surprise me. I was taken aback when I read the executive summary--a thinner volume--as were the local magistrates in Kingston, mainly because some of the options included either a partial or even a full-scale massacre of the capital's courtrooms. The options would imply the total demolition of the idea of local justice in London. Local justice is important, and not for sentimental reasons, nor because that is the way we have always done it. Local justice means justice that is as accessible to low-income citizens as it is to the better off, and where local magistrates understand the local area. ……
Richard Ottaway: Magistrates make a huge contribution to the community. I hope that the Minister will take away from the debate the fact that the magistracy is a locally and community-based activity. If we are to support the community, which is the glue of society, the magistracy must remain local and we must have a local structure to support it. The proposals threaten and jeopardise that local structure. Justice must be dispensed locally. We cannot have the Croydon courts shut down, for example. Croydon is the largest borough in London and the Sutton courts could not cope if Croydon courts were shut down. There would be a gap between Kingston on the one hand and Bromley on the other--entire swathes of south London would have no courts. The thought of witnesses and magistrates having to travel 10 or 15 miles across London is terrible; it would destroy the local dispensation of justice. In rural areas, 10 or 15 miles is not much, but in London it is a huge distance. Magistrates, witnesses, police and all the officials would be in alien territory. 
My second point is important and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will also make it. Justice cannot be finance-led. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly said that he was addressing a different Department on the issue. All Departments have to face the Treasury. Every hon. Member would like to scrum down behind the Minister in his battle for funding from the Treasury, but he has right on his side. The Treasury cannot decide how justice will be dispensed in this country. Justice, the jury and the magistracy are the cornerstones of our local democracy and of everything that we believe in. One cannot require that justice be tailor-made to fit a budget. 
Lards Hansard 3 December 2001.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have only one short hour (words fail me! And this is also supposed to be justice is it?) in which to debate the matter of court closures. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate, as well as to many other noble Lords who have told me that they would have wished to make a contribution. 
In discussing the closure of magistrates' courts, one is to a real degree considering the future of lay Justices of the Peace. From time immemorial, JPs have been the bulwark and personification of local justice in this country. 
This debate is not a trip down memory lane, nor is it my intention to deny the past need for considerable court rationalisation. However, in many parts of the country today, the process has gone too far and has been captured by distorted priorities. 
As we speak, some 435 magistrates' courts are still functioning in England and Wales, presided over by 30,500 Justices of the Peace, along with around 100 full-time stipendiaries, or district judges…..
Today I mention Dorchester Magistrates' Court, which functions extremely well in County Hall in rooms used for many different purposes. Whitehall decries such flexibility. But I repeat, is it not rather a nonsense to close a court for its failure, for example, to provide perfect disabled access, regardless of the fact that such a closure will result in those few disabled people who might have been moderately inconvenienced at the court having to travel many miles at great cost and difficulty, confronted by often non-existent public transport, to reach the alternative court? (Me--a very good point) Incidentally, no account is taken of the increasing rates of lateness and non-appearance of both the accused and witnesses as a result of court closures. 
The Earl of Sandwich: I do not know whether your Lordships have attempted to cross rural Dorset, but many do it not to enjoy the landscape but to avoid a miscarriage of justice or repair a broken home. Your Lordships have to imagine a one-parent family living in Sturminster Newton who may now have to go to Weymouth to seek redress or be called as a witness. That is because the axe has now fallen on Gillingham, which closed in October; and Sherborne may well be next. I recently received a letter on this subject from the law courts in Poole, which seem to be the ones to pronounce sentence on our local courts, all in the name of modernisation and efficiency. 
The chairman of the West Dorset Bench has summarised some of the issues as follows: 
"many . . . have to rely on public transport and then either cannot or will not make long journeys. Without the defendants in court we usually have to adjourn the case adding time and cost. Then when the case eventually gets to court, the delay may reduce the effectiveness of the justice we try to dispense. Any further closure of courts would exacerbate an already difficult situation and should, in our view, be resisted as a matter of principle". 
Those are strong words. 
I have sounded out other magistrates, one of whom has just resigned in protest from the Bench after 29 years--someone who has shown exceptional personal commitment. She feels that a system that has administered speedy local justice will eventually collapse under the present Government's policies. 
It is, I believe, widely recognised that rural communities feel deserted by the law enforcement agencies, and closing rural courthouses is another way of adding to that abandonment. In Dorset, there have been more cancellations than usual this year, and cases are frequently shifted, affecting the availability of witnesses. 
The removal of business altogether from the local courts, which is already happening and which inevitably places a question mark over their survival, is being seen by some as a deliberate attempt in Whitehall to frustrate an ancient and well-tried system. I look forward to the Minister repudiating that. 
In paragraph 27 of his recent review, Lord Justice Auld states: 
"All other things being equal, it is clearly desirable for reasons of convenience that courts should be readily accessible to their local communities . . . decisions of closure should not be taken without assessment of their implications for all involved. It is not solely or even primarily a matter of the potential savings to the courts and their administration". 
The Government's own press release on 8th October stated that the Government want, 
"modern efficient courts that are in touch with the communities they serve". 
I hope that they will think again about the direction of the present reforms in the light of their professed policies of local autonomy and devolution, and that they will consider the effect on local people in rural areas. 
Viscount Simon: There is no reason why magistrates' powers should not be extended, as has happened in the Youth Court which can pass sentence of up to two years' custody. Magistrates are now trained and appraised--unlike, I believe, district judges--and the public should have every confidence in their abilities to make structured and reasoned decisions with the help of their legal advisers on matters of law. I also voice my support for the retention of local licensing jurisdiction by the magistracy where its impartial role is long-standing and of benefit to the local community. 
 
****************************************
I recall that in some of the grave miscarriages of justice, such as the Guilford Four, the Birmingham Six etc, that it was not down to the 'Magistrate's Courts' that these 'mistakes' happened.
Out of all the debates I have gone through, there has not been one mention of the words "Corpus Juris" or "European Union", yet there are many of you reading this that will recognise the workings towards "harmonisation" of all Member States' legal systems. This would no doubt be denied by our Members of Parliament, but this is exactly what it is. In order to bring in the EU wide Arrest Warrant, Habeas Corpus has to be got rid of.
There is no doubt at all that the British system of justice is 'looked up to' by many countries and I have the strongest feeling that if there has to be "harmonising of legal systems" in the European Union (that is if we remain in the European Union, and in view of the forthcoming EU "Constitution" which does away with the myth of "Nation States" trading and working together, I have grave doubts that to remain in the EU would be 'constitutionally' correct??) that it makes more sense on this occasion for the fourteen Member States and also the applicant countries, to alter their legal systems and adopt ours--if that seems abhorrent to them, how could anyone possibly think that the proposed changes to our legal system would ever sound acceptable to the great British people?
The proposal to abolish Habeas Corpus on the proposed EU wide Arrest Warrant under the guise of 'we are at war' and therefore can suspend clause 42 of Magna Carta (see Lords Hansard 19th Nov 2001 Column 901 Baroness Strange), I put forward that it would be rather,(is foolish an acceptable word?) foolish at a time of an on-going war to transfer any further sovereignty, either through the acceptance of Regulations, Directives or Treaties and/or the ratification of treaties at such a grave and sensitive time in our history.. Not only has the proposed EU wide Arrest Warrant been 'on the books' since the early 1990's, it is a proposal for all time, and classed as irrevocable. As a common citizen I object to removal of our common law Habeas Corpus, and along with many other people will fight to keep Habeas Corpus in tact, and fight to safeguard our legal system that has served us well for many, many years.
The Auld Review is on http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk

Compiled and written by:
Anne Palmer [Anne_Stgeorge@Hotmail.com]

There is NO CopyRight on this document, which is one of many 1,000s of items freely available on http://www.SilentMajority.co.UK [some 20Mbs.] & 10s of 1,000s of items on The SilentMajority CD [with over 80Mbs.] which contains the entire web site & hosts other web sites also, 1,000s of apposite quotations, Articles, Speeches, Commentaries, ArtWork, & The FULL text of The EU Treaties, Several Related Books, The British Constitution, The American Constitution & Numerous related Items.
SilentMajority nor any associate thereof does NOT vouch for the veracity of the documents hosted on its site or CD nor any foreign language documents thereon & advises you consult your own solicitor on legal details as we do not accept liability for, nor presume to give legal advice ourselves.
For a copy of the CD please mail payment of £20.00 for UK deliver or £25.00 for ALL other Countries payable to:
Greg Lance – Watkins,
Glance Back Books,
17 Upper Church Street,
CHEPSTOW,
NP16 5EX
Monmouthshire,
GREAT BRITAIN
For delivery of 2 x CDs
one for your own use
+ one for on selling or donation to an individual of influence (media, politician, activist etc.)

IF YOU wish to use the Material Above, which is freely provided
Please have the Courtesy to Print It out in its entirety from start to finish with NO alterations, as displayed.
To This Point
.