Category: Legal Analysis

Legal Analysis. This is not legal advice !

Categories
Legal Analysis

What is Section 35 ABCP Act 2014 ?

section 35

Section 35 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 grants police officers the power to direct a person to leave a specified area for up to 48 hours if certain conditions are met.

The Met Police were recently criticised for their use of Section 35 powers to arrest Tommy Robinson who was attending a march against antisemitism in London whilst working as a journalist.


(1) If the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are met and an authorisation is in force under section 34, a constable in uniform may direct a person who is in a public place in the locality specified in the authorisation—

(a) to leave the locality (or part of the locality), and

(b) not to return to the locality (or part of the locality) for the period specified in the direction (“the exclusion period”).

(2) The first condition is that the constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to—

(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or

(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.

(3) The second condition is that the constable considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of the events mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b).

(4) The exclusion period may not exceed 48 hours.

The period may expire after (as long as it begins during) the period specified in the authorisation under section 34.

(5) A direction under this section—

(a) must be given in writing, unless that is not reasonably practicable;

(b) must specify the area to which it relates;

(c) may impose requirements as to the time by which the person must leave the area and the manner in which the person must do so (including the route).

(6) The constable must (unless it is not reasonably practicable) tell the person to whom the direction is given that failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction is an offence.

(7) If the constable reasonably believes that the person to whom the direction is given is under the age of 16, the constable may remove the person to a place where the person lives or a place of safety.

(8) Any constable may withdraw or vary a direction under this section; but a variation must not extend the duration of a direction beyond 48 hours from when it was first given.

(9) Notice of a withdrawal or variation of a direction—

(a) must be given to the person to whom the direction was given, unless that is not reasonably practicable, and

(b) if given, must be given in writing unless that is not reasonably practicable.

(10) In this section “public place” means a place to which at the material time the public or a section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission.

(11) In this Part “exclusion period” has the meaning given by subsection (1)(b).

Directions excluding a person from an area Section 35 ABCP Act 2014

These conditions include the officer having reasonable grounds to suspect that the person’s behaviour has contributed or is likely to contribute to members of the public being harassed, alarmed, or distressed, or to the occurrence of crime or disorder in the area.

The direction must be given in writing (unless impractical), specify the area, and may include requirements on the time and manner of departure, including the route. Failing to comply with the direction is an offence.

The power can be exercised by a Police Constable or a Police Community Support Officer. and must be authorised by a police officer of at least the rank of inspector. Section 34 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 details the Authorisations to use powers under section 35.

(1) A police officer of at least the rank of inspector may authorise the use in a specified locality, during a specified period of not more than 48 hours, of the powers given by section 35.

“Specified” means specified in the authorisation.

(2) An officer may give such an authorisation only if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the use of those powers in the locality during that period may be necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of—

(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or

(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.

(3) In deciding whether to give such an authorisation an officer must have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

“Convention” has the meaning given by section 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

(4) An authorisation under this section—

(a) must be in writing,

(b) must be signed by the officer giving it, and

(c) must specify the grounds on which it is given.

Authorisations to use powers under section 35 Section 34 ABCP Act 2014

Challenge a Section 35 Order

There are several ways to challenge the use of Section 35 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 if you believe that the powers have been used inappropriately or unfairly :-

  1. Complain to the Police: Initially, you can make a complaint to the police force that issued the direction under Section 35. Each police force and local authority will have a formal complaints procedure.
  2. Independent Review: If you are not satisfied with the response from the police or local authority, you can seek an independent review. For police complaints, this may involve the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
  3. Judicial Review: As a last resort, you can consider a judicial review, which is a type of court proceeding where a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. A judicial review could challenge the way in which the powers were exercised.
  4. Legal Advice: It is advisable to seek legal advice if you are considering challenging the use of these powers. A solicitor can provide guidance on the merits of your case and the appropriate course of action.

Remember, the use of these powers is subject to certain conditions and must be proportionate to the issue being addressed. The rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998, must also be considered by the authorities when exercising these powers.

If you need detailed guidance or support, you may want to consult a legal professional who specialises in this area of law. They can provide personalised advice based on the specifics of your situation.

Check out our articles on HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Latest Articles

All articles can be found in our Sitemap or Legal Blog pages.

Categories
Legal Analysis

Bar Standards Board Justice ?

bar standards board justice

The Bar Standards Board published disciplinary findings against barrister Mr Thomas David Davidson on the 21st November 2023.

Thomas Davidson, a practising barrister, behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession, in that, on 7 February 2022 at Salisbury Magistrates Court, following the conclusion of a trial during which he had represented a defendant before a Bench consisting of three Lay Magistrates, and after the Chairperson raised with him the issue of his having used a German accent during the proceedings and telling him that this conduct had been inappropriate, Mr Davidson looked at the Bench and said “Jawohl” at the same time as raising a hand in a Nazi salute, which conduct was seriously offensive and discreditable.

For professional misconduct contrary to Core Duty 5 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales, Thomas Davidson was reprimanded and fined £250 with costs of £1,750.00.

The work that the Bar Standards Board do is governed by the Legal Services Act 2007 (the Act) as well as a number of other statutes.

The BSB Handbook contains the rules about how barristers must behave and work. Version 4.7 of the BSB Handbook came into force on the 20th September 2023.

This is hardly a punishment or deterrent by the Bar Standards Board. Where is the justice in this pathetic reprimand ?

Why was he not dealt with by the magistrates for contempt of court ?

•    setting the education and training requirements for becoming a barrister;
•    setting continuing training requirements to ensure that barristers’ skills are maintained throughout their careers;
•    setting standards of conduct for barristers;
•    authorising organisations that focus on advocacy, litigation, and specialist legal advice;
•    monitoring the service provided by barristers and the organisations we authorise to ensure they meet our requirements; and
•    considering reported concerns about barristers and the organisations we authorise and taking enforcement or other action where appropriate.

Bar Standards Board Responsibilities

Check out our articles on HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

We recommend you should always seek formal legal advice if required, from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Latest Articles

All articles can be found in our Sitemap or Legal Blog pages.

Categories
Legal Analysis

What is a Lucas Direction ?

Lucas Direction

A Lucas Direction, stemming from the case of R v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] EWCA Crim J0519-8, is a legal principle used in criminal trials to guide the jury on how to consider the evidence of lies told by a defendant. The case of Regina v Lucas (Ruth) is a landmark decision that established the criteria under which a lie can be considered as evidence of guilt.

The case involved Iyabode Ruth Lucas, who was convicted at Reading Crown Court on two counts of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition of the importation into the UK of a controlled drug, namely cannabis, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The conviction was based on her arrival from Nigeria at Gatwick and Heathrow airports with significant quantities of cannabis. The appeal focused on whether the trial judge gave a correct direction on the question of corroboration of the evidence provided by an accomplice.

The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Lane LCJ, held that the mere fact that a defendant has lied is not in itself evidence of guilt. People may lie for various reasons, such as shame, panic, or the desire to cover for someone else. Therefore, a Lucas Direction instructs the jury that they can only consider a lie as evidence supporting guilt if certain conditions are met:

The lie must be deliberate.
The lie must relate to a material issue.
The lie must be told after the crime.
The lie must be told before there is a strong suspicion of guilt.
The jury must be satisfied that the lie was told to conceal guilt, and even then, it is not conclusive proof of guilt but merely an additional piece of evidence to be weighed with all other evidence in the case.

Lucas Direction Conditions

The Lucas Direction is significant because it protects defendants from being unjustly convicted based solely on their lies. It ensures that the jury understands that not all lies are indicative of guilt and that they must carefully consider the context and reasons for the lie before drawing any inferences.

The principles from Regina v Lucas (Ruth) have been cited in numerous subsequent cases and have become an integral part of jury instructions in criminal trials. It reflects the careful balance that must be struck in the justice system between the prosecution’s need to prove guilt and the protection of the rights of the accused.

In summary, the Lucas Direction serves as a safeguard against wrongful convictions and underscores the importance of a fair trial. It is a reminder that while the truth is paramount in the pursuit of justice, the reasons behind a person’s actions, including their lies, must be thoroughly examined and understood. The legacy of Regina v Lucas (Ruth) continues to influence the administration of justice, ensuring that juries are properly directed on how to approach evidence of lies in the context of a criminal trial.

We recommend you should always seek formal legal advice if required, from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

Latest Articles

All articles can be found in our Sitemap or Legal Blog pages.

Categories
Legal Analysis

Photography in Court

photography in court

Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (CJA 1925) makes it an offence to take any photograph, make or attempt to make any portrait or sketch of a justice or a witness in, or a party to, any proceedings before the court, either in the courtroom or its precincts. A court precinct are its buildings and land.

According to the CPS, the penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. A Level 3 fine is a maximum of £1,000 and is published on the Sentencing Council website. The CJA 1925, however only provides for a fine not exceeding £50.

(1) No person shall—

(a) take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or

(b) publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;

and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

Criminal Justice Act 1925 Section 41

The Criminal Justice Act 1925 comes into effect within the precinct of a Crown Court; whereas the Contempt of Court Act 1981 comes into effect on all other HMCTS sites.

The offence at s41 CJA 1925 can be charged as a criminal offence in accordance with the Director’s Guidance on Charging, or the underlying behaviour can be dealt with by the court as a contempt in accordance with the summary procedure at Rule 48.5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules – see R v D (Contempt of Court: Illegal Photography) [2004] EWCA Crim 1271, or on a later application to the High Court by the Attorney General.

If dealt with by summons or charge normal time limits apply. The decision whether to charge a criminal offence or to bring proceedings for contempt will depend on the facts of the case, including the gravity of the interference with the administration of justice.

In Solicitor General v Cox [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB) the Solicitor General brought proceedings for common law contempt in respect of photos and videos taken in court and posted online along with derogatory comments about the judge. The court found that both the taking and publication of the illegally taken images, accompanied by pejorative comments about a judge, amounted to contempt, in circumstances where the contemnor knew phones were banned and had acted in deliberate defiance of it. The court considered the gravity of the risks and of the interference with the due administration of justice in the case and held that proceedings for contempt, rather than prosecution of the criminal offence, were appropriate.

The case of Cox highlights the extent to which the use of social media can interfere with the administration of justice and the need to take appropriate action. Prosecutors should refer to the Criminal Practice Directions (CPD I General matters 6C. This clarifies the use which may be made of live text-based communications, such as mobile email, social media (including Twitter) and internet-enabled laptops in and from courts).

Where evidence exists of an offence contrary to s.41 CJA 1925 prosecutors should assist the court by reference to the above considerations. The court initially decides on whether action must be taken by application of the summary contempt procedure at Rule 48.5. In the magistrates’ court the summary contempt procedure must be completed that day – see Practice and Procedure below. If the court does not proceed in this manner a decision has to be made on whether to proceed by charge or to refer the matter to the Attorney General having regard to the gravity of the risks and interference with the due administration of justice in the case.

Two options

  1. If the offender is apprehended on the day and the court is sitting advise court that it can deal with it as a contempt of court there and then, using the summary procedure at Rule 48.5 above, or have the police decide whether to charge an offence contrary to s.41 Criminal Justice Act 1925. If a magistrates’ court decides to deal with it there and then it may receive an apology but cannot impose a sanction – see Rule 48.5 procedure above.
  2. If the court does not deal with it there and then the normal police investigation and charge procedure applies. The offence is at s41 Criminal Justice Act 1925. Penalty is a level 3 fine. AG consent is not required so police can charge. Prosecutors note – there is no need to contact AGO when this scenario occurs unless the risks and interference with the due administration of justice was particularly grave. See Solicitor General v Cox where particularly serious issue.
Photography in court – Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Legal Guidance

Contempt of Court

Contempt of Court is conduct that denotes wilful defiance of, or disrespect towards the court, or that wilfully challenges or affronts the authority of the court or the supremacy of the law itself.

Photography Ban and the Crimes and Courts Act 2013 

According to The Law Society Gazette article Court photography ban under review in transparency drive written by Monidipa Fouzder and published on the 11th May 2023 :-

A ban imposed nearly 100 years ago on photography in courts could be lifted under ideas being floated by the government to make the justice system more transparent.

A call for evidence published by the Ministry of Justice today asks if the 1925 prohibition on photography and 1981 prohibition on sound recording remain fit for purpose.

The Crimes and Courts Act 2013 allows the ban to be disapplied in certain circumstances by secondary legislation. For instance, the Court of Appeal and Competition Appeal Tribunal can broadcast proceedings. The Crown court can broadcast sentencing remarks. The Supreme Court is excluded from the two bans because cases heard by the UK’s highest court, which was established in 2009, would have previously been heard in the House of Lords where broadcasting was allowed.

Court photography ban under review in transparency drive

Video of Crown Court and Court of Appeal Cases

The latest cases as captured by Sky News cameras in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal are published on the Sky News – Courts YouTube Channel.

Please be advised that the published videos may contain graphic descriptions of serious crimes, including murder and sexual offences.

Check out our articles on Can you Criticise a Judge ?, Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friends, Horsham County Court, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, R v Sussex Justices and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

Latest Articles

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

Categories
Legal Analysis

What does Lady Justice Symbolise ?

lady justice

Lady Justice, often depicted as a graceful figure holding a sword, scales, and sometimes wearing a blindfold, is an iconic symbol of the judicial system.

Her image evokes a sense of impartiality, fairness, and the pursuit of justice. Through the ages, Lady Justice has come to embody the ideals of a just society, representing the principles upon which legal systems are built.

In this article, we will explore the history, meaning, and significance of Lady Justice, focusing on the symbolism behind her scales, sword, and blindfold.

Historical Origins and Evolution

The origins of Lady Justice can be traced back to ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. In Greece, she was known as “Themis,” the daughter of Uranus (Heaven) and Gaia (Earth). Themis was the personification of divine law, order, and justice.

The Romans adopted this concept and named her “Justitia” – the goddess of Justice within Roman mythology. Over time, her imagery and symbolism evolved to what we now recognise as Lady Justice.

The Scales of Justice

One of the most prominent features of Lady Justice is the scales she holds in her hand. The scales symbolize the weighing of evidence and arguments in a court of law. They represent the need for a balanced and impartial consideration of facts and arguments before reaching a fair judgment. Lady Justice reminds us that justice must be meted out objectively, based on the merits of each case.

The Sword

Lady Justice also holds a sword. The sword represents the power and authority of the judiciary to enforce the law and protect society. It signifies the role of justice in upholding the rule of law and maintaining order. The sword reminds us that justice has the strength to cut through falsehoods, expose the truth, and hold accountable those who have violated the law.

The Blindfold

Lady Justice’s blindfold, if depicted, is a powerful symbol of impartiality and the fair application of the law. By covering her eyes, she demonstrates her commitment to judge each case solely on its merits, without bias or favouritism. The blindfold represents the ideal that justice should be blind to factors such as wealth, status, race, or gender. It ensures that all individuals, regardless of their background, are treated equally under the law.

It has been said that the addition of the blindfold in the 16th century was intended to show Lady Justice as blind to the injustice carried on before her.

The Fight Against Injustice

Lady Justice stands as a potent symbol in the ongoing struggle against injustice. Throughout history, societies have faced numerous instances of injustice, where the principles of fairness and equity have been disregarded. There have been many cases where the blindfold has been lifted, and justice has been influenced by prejudice, political pressure, or systemic biases.

Lady Justice serves as a constant reminder of the importance of upholding these principles and working towards a just society. She encourages us to fight against corruption, discrimination, and inequality, and to advocate for the rights of the marginalised and oppressed.

Conclusion

Lady Justice, with her scales, blindfold, and sword, represents the pillars of fairness, equity, and the pursuit of justice. Her image has evolved over time, reflecting the ideals of different civilizations.

Lady Justice serves as a constant reminder of the need for a balanced consideration of evidence, an unbiased application of the law, and the power of justice to combat injustice.

As society continues to strive for a just and equitable future, Lady Justice will remain an emblematic figure, inspiring us to fight for a world where fairness and equity prevail.

Check out our article on the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board and make up your own mind.

We recommend you should always seek formal legal advice if required, from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

Latest Articles

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

Categories
Legal Analysis

What is Recusal ?

judge steps down recusal

Judges have a duty to act impartially and without bias. This duty is enshrined in common law principles and is essential for upholding the rule of law.

Recusal is an important ethical and legal principle in the justice system, designed to ensure that legal proceedings are conducted fairly and impartially, and that the rights of all parties are protected. It helps maintain public trust in the legal system and upholds the principles of justice and due process.

The basic principle is that a court or tribunal hearing a case must be impartial and that justice “should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done” R v Sussex Justices

Recusal is when a judge steps down (recuses) from hearing a case on the basis that it’s not appropriate for them to deal with it. They may have a conflict of interest or there might be actual, presumed or apparent bias against a party. There may also be a real possibility that a fair-minded observer would conclude that the judge should not try the case because they cannot be impartial.

A judge can decide to recuse themselves of their own volition, or a party can make an application for recusal. The application should be made at the beginning of any hearing or proceedings.

A Practical Law article RECUSAL OF JUDGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION is published on the 3 Paper Buildings (3PB) Chambers website.

Recusal-of-judges-1-w-034-0054Download

What is a conflict of interest ?

A conflict of interest (COI) refers to a situation in which a judge is involved in multiple interests or relationships, and these interests or relationships could potentially compromise their ability to make impartial or objective decisions. In such situations, there is a risk that personal or financial considerations may unduly influence a judge’s actions or decisions.

What is bias ?

“Bias is an attitude of mind that prevents the judge from making an objective determination of the issues that they have to resolve” Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700, Para 37.

The University of Oxford Faculty of Law published Determining Bias: A survey of the law in the United Kingdom in January 2020

Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700, the accepted test is that laid down in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357, para 103: “whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased”……. The characteristics of the fair-minded and informed observer are now well understood: he must adopt a balanced approach and will be taken to be a reasonable member of the public, neither unduly complacent or naïve nor unduly cynical or suspicious.

R v. Abdroikof (Appellant) and another (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Check out our articles on  R v Sussex Justices, Rule of Law, Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friends, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read the reviews of Gavin Howe Barrister

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Latest Articles

All articles can be found in our Sitemap or Legal Blog pages.

Categories
Legal Analysis

ULEZ Bag Crime ?

Ulez Ultra Low Emission Zone Crime

ULEZ is London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s much-hated and deeply unpopular road charge, which has seen protests, violence and vandalism (criminal damage) throughout Greater London.

The ULEZ scheme was expanded to cover all of Greater London on Tuesday 29th August 2023. Ulez charges (fines) older, more polluting vehicles £12.50 a day and is currently the largest clean air zone in the world.

The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every day of the year, except Christmas Day (25th December). The zone operates across all London boroughs, and does not include the M25.

At least a quarter of the cameras in London’s newly expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone have been damaged by vandals, new data reveals.

Campaigners this week have stepped up efforts to deface the cameras installed in wake of mayor Sadiq Khan’s controversial extension of the scheme, which is now clobbering thousands more drivers with £12.50 a day charges.

ULEZ vandals damage ‘a quarter of all new cameras in expansion zone’ amid backlash over Sadiq Khan’s ultra-low emissions scheme – Daily Mail 1st September 2023

Is putting a bag over a ULEZ camera criminal damage or harmless civil disobedience ?

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) publish legal guidance on Criminal Damage.

What is Criminal Damage ?

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA 1971) is the primary source of offences involving damage to property.

Section 1(1) CDA 1971 – A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence.

This offence is triable either way – para. 29, Schedule 1 Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 (MCA 1980).The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment – Section 4 CDA 1971.

What is the Meaning of Property ?

Property” in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA 1971) means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal. – Section 10.

The CDA 1971 requires proof that tangible property has been damaged, not necessarily that the damage itself should be tangible. Property does not however include intangibles or things in action.

What is Damage ?

Damage is not defined by the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA 1971).

It should be widely interpreted to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness – Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim.L.R. 48.

Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section.

The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell.

Where the interference amounts to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner, then the necessary damage is established – R v Whiteley [1991] 93 Crim. App. R. 25.

Mens Rea

Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is “guilty mind.” The plural of mens rea is mentes reae. Mens rea​ is the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. Establishing the mens rea of an offender, in addition to the actus reus (physical elements of the crime) is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial.

Cornell Law School

Without Lawful Excuse

Section 5 of the CDA 1971 sets out a defence to criminal damage charges, though not to aggravated criminal damage under s.1(2) – see s.5(1) CDA 1971. A person has a lawful excuse if

  • they believed at the time that those whom they believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or
  • at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence they believed:
    • that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
    • that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

Tried Summarily

The provisions of s. 22 and Schedule 2 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (MCA) deal with the determination of mode of trial for those offences, referred to as “scheduled offences” that are mentioned in the first column of Schedule 2 MCA 1980.

Where a person is charged with an offence contrary to s.1(1) CDA 1971 or with aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring such an offence, or with attempting to commit, or inciting such an offence, and the value involved is less than £5,000, they must be tried summarily.

Tried summarily is an offence that can be tried only in a magistrates’ court.

It is important to note that there are two exceptions set out in Schedule 2 where the offence will be triable either way even if the value of the destroyed property or damage amounts to less than £5000. These are:

  • if the damage was caused by fire (the offence will be arson – see below); and
  • if the damage was done to a memorial on or after 28 June 2022.

Civil Disobedience on Conscientious Grounds

The common law has always been sensitive to the position of protesters when it comes to both prosecution and sentencing.

“My Lords, civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country.

People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometimes vindicated by history.

The suffragettes are an example which comes immediately to mind. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.

But there are conventions which are generally accepted by the law-breakers on one side and the law-enforcers on the other.

The protesters behave with a sense of proportion and do not cause excessive damage or inconvenience. And they vouch the sincerity of their beliefs by accepting the penalties imposed by the law.

The police and prosecutors, on the other hand, behave with restraint and the magistrates impose sentences which take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account.

The conditional discharges ordered by the magistrates in the cases which came before them exemplifies their sensitivity to these conventions.”

Lord Hoffmann – R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 161 at [89]:

Is putting a bag over a ULEZ camera criminal damage ?

I am not a lawyer and this is purely my opinion of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This is not legal advice ! I am not condoning or encouraging any form of criminal behaviour or civil disobedience.

  • Putting a bag over a ULEZ camera would be a temporary impairment of usefulness – Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim.L.R. 48 and would therefore be classed as damage. This would be the Actus Reus (physical elements of the crime)
  • The Mens Rea would be to render the camera unable to carry out it’s function.
  • The damage would be less than £5000 so if prosecuted, it would be tried summarily in a magistrates’ court.
  • Civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. The police and prosecutors should behave with restraint and the magistrates impose sentences which take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account.

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Policing by Consent, Dodgy Judges, His Honour Now His Dishonour, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read our review of Gavin Howe Barrister

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

Latest Articles

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

Categories
Legal Analysis

You Can Leave Your Hat On…..at Horsham County Court

horsham county court hats on security

On the 4th July 2023 at 9.30am a McKenzie Friend and I went through “strict” airport style security at Horsham County Court in Hurst Rd, Horsham RH12 2ET.

Horsham County Court Entrance

Pockets were emptied into a tray and my laptop bag was searched by a Security guard using a torch taped to a ruler. Very unusual apparatus operated by a security guard in a shirt that was once white !

Horsham County Court Security and Staff Smoking Area

At least he and the other security guards were displaying their SIA badges as required by law under Section 9 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.

One of the Security guards was obviously under pressure to secure the Court building as he was regularly going outside for a smoke !

Hats on Security at Horsham County Court

Inadvertently I left my Eurostar hat on (as pictured) and I wore it during the security screening including going through the airport style metal detector.

At no time was I asked to remove the hat nor was it scanned using the handheld scanner. The CCTV from the Court building, if working, would confirm this. I could request this footage from the Court by submitting a Subject Access Request.

The article Going through security at a court or tribunal building is published on the gov.uk website and explains the security when you enter a court or tribunal building.

You’ll go through a security check, like you would at an airport. This may include:

  • emptying your pockets into a tray
  • taking off your shoes, coat, gloves or hat
  • being asked to take off or open your belt
  • walking through an archway detector
  • being checked by hand or with a handheld scanner

If you’re wearing a head covering for religious or cultural reasons, you can ask for it to be checked with a handheld scanner so you do not have to take it off.

Going Through Security – gov.uk

The guidance says “may” which is a little odd.

In my opinion, the Security staff at Horsham County Court failed to do their job properly. I do not think a Eurostar hat could ever be classed as a head covering for religious or cultural reasons !

At Horsham County Court it seems that you can leave your hat on !

Horsham County Court Royal Coat of Arms

Horsham County Court Literature

There were a number of leaflet holders in the waiting area that were empty apart from a leaflet about “Restorative Justice For You” and one containing a Mars Bar Wrapper that has been there for at least 3 months !

“Restorative Justice For You” mentions the Sussex Criminal Justice Board.

Restorative Justice For You – Sussex Criminal Justice Board

Are the Sussex Criminal Justice Board as dodgy as the Sussex Family Justice Board ? The MOI will be investigating for a future article.

Horsham County Court Security Review

Horsham County Court Security staff made regular security patrols which was very reassuring. I am aware there were VIP’s in the building including my mentor DDJ Mills !

They used a phone to scan targets that were a circle with a cross hand drawn with a black sharpie on a Tipp-Ex background. Improvisation that rivals the skills of MacGyver.

I couldn’t help but notice that there was a lot of network cables in trunking attached to the ceiling that were secured with red cable ties. This is assumed to be for a secure network, however there were gaps in the trunking and the cables were exposed where they entered the wall. No doubt the Ministry of Justice/HMCTS IT will want to review this as a security risk.

In summary :-

  • Horsham Security should review their Airport Style security. Can you leave your hat on ?
  • Improve the appearance of their security staff.
  • Horsham Court staff or the Ministry of Justice/HMCTS should review their smoking policy on Court premises.
  • MoJ/HMCTS IT to review the secure cabling.

I will back to Horsham County Court in October 2023 to review again.

You may be interested in the article about the Royal Courts of Justice which explains Court security and spoons !

Check out our articles on R v Sussex Justices, Dodgy Judges, HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read our review of Gavin Howe Barrister

Latest Articles

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

Categories
Legal Analysis

Can you Criticise a Judge ?

criticise the judiciary

In short, the answer is yes anyone can criticise a judge or court.

The judiciary and courts are quite rightly not immune to public criticism and comment. The rule of law applies to everyone and no one should be above the law.

Scandalising the judiciary, also known as scandalising the court or scandalising judges, was historically considered a form of contempt of court in the common law of England and Wales.

It involved any publication or speech that would undermine public confidence in the judiciary or its officers, such as judges and magistrates.

However, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 abolished the offence of scandalising the judiciary under the common law of England and Wales.

Section 33 of the Act specifically states

“Scandalising the judiciary (also referred to as scandalising the court or scandalising judges) is abolished as a form of contempt of court under the common law of England and Wales.”

Crime and Courts Act 2013 Section 33

The decision to abolish the offence was controversial, with supporters of the change arguing that it was necessary to ensure that freedom of expression was protected and that the judiciary were not immune to criticism.

While the offence of scandalising the judiciary no longer exists under the common law of England and Wales, other forms of contempt of court still apply.

These include disobedience to court orders, interference with court proceedings, and publication of material that could prejudice ongoing legal proceedings.

In conclusion, scandalising the judiciary was once considered a form of contempt of court in England and Wales, but this offence was abolished by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

It should however be noted that libel and slander are both forms of defamation, which involve making a false statement about someone that damages their reputation.

In the United Kingdom, the laws around libel and slander are governed by the Defamation Act 2013, which replaced the previous common law rules on defamation.

Formal complaints about judges can be made at the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).

The JCIO are an independent office which supports the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice in considering complaints about the personal conduct of judicial office holders.

The JCIO cannot accept complaints about a judge’s decision or the way a judge has managed a case.

The Law Commission published a consultation paper (no207) in 2012 entitled Contempt of Court : Scandalising the Court

cp207_Scandalising_the_CourtDownload

Check out our articles on HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, Dodgy Judges, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Etiquette and Manners in Court and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read our review of Gavin Howe Barrister

Latest Articles

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

Categories
Legal Analysis

Do You Have to Bow to a Judge ?

royal coats of arms

The Royal Coat of Arms appear in every courtroom in England and Wales (with the exception of the Magistrates’ court in the City of London*), to demonstrate that justice comes from the monarch and that a law court is part of the Royal Court.

The presence of the Royal Arms explains why lawyers and court officials bow to the judge or magistrates’ bench when they enter the room. They aren’t bowing to the judge – they are bowing to the coat of arms, to show respect for the King’s justice.

Traditions of the courts judiciary.uk

According to the HM Courts & Tribunals Service article What to expect coming to a court or tribunal :-

You may see some people bow to the judge or magistrate when they walk in or out of the hearing room. You don’t have to do this, but you can if you want to.

What to expect coming to a court or tribunal HMCTS

It’s interesting that HMCTS think that “people” are bowing to the judge or magistrate when this is clearly wrong according the judiciary !

In answer the question Do You Have to Bow to a Judge ? :-

No you do not have to bow to a Judge.

Check out our articles on HHJ Farquhar, HHJ Bedford, Dodgy Judges, Can you Criticise a Judge ?, Etiquette and Manners in Court and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

We have a number of links to Free Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on our Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Read our review of Gavin Howe Barrister

* Why doesn’t the Royal Coat of Arms appear in the Magistrates’ court in the City of London ? will be covered in a future article.

Latest Articles

All articles can be found in our Sitemap

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent

Access To Justice Is A Right Not A Privilege
Equal Justice Under Law