A new facet of child protection: London Borough of Tower Hamlets v B

London Borough of Tower Hamlets v B [2015] EWHC 2491 (Fam)- Heydon J.

B is an "intelligent, educated and ambitious" 16 year old who has been subjected to serious emotional harm, and, at the very least, continues to be at risk of such in her parent's care.  She was prevented by the Police from departing to Syria where she would have involved herself with Islamic State.  The emotional harm arose from material (found at her home) of a disturbing nature including video of beheadings and "smiling corpses."  B's parents had, at first, seemed to be a protective force but the reality proved to be something altogether different.  Heydon J noted at paragraphs 4 and 5:

Imprisonment in England and Wales

The Howard League has published interesting data about the Prison Population in England and Wales at week ending 28th August 2015- Howard League Prison Watch

There are disturbing aspects to the figures.  For example, the fact that 4,614 people are held on the now abolished indeterminate IPP sentences, of whom 3,532 (77 per cent) have passed their tariff expiry date.  Also, the number of deaths in custody continues to be high.

See earlier posts on IPP sentences - 27th October 2011- 20th September 2012 - 11th October 2012 and 11th December 2014 -

 Ministry of Justice statistics show that on 30 June 2015 there were:

• 11,785 men, women and children are held on remand in prison
• 6,279 people are serving short sentences (less than 12 months)
• 4,614 people are held on the now abolished indeterminate IPP sentences, of whom 3,532 (77 per cent) have passed their tariff expiry date

Magistrates under attack !

"The Secret Barrister" makes out a case for the abolition of "lay magistrates" - Why this 70p Mars Bar shows we should abolish magistrates  In this post I offer brief comment only.

The author points to the case of Louisa Sewell:

Thursday August 6^th 2015, Louisa Sewell appeared at Halesowen magistrates’ court and immediately pleaded guilty to stealing a pack of Mars bars valued at 75p. In mitigation, it was submitted on her behalf that, due to her state benefits having been sanctioned, the Defendant had been left penniless and, having not eaten for four days, stole “the cheapest item in the shop” to eat. Due to the date of the commission of this offence, the Criminal Court Charge applied, meaning the magistrates were obliged to charge £150, on top of the discretionary punishment of a £73 fine, £85 prosecution costs, £20 victim surcharge and, with no hint of irony, 75p compensation for the shop. So, the headline ran, a £328.75 bill for a Mars bar.

The author rightly condemns

Action by lawyers over criminal legal aid and two-tier contracts

Mark Fenhalls QC (Chairman-elect of the Criminal Bar Association has announced that "no returns" is suspended with immediate effect and there is no reason why barristers should not accept any fresh instructions.  This announcement follows on from solicitor's organisations suspending their action pending further discussions with the Secretary of State and his officials.

Read the complete announcement

Chief Constables and Police Discipline

The Police and Crime Commissioner for Avon and Somerset (Sue Mountstevens) has commenced the process under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 section 38(3) to require the Chief Constable of the Force - Mr Nick Gargan QPM - to "retire or resign" - see Avon and Somerset PCC 19th August 2015.  This follows an independent misconduct panel which found against Mr Gargan on 8 counts of breaching of standards of professional behaviour contrary to Schedule 2 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 .

The Commissioner's website provides links to a number of documents including the misconduct panel report (the panel hearing was in private) and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report.   The IPCC acted on a referral from the Commissioner.

Stop and Search ~ concerns being addressed

Updated 19th August

Stop and Search powers:

Parliament has - rightly - given the Police "stop and search" powers.  As with any police power they must be exercised responsibly and lawfully.   Lawful exercise includes avoidance of unlawful discrimination - see Equality Act 2010 s.149.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Part 1 (Stop and Search) is an important general stop and search power.  Code of Practice A is applicable.  There are further powers granted to the Police by other legislation - see the details set out in Code A.

The use of Stop and Search powers has often been controversial.   One article (The Independent 6th August 2015 - Stop and Search: Can transparency end this abuse of Police powers?) states that: "The excessive and discriminatory use of stop-and-search powers is among the sorriest episodes in the history of the police over the past 30 years."
  

Chilcot and the difficult question of fairness ~ Maxwellisation is not there 'to make a lawyer's holiday'

The Iraq Inquiry was set up in 2009 under the Chairmanship of Sir John Chilcot.  It is a committee of Privy Counsellors tasked with considering the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath.

February 2015:

Sir John gave evidence to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in February 2015 - view the session.  He explained that rigour was necessary in establishing the facts and producing the report.  The inquiry was of unprecedented scope (covering an 8 year period) and a reliable account was required.  Over 150 witnesses had given evidence and over 150,000 government documents had to be examined.  There had been difficulties with the release of some material, notably communications between Prime Minister Tony Blair and President G W Bush, but those matters had been dealt with by September 2014.  After that, the process known as "Maxwellisation" could begin and Sir John clearly saw this as an essential step in ensuring the rigour of the final report.  In his evidence to the committee, Sir John would not say how many individuals were involved in "Maxwellisation."  It was necessary to allow a "reasonable time" - but not indefinite time - to deal with this and the time scale might depend on the precise nature of criticisms addressed to individuals.