Ill-informed opinions being given “free rein” on social networks are “damaging” respect for the island’s courts and threatening the rule of law, the Bailiff has warned.
“Sitting back quietly and tut tutting but saying nothing is the way in which freedom is attacked.”
As I commented yesterday, I think he has a point. Here’s another example, this time from the comments page of the JEP.
“Jersey needs to stop taking people to Court for minor offences like drunk and disorderly, speeding (unless outrageous), peeing in the street, shouting at someone etc, and give police the power to issue hefty fines instead. “
”The cost of these silly court hearings is a burden, an unnecessary one at that, on the tax payer and money that could be used elsewhere. Courts take an awful long time to process offences too which is ridiculous in many cases with some having to wait six to eight months or more just to go to court after a minor offence. It’s ridiculous.”
“The Police should be given the power to write on the spot fines as in other countries. £500 for a first offence, £1000 for a second and £2000 for a third. Guaranteed people will think twice before committing an offence. If an offense is disputed, then the person should go before a police tribunal within 14 days, not the Court.”
“Money is where it hurts people. If after 3 times the person commits an offence, then Court. For an Island of around one hundred thousand people, I will never understand why our system for everything is so slow and costly and more importantly, well behind with the modern times.
As my correspondent Adam Gardiner points out, statements made here are incorrect and some of the proposals simply betray complete ignorance of how the justice system works:
1. Minor offences are NOT taken to court which is why we have the Parish Hall Enquiry to deal with them. Those who repeatedly offend, minor as those offences may be, are taken to Court
2. The law does not provide for anyone other than a Judge, Magistrate or Centenier to impose fines.
3. Courts DO NOT take ‘an awful long time’ to process many offences. The claim of '8 months or more’ is outrageously untrue. The average case is heard within 4 weeks - others within a day or two. If there is a not guilty plea it will go to trial - a process that may take a month - never 8 months. It is a different matter if it goes up to the Royal Court, but only very serious offences go there.
4. Fines are determined not just on what the law prescribes as a penalty but also ability to pay. The is absolutely no point at all in fining someone a sum of money if they simply do not have the ability to pay - or for that matter in doing so would cause hardship. That is why Magistrates often order a Social Enquiry Report before passing judgement.
5. The idea of a Police Tribunal for disputed offences? Does the proposer of this “solution” really want the police both as judge and jury?
Now while Adam points out that Jersey law does not provide for anyone other than a Judge, Magistrate or Centenier to impose fines, there is the ability of the police in the UK to issue fixed penalty notices for some offenses which is not something we have in Jersey.
Penalty notices for disorder are given for offences like: shoplifting, possessing cannabis, being drunk and disorderly in public. But you can only get a penalty notice if you’re 18 or over.
You’ll be asked to sign the penalty notice ticket. You won’t get a criminal conviction if you pay the penalty. You can ask for a trial if you disagree with the penalty notice. You’ll get a bigger fine if you don’t ask for a trial but don’t pay the fine.
However, the commentator has a totally whacky notion about the level of fines which seems more to do with an ill-informed and fantastic leap of the imagination rather than reality.
As the UK government states:
"Police officers have the power to issue penalty notices of £45.00 or £85.00, including a £5.00 offender levy, for a limited range of offences to offenders aged 18 or over."
That’s a long, long way off the ill-informed statement “as in other countries. £500 for a first offence, £1000 for a second and £2000 for a third”!! How people can come out with these statements without bothering to check the facts is amazing – after all, it only requires a small search on Google to determine the facts!
It should be noted in passing that the Parish Hall enquiry has an advantage in that it gives time to explore the offense and see what the best outcome might be. As Peter Raynor and Helen Miles note in their academic study of the Parish Hall enquiry:
“Observation of the process of Parish Hall Enquiries would suggest that in usual circumstances, every attempt is made to prevent the attendee from entering the formal system (unless of course, they wish to do so). The Parish Hall Enquiry is a participatory forum and there is much negotiation between participants about the circumstances of the offence and the appropriate sanction. “
“Centeniers engage attendees in serious and realistic discussion about offending and possible remedies. Centeniers were observed to use personal qualities to good effect in order to provide a flexible, adaptable service. The communication, negotiation and mediation skills of some Centeniers were noteworthy. The high level of effective communication and sound correctional practice in Enquiries is one of the most striking findings of this study.”
“There is clear evidence that the Parish Hall Enquiry process engages most offenders in taking responsibility for what has happened. Parish hall processes require participation, discussion and reflection”
It should also be noted that a written record is kept of decisions made – and the reasons for the decisions.
This may be a slightly longer process that a summary penalty notice (of the kind mentioned above) but it has a far greater chance of ensuring an offender does not offend again, and also identifying any underlying issues which may have caused the offense to take place.
References
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/police-issued-penalty-notices
https://www.probation.je/content/ConductEffectivenessParishHallEnquiries.pdf
“Sitting back quietly and tut tutting but saying nothing is the way in which freedom is attacked.”
As I commented yesterday, I think he has a point. Here’s another example, this time from the comments page of the JEP.
“Jersey needs to stop taking people to Court for minor offences like drunk and disorderly, speeding (unless outrageous), peeing in the street, shouting at someone etc, and give police the power to issue hefty fines instead. “
”The cost of these silly court hearings is a burden, an unnecessary one at that, on the tax payer and money that could be used elsewhere. Courts take an awful long time to process offences too which is ridiculous in many cases with some having to wait six to eight months or more just to go to court after a minor offence. It’s ridiculous.”
“The Police should be given the power to write on the spot fines as in other countries. £500 for a first offence, £1000 for a second and £2000 for a third. Guaranteed people will think twice before committing an offence. If an offense is disputed, then the person should go before a police tribunal within 14 days, not the Court.”
“Money is where it hurts people. If after 3 times the person commits an offence, then Court. For an Island of around one hundred thousand people, I will never understand why our system for everything is so slow and costly and more importantly, well behind with the modern times.
As my correspondent Adam Gardiner points out, statements made here are incorrect and some of the proposals simply betray complete ignorance of how the justice system works:
1. Minor offences are NOT taken to court which is why we have the Parish Hall Enquiry to deal with them. Those who repeatedly offend, minor as those offences may be, are taken to Court
2. The law does not provide for anyone other than a Judge, Magistrate or Centenier to impose fines.
3. Courts DO NOT take ‘an awful long time’ to process many offences. The claim of '8 months or more’ is outrageously untrue. The average case is heard within 4 weeks - others within a day or two. If there is a not guilty plea it will go to trial - a process that may take a month - never 8 months. It is a different matter if it goes up to the Royal Court, but only very serious offences go there.
4. Fines are determined not just on what the law prescribes as a penalty but also ability to pay. The is absolutely no point at all in fining someone a sum of money if they simply do not have the ability to pay - or for that matter in doing so would cause hardship. That is why Magistrates often order a Social Enquiry Report before passing judgement.
5. The idea of a Police Tribunal for disputed offences? Does the proposer of this “solution” really want the police both as judge and jury?
Now while Adam points out that Jersey law does not provide for anyone other than a Judge, Magistrate or Centenier to impose fines, there is the ability of the police in the UK to issue fixed penalty notices for some offenses which is not something we have in Jersey.
Penalty notices for disorder are given for offences like: shoplifting, possessing cannabis, being drunk and disorderly in public. But you can only get a penalty notice if you’re 18 or over.
You’ll be asked to sign the penalty notice ticket. You won’t get a criminal conviction if you pay the penalty. You can ask for a trial if you disagree with the penalty notice. You’ll get a bigger fine if you don’t ask for a trial but don’t pay the fine.
However, the commentator has a totally whacky notion about the level of fines which seems more to do with an ill-informed and fantastic leap of the imagination rather than reality.
As the UK government states:
"Police officers have the power to issue penalty notices of £45.00 or £85.00, including a £5.00 offender levy, for a limited range of offences to offenders aged 18 or over."
That’s a long, long way off the ill-informed statement “as in other countries. £500 for a first offence, £1000 for a second and £2000 for a third”!! How people can come out with these statements without bothering to check the facts is amazing – after all, it only requires a small search on Google to determine the facts!
It should be noted in passing that the Parish Hall enquiry has an advantage in that it gives time to explore the offense and see what the best outcome might be. As Peter Raynor and Helen Miles note in their academic study of the Parish Hall enquiry:
“Observation of the process of Parish Hall Enquiries would suggest that in usual circumstances, every attempt is made to prevent the attendee from entering the formal system (unless of course, they wish to do so). The Parish Hall Enquiry is a participatory forum and there is much negotiation between participants about the circumstances of the offence and the appropriate sanction. “
“Centeniers engage attendees in serious and realistic discussion about offending and possible remedies. Centeniers were observed to use personal qualities to good effect in order to provide a flexible, adaptable service. The communication, negotiation and mediation skills of some Centeniers were noteworthy. The high level of effective communication and sound correctional practice in Enquiries is one of the most striking findings of this study.”
“There is clear evidence that the Parish Hall Enquiry process engages most offenders in taking responsibility for what has happened. Parish hall processes require participation, discussion and reflection”
It should also be noted that a written record is kept of decisions made – and the reasons for the decisions.
This may be a slightly longer process that a summary penalty notice (of the kind mentioned above) but it has a far greater chance of ensuring an offender does not offend again, and also identifying any underlying issues which may have caused the offense to take place.
References
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/police-issued-penalty-notices
https://www.probation.je/content/ConductEffectivenessParishHallEnquiries.pdf
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment