Sentencing policy

Currently the Sentencing Council requires magistrates'courts to "follow" their guidelines. 

 

The SC is a body of 14 people including senior judges and 6  non-judicial members.  There are just two people from the magistrates' courts – one lay magistrate and one district judge.  As 96% of criminal cases are concluded in the magistates' courts, the balance of day-to-day understanding of the SC is lacking yet their recommendations are expected to regulate sentencing in the lower courts.

 

Previously, guidelines were issued by "The Magistrates' Association" whose members know the needs of the lower courts and who recognise that consistency in sentencing is important yet local knowledge must be allowed to operate.  As an example, the loss of a driving licence is a more severe penalty to a country driver who, with a bus service of perhaps once a day, might become unemployed whereas a city dweller may be inconvenienced but keep his job.  

 

The SC and its predecessor the SGC has consistently reduced penalties and this has led to increased crime.  (Lower crime rates are reported by some Government bodies but they ignore the fact that the use of fixed penalty notices hae been widened and do not show in crime statistics).

 

To save money and restore effective sentencing, the SC should be scrapped forthwith.   

Why is this idea important?

Currently the Sentencing Council requires magistrates'courts to "follow" their guidelines. 

 

The SC is a body of 14 people including senior judges and 6  non-judicial members.  There are just two people from the magistrates' courts – one lay magistrate and one district judge.  As 96% of criminal cases are concluded in the magistates' courts, the balance of day-to-day understanding of the SC is lacking yet their recommendations are expected to regulate sentencing in the lower courts.

 

Previously, guidelines were issued by "The Magistrates' Association" whose members know the needs of the lower courts and who recognise that consistency in sentencing is important yet local knowledge must be allowed to operate.  As an example, the loss of a driving licence is a more severe penalty to a country driver who, with a bus service of perhaps once a day, might become unemployed whereas a city dweller may be inconvenienced but keep his job.  

 

The SC and its predecessor the SGC has consistently reduced penalties and this has led to increased crime.  (Lower crime rates are reported by some Government bodies but they ignore the fact that the use of fixed penalty notices hae been widened and do not show in crime statistics).

 

To save money and restore effective sentencing, the SC should be scrapped forthwith.   

Repeal Ombudsman Laws/ Rules

I would like to see the repeal of the law and or rules, that stop a judicial review having full powers to oversee and reverse any of the various Ombudsman's decisions.

Widely seen as biased and untrustworthy, Most people who have had to deal with any Ombudsman department would like the total power held over them by the Ombudsman and be association, the power of big business to act as they please, to be moderated and overseen by Judicial review or by going through some other suitable route.

The way the present Laws, rules and process moves, there is no protection for the public from even the most obviously ridiculous one sided rulings the ombudsman's bodies make.

So I, and a huge body of the British public urge a reform over the Laws and rules governing the way the Ombudsman and courts interact with the pubic once a complaint about a business, council, or utility service, has been made. 

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the repeal of the law and or rules, that stop a judicial review having full powers to oversee and reverse any of the various Ombudsman's decisions.

Widely seen as biased and untrustworthy, Most people who have had to deal with any Ombudsman department would like the total power held over them by the Ombudsman and be association, the power of big business to act as they please, to be moderated and overseen by Judicial review or by going through some other suitable route.

The way the present Laws, rules and process moves, there is no protection for the public from even the most obviously ridiculous one sided rulings the ombudsman's bodies make.

So I, and a huge body of the British public urge a reform over the Laws and rules governing the way the Ombudsman and courts interact with the pubic once a complaint about a business, council, or utility service, has been made. 

Enforcement of County Court Judgements

When a court has made a judgement in favour of the plaintiff regarding either a debt or notice to quit a tenancy the defendant can ignore the judgement causing the plaintiff the furthes stress, delay and cost of returning to court to have the judgement enforced.

This also wastes the courts time by doing the same job twice before a bailiff can be sent to enforce the judgement.

A judgement should be enough and compliance should be enforced after a reasonable given time period without needing to return to the court.

Why is this idea important?

When a court has made a judgement in favour of the plaintiff regarding either a debt or notice to quit a tenancy the defendant can ignore the judgement causing the plaintiff the furthes stress, delay and cost of returning to court to have the judgement enforced.

This also wastes the courts time by doing the same job twice before a bailiff can be sent to enforce the judgement.

A judgement should be enough and compliance should be enforced after a reasonable given time period without needing to return to the court.