Reform the Bail Act 1976

I believe that the following changes should be made to the Bail Act 1976: no person should be remanded into custody for a non-imprisonable offence under any circumstances, there should be a 28 day time restriction imposed on any remand into custody for breach of bail conditions, no defendant should be remanded into custody for a period exceeding the half maximum custodial sentence for the offence or 24 months (whichever comes sooner) under any circumstances. I also believe that any days spent on remand in a psychiatric hospital or similar treatment facility should count towards time served and that any days spent on remand should be deducted from both the custodial and licence portions of any custodial sentence imposed should the court subsequently impose such a sentence.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the following changes should be made to the Bail Act 1976: no person should be remanded into custody for a non-imprisonable offence under any circumstances, there should be a 28 day time restriction imposed on any remand into custody for breach of bail conditions, no defendant should be remanded into custody for a period exceeding the half maximum custodial sentence for the offence or 24 months (whichever comes sooner) under any circumstances. I also believe that any days spent on remand in a psychiatric hospital or similar treatment facility should count towards time served and that any days spent on remand should be deducted from both the custodial and licence portions of any custodial sentence imposed should the court subsequently impose such a sentence.

Reform the Criminal Justice System to serve the victim

Change sentencing to prefer restitution to the victim, over prison and community sentences.

This would obviously not apply to extremely violent crimes i.e. rape or murder, in which case the public needs to be protected.

Why is this idea important?

Change sentencing to prefer restitution to the victim, over prison and community sentences.

This would obviously not apply to extremely violent crimes i.e. rape or murder, in which case the public needs to be protected.

No testy tempered interruptions by judges in court

Judges, JPs, sheriffs (in Scotland), anyone presiding over a court, may not subject the other participants to interruptions, or to a level of testy temper that is not allowed to be shown back to them.

Everyone who is speaking shall be entitled to finish the sentence, and if they are in mid-explanation, to finish the explanation. The relevance of any explanation to the case may only be judged after it has been given and completed, not in an interruption made when it is still in progress.

It shalle never be contempt of court to stand up to browbeating, impatience, testiness, snapping, from the judge, by yourself treating the judge in exactly the same equal way in return. Thus shall the argument be kept fair.

Why is this idea important?

Judges, JPs, sheriffs (in Scotland), anyone presiding over a court, may not subject the other participants to interruptions, or to a level of testy temper that is not allowed to be shown back to them.

Everyone who is speaking shall be entitled to finish the sentence, and if they are in mid-explanation, to finish the explanation. The relevance of any explanation to the case may only be judged after it has been given and completed, not in an interruption made when it is still in progress.

It shalle never be contempt of court to stand up to browbeating, impatience, testiness, snapping, from the judge, by yourself treating the judge in exactly the same equal way in return. Thus shall the argument be kept fair.

Ensure only the Police can bring criminal charges

Far too many private and public bodies can bring criminal charges, from railway companies to local councils, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. This leads to prosecutions for trivial matters and encourages a free-for-all in creating petty offences and the misuse of powers.

Judgement over prosecution should be left 100% to the police once they've evaluated a complaint, and perhaps our jails wouldn't be so overcrowded with people who've overfilled their bins or been prosecuted because it was an easy nick.

Why is this idea important?

Far too many private and public bodies can bring criminal charges, from railway companies to local councils, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. This leads to prosecutions for trivial matters and encourages a free-for-all in creating petty offences and the misuse of powers.

Judgement over prosecution should be left 100% to the police once they've evaluated a complaint, and perhaps our jails wouldn't be so overcrowded with people who've overfilled their bins or been prosecuted because it was an easy nick.

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.

Leave the EU – that should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Why is this idea important?

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Equalising the requirement for truth in civil and criminal court cases

Currently it is only required by those that stand in the dock to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If our justice system is to serve our society appropriately there cannot be one rule for the plaintiff and defendant and another rule for those that represent the legal system.

What message does the current situation convey? It’s okay to manipulate the truth if you’re in a position to manipulate the truth; changing it from fact, to something lesser.

We should be able to look towards our legal system as the guardian of what is right and correct – a mentor and leader of the morals decent society should follow. But we cannot. There is no legislative requirement for the law’s representatives to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if not standing in the dock. There is an element of fog that currently is employed in every proceeding.

Yes, changing this will make things more difficult for those legal representatives, but when people such as these are generally paid more than our doctors and nurses, just for interpreting English to the judges and the rest of the court, it makes you wonder where the government’s priorities really lie by allowing this to continue as is.

Yes there will be a backlash by the legal profession, but their primary interest isn’t truth and justice it’s their pay packets.

I would like to see a time when it is not announced in the papers that one or another court proceeding has been halted due to cost, because this is not justice, this is purely business and in these circumstances it does not serve civil society at all.

You may think that this suggestion has been written on the basis of a bad outcome for myself, but this is not the case. In fact, I won my case. But what really riled me was when my solicitor, when questioned by the judge, denied giving me the advice they had done over the phone, advice that I repeated in court. To me it just demonstrated how corrupt the process actually was; legal representatives misrepresenting the truth to support their standing.

If we really want a civil society it must be seen that everyone has to abide by the same rules, and what I am arguing for is legislation that forces all, that are conveying information to the court, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Without any change civil liberties will remain an anathema.

If this proposal is enshrined in law I suspect the cost of law will be severely curtailed and open up the possibility that everyone in our society will have the opportunity to access the legal system when wronged – something that was the case around 400 years ago. And, if so, possibly more work for the legal profession as court cases will not take the exponential times they currently take.

Faster and quicker justice, reduced costs and equality for all, not just the few.

Why is this idea important?

Currently it is only required by those that stand in the dock to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If our justice system is to serve our society appropriately there cannot be one rule for the plaintiff and defendant and another rule for those that represent the legal system.

What message does the current situation convey? It’s okay to manipulate the truth if you’re in a position to manipulate the truth; changing it from fact, to something lesser.

We should be able to look towards our legal system as the guardian of what is right and correct – a mentor and leader of the morals decent society should follow. But we cannot. There is no legislative requirement for the law’s representatives to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if not standing in the dock. There is an element of fog that currently is employed in every proceeding.

Yes, changing this will make things more difficult for those legal representatives, but when people such as these are generally paid more than our doctors and nurses, just for interpreting English to the judges and the rest of the court, it makes you wonder where the government’s priorities really lie by allowing this to continue as is.

Yes there will be a backlash by the legal profession, but their primary interest isn’t truth and justice it’s their pay packets.

I would like to see a time when it is not announced in the papers that one or another court proceeding has been halted due to cost, because this is not justice, this is purely business and in these circumstances it does not serve civil society at all.

You may think that this suggestion has been written on the basis of a bad outcome for myself, but this is not the case. In fact, I won my case. But what really riled me was when my solicitor, when questioned by the judge, denied giving me the advice they had done over the phone, advice that I repeated in court. To me it just demonstrated how corrupt the process actually was; legal representatives misrepresenting the truth to support their standing.

If we really want a civil society it must be seen that everyone has to abide by the same rules, and what I am arguing for is legislation that forces all, that are conveying information to the court, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Without any change civil liberties will remain an anathema.

If this proposal is enshrined in law I suspect the cost of law will be severely curtailed and open up the possibility that everyone in our society will have the opportunity to access the legal system when wronged – something that was the case around 400 years ago. And, if so, possibly more work for the legal profession as court cases will not take the exponential times they currently take.

Faster and quicker justice, reduced costs and equality for all, not just the few.

Housing Court – quick action for residential tenants and landlords

Hello

Going through the Court system in this country to resolve housing tenant/landlord legal matters is painfully slow and financially damaging. I am a landlord and have been a tenant myself many times over many years. When, sadly, I have had non paying tenants it is financially painful to do anything about it.

In the USA they have what is called a Housing Court that just judges residential landlord and tenant cases. This system is quick and inexpensive.

In the UK, a tenant who does not pay rent has 2 months before legal action can be started against them. It can  then often take 2 months or more to get a court date. If the eviction action is successful the tenant can then expect 1 month to leave the property. Is the tenant does not leave the landlord has to return to court again to get them removed.

All this can cost the landlord huge sums of money and put them under severe financial strain – all because a legal contract has been broken – yet it is the landlord who pays.

Conversely a tenant with problems really has very little recourse to the law to resolve their issues as well.

I honestly believe that if rent is two weeks late without explanation, or landlords approval, then eviction should be quickly completed. Tenancy agreements are legaly binding contracts and breaking that contract should mean swift action – not 5 or 6 months free accomodation.

Housing Court – as in the USA –  would mean quick, and hence inexpensive, resolution of housing issues.

The Housing Court could also be a register of legal actions – with cases on file  – so rogue landlord's and tenant's names are recorded for others to see and check before they sign a tenancy agreement.

Thank you.

Martin Heseltine

Why is this idea important?

Hello

Going through the Court system in this country to resolve housing tenant/landlord legal matters is painfully slow and financially damaging. I am a landlord and have been a tenant myself many times over many years. When, sadly, I have had non paying tenants it is financially painful to do anything about it.

In the USA they have what is called a Housing Court that just judges residential landlord and tenant cases. This system is quick and inexpensive.

In the UK, a tenant who does not pay rent has 2 months before legal action can be started against them. It can  then often take 2 months or more to get a court date. If the eviction action is successful the tenant can then expect 1 month to leave the property. Is the tenant does not leave the landlord has to return to court again to get them removed.

All this can cost the landlord huge sums of money and put them under severe financial strain – all because a legal contract has been broken – yet it is the landlord who pays.

Conversely a tenant with problems really has very little recourse to the law to resolve their issues as well.

I honestly believe that if rent is two weeks late without explanation, or landlords approval, then eviction should be quickly completed. Tenancy agreements are legaly binding contracts and breaking that contract should mean swift action – not 5 or 6 months free accomodation.

Housing Court – as in the USA –  would mean quick, and hence inexpensive, resolution of housing issues.

The Housing Court could also be a register of legal actions – with cases on file  – so rogue landlord's and tenant's names are recorded for others to see and check before they sign a tenancy agreement.

Thank you.

Martin Heseltine

Motoring (mostly speed) offenses – more police power + fairness

Currently, if a motorist is caught speeding, the police automatically have to refer certain speeds over the limit to the courts.  I myself am waiting for a court date, having been caught speeding on a road with a recently reduced limit, which was deserted at the time and has no pavements (and therefore no pedestrians).  I was 2 mph over the limit for fines/etc directly from the police, so now lots of the polices time, my time, and the courts time is going to be wasted dragging me through the system and possibly resulting in an employment affecting ban, when a fine and a stern telling off would have been more appropriate – but the police don't have that option.  I like to think most of them are capable of telling a habitual speeder or boy racer from a driver who simply made a mistake.

Drop this limitation so that the police can deal with more speeding offenses themselves, up to the point where it's considered dangerous driving.  Allow motorists to -choose- to go to court only if they disagree with the polices decision.

Additionally, the punishment needs to be lighter – it's insane to be giving points out to people who were only doing 34 in a 30 zone suitable for 40.  Just fine them, motorists are starting to feel like most of the enforcement is actually just a power game, keeping people in line – nothing to do with safety at all.

Additionally:

Stop putting speed cameras in hidden places, particularly at the bottom of hills

Start putting cameras where speed is -actually dangerous-, for example near schools

More 20mph limits for estate roads and actually built up areas, less 30 zones in areas with no housing.

Increase the motorway limit to 80.

When a limit changes – MAKE SURE IT IS SIGNPOSTED.  The road I had trouble with had been a 40 zone for 12 years of my life in this town, it was changed by just digging them up.  The police and council refused to even help me find out when the change happened.

More emphasis on policing dangerous driving, the biggest danger I see on the roads is people pulling into gaps that aren't there, and tailgating – nothing is ever done about it, in fact the police seem to do it themselves.  As well as being dangerous, it also puts the driver of the car in front under pressure.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, if a motorist is caught speeding, the police automatically have to refer certain speeds over the limit to the courts.  I myself am waiting for a court date, having been caught speeding on a road with a recently reduced limit, which was deserted at the time and has no pavements (and therefore no pedestrians).  I was 2 mph over the limit for fines/etc directly from the police, so now lots of the polices time, my time, and the courts time is going to be wasted dragging me through the system and possibly resulting in an employment affecting ban, when a fine and a stern telling off would have been more appropriate – but the police don't have that option.  I like to think most of them are capable of telling a habitual speeder or boy racer from a driver who simply made a mistake.

Drop this limitation so that the police can deal with more speeding offenses themselves, up to the point where it's considered dangerous driving.  Allow motorists to -choose- to go to court only if they disagree with the polices decision.

Additionally, the punishment needs to be lighter – it's insane to be giving points out to people who were only doing 34 in a 30 zone suitable for 40.  Just fine them, motorists are starting to feel like most of the enforcement is actually just a power game, keeping people in line – nothing to do with safety at all.

Additionally:

Stop putting speed cameras in hidden places, particularly at the bottom of hills

Start putting cameras where speed is -actually dangerous-, for example near schools

More 20mph limits for estate roads and actually built up areas, less 30 zones in areas with no housing.

Increase the motorway limit to 80.

When a limit changes – MAKE SURE IT IS SIGNPOSTED.  The road I had trouble with had been a 40 zone for 12 years of my life in this town, it was changed by just digging them up.  The police and council refused to even help me find out when the change happened.

More emphasis on policing dangerous driving, the biggest danger I see on the roads is people pulling into gaps that aren't there, and tailgating – nothing is ever done about it, in fact the police seem to do it themselves.  As well as being dangerous, it also puts the driver of the car in front under pressure.

the crown prosecution service”s wasting money and destroying peoples live,s

it is time now that the system we use in this country are archaic and old , and waste,s millions of £ every year .

i speak of people being brought before the courts over allegations of rape that can go back as far as you like 30 40 50 60 years rediculous , quite often and more often than not these people are destroyed family friends children ect, ect, you can imagine a man can be accused of serious allegation s of criminal offenc,e he is named shamed destroyed humiliated , many have taken their live,s become drunks loss of all his family ties , and often as not he is brought all this way and then let go because not enough evidence , a grudge but not proved either way the supposed victim is not named they remain  completely shielded by the courts that their identidy remains secret , and they leave destruction in their wake they cannot go back into life as though nothing has happened they have been destoyed but mud sticks the people around them suspicious and distrustful and it will never leave their life after this it  destroys the  mans  life from his wife , girlfriend to the country and the  world . mostly it is distruction because a women wants to destroy for many reasons other than fact this act was not committed the woman she claims a large sum as high as £100,000. remove compensation for any crime , surely all a person wants is justice not money . this society is all about money remove it .and name all those who accuse ! except for  the children they should remain shielded their name everything about them , keep them safe .in germany if a serious crime is committed it has to be reported by ten years other wise they refuse to take part and will not charge a person persons .

we follow europe in most every thing we do in our daily live,s these days . why then do we shield  our archaic laws from change change this law protect those who are accused of a crime until they are proved . and move forward that if a crime is committed then it should be dealt with at that time or dealt within by ten years as they do in germany this would save money  live,s police time and also remove compensation for a crime guilty verdict . justce free,s the mind not money !.

 

Why is this idea important?

it is time now that the system we use in this country are archaic and old , and waste,s millions of £ every year .

i speak of people being brought before the courts over allegations of rape that can go back as far as you like 30 40 50 60 years rediculous , quite often and more often than not these people are destroyed family friends children ect, ect, you can imagine a man can be accused of serious allegation s of criminal offenc,e he is named shamed destroyed humiliated , many have taken their live,s become drunks loss of all his family ties , and often as not he is brought all this way and then let go because not enough evidence , a grudge but not proved either way the supposed victim is not named they remain  completely shielded by the courts that their identidy remains secret , and they leave destruction in their wake they cannot go back into life as though nothing has happened they have been destoyed but mud sticks the people around them suspicious and distrustful and it will never leave their life after this it  destroys the  mans  life from his wife , girlfriend to the country and the  world . mostly it is distruction because a women wants to destroy for many reasons other than fact this act was not committed the woman she claims a large sum as high as £100,000. remove compensation for any crime , surely all a person wants is justice not money . this society is all about money remove it .and name all those who accuse ! except for  the children they should remain shielded their name everything about them , keep them safe .in germany if a serious crime is committed it has to be reported by ten years other wise they refuse to take part and will not charge a person persons .

we follow europe in most every thing we do in our daily live,s these days . why then do we shield  our archaic laws from change change this law protect those who are accused of a crime until they are proved . and move forward that if a crime is committed then it should be dealt with at that time or dealt within by ten years as they do in germany this would save money  live,s police time and also remove compensation for a crime guilty verdict . justce free,s the mind not money !.