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.

Creation of an Independent Judicial Scrutiny Commission

Although historically UK did have a tradition that accepted that judges were independent and impartial when exercising their judicial function there has been paradigmic changes in the last thirty years, which demand more scrutiny and accountability:-.

The legislature has become increasingly laicistic, Christophobic and culturally Marxist/Fabian gradualist and any reference to God or our Christian heritage has been expunged from the EU constitution

Judges have engaged in judicial activism [1] with judicial rulings often based on personal or political considerations or the enforcement of political correctness rather than on existing law.

Judges have also been “pushing the legal boundaries”, changing the constitution [2], “making war on Britain” [3], and making new laws [4].

 

Why is this idea important?

Although historically UK did have a tradition that accepted that judges were independent and impartial when exercising their judicial function there has been paradigmic changes in the last thirty years, which demand more scrutiny and accountability:-.

The legislature has become increasingly laicistic, Christophobic and culturally Marxist/Fabian gradualist and any reference to God or our Christian heritage has been expunged from the EU constitution

Judges have engaged in judicial activism [1] with judicial rulings often based on personal or political considerations or the enforcement of political correctness rather than on existing law.

Judges have also been “pushing the legal boundaries”, changing the constitution [2], “making war on Britain” [3], and making new laws [4].

 

Get rid of magistrates and have district judges only for minor trials

Why do we have magistrates?

Ever since anyone was allowed to become a magistrate you have to ask yourself whether they now do a good job as they have no clue about the law. The court clerks meant to help them are often no more clued up on the law or procedure.

All minor cases should instead come before a district judge who is trained and knows the law.

As well as being more efficient it should also save money in the long run with quicker justice and less poor decisions.

Judges are also undoubtedly more independent.

Why is this idea important?

Why do we have magistrates?

Ever since anyone was allowed to become a magistrate you have to ask yourself whether they now do a good job as they have no clue about the law. The court clerks meant to help them are often no more clued up on the law or procedure.

All minor cases should instead come before a district judge who is trained and knows the law.

As well as being more efficient it should also save money in the long run with quicker justice and less poor decisions.

Judges are also undoubtedly more independent.

ALLOW PARENTS TO CONTEST EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDERS

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Why is this idea important?

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Judges and Magistrates singing from the same hymn sheet

I'd like to see some evidence that the judiciary adopt a consistent approach to sentencing.

2 years for stealing a bottle of milk compared to 2 months for killing somebody doesn't seem right – I apologise for the exaggeration but there is a general theme there somewhere.

Why is this idea important?

I'd like to see some evidence that the judiciary adopt a consistent approach to sentencing.

2 years for stealing a bottle of milk compared to 2 months for killing somebody doesn't seem right – I apologise for the exaggeration but there is a general theme there somewhere.

Abolish the law of universal juridiction

Currently we have a ridiculous situation whereby the law allows anyone to obtain an arrest warrant, from a local magistrate, against a visiting foreign politician or dignitary for an alleged war crime committed anywhere in the world. While this in itself is not illogical, the system has been and is clearly being abused by those with a political agenda against certain groups. It subverts the capacity of the British government to conduct foreign policy by placing all foreigners at the mercy of political activists.

While it is important to prosecute war crimes wherever they occur, such a decision is significant enough that it should only be made by the Attorney General, and not on the whim of a local magistrate court.

Why is this idea important?

Currently we have a ridiculous situation whereby the law allows anyone to obtain an arrest warrant, from a local magistrate, against a visiting foreign politician or dignitary for an alleged war crime committed anywhere in the world. While this in itself is not illogical, the system has been and is clearly being abused by those with a political agenda against certain groups. It subverts the capacity of the British government to conduct foreign policy by placing all foreigners at the mercy of political activists.

While it is important to prosecute war crimes wherever they occur, such a decision is significant enough that it should only be made by the Attorney General, and not on the whim of a local magistrate court.

Magistrates to license pubs not councils

As the last government did nothing to help Pubs and there is no glimmer of this one doing anything could we please revert back to the Magistrates Courts for licence extensions. We use to be able to go to court and get a licence for the next day but since it was Blairised we now have to give 10 working days notice which means we loose even more business. I note that licenses have just been issued to some pouns shops to sell beer and wine for 1.00 a pint, thats going to be helpful to pubs and all the associated crime that goes with cheap alcohol
 

Why is this idea important?

As the last government did nothing to help Pubs and there is no glimmer of this one doing anything could we please revert back to the Magistrates Courts for licence extensions. We use to be able to go to court and get a licence for the next day but since it was Blairised we now have to give 10 working days notice which means we loose even more business. I note that licenses have just been issued to some pouns shops to sell beer and wine for 1.00 a pint, thats going to be helpful to pubs and all the associated crime that goes with cheap alcohol
 

Abolish Magistrates’ Courts

The US started the war of Independence for the sake of Jury trial, as it is so obvious that no lesser trial system is capable of delivering real justice to the people.

The UK Magistrates' court system encourages police misbehaviour – as well as misappropriation of arbitrary powers that no parliament has given them – is a complete lottery for everyone involved, emphasising speed, arbitrariness, incomplete/sloppy investigation, over justice, careful consideration, due process, etcetera.

There is now a recognition that there should be a presumption against prison sentences of less than 3 months; a Magistrates' Court's basic sentencing power is limited to 6 months, more serious cases being referred up to the Crown Court; less serious cases, those where a non-custodial sentence would be a matter of course, should virtually all be ripe for a pruning of petty offences, so that we recognize that as a general rule, no criminal law is worthwhile unless 12 citizens are prepared to devote their time to listening to the evidence.

There would necessarily be a rôle for a Traffic Court, to handle driving offences, as well as, perhaps, a very minor behaviour court – the original notion of the 'police court' that morphed into a Magistrates' court; naturally the 2 minimal courts could be effectively one court.

A simple guide could be that all imprisonable offences be tried in the Crown Court.

Why is this idea important?

The US started the war of Independence for the sake of Jury trial, as it is so obvious that no lesser trial system is capable of delivering real justice to the people.

The UK Magistrates' court system encourages police misbehaviour – as well as misappropriation of arbitrary powers that no parliament has given them – is a complete lottery for everyone involved, emphasising speed, arbitrariness, incomplete/sloppy investigation, over justice, careful consideration, due process, etcetera.

There is now a recognition that there should be a presumption against prison sentences of less than 3 months; a Magistrates' Court's basic sentencing power is limited to 6 months, more serious cases being referred up to the Crown Court; less serious cases, those where a non-custodial sentence would be a matter of course, should virtually all be ripe for a pruning of petty offences, so that we recognize that as a general rule, no criminal law is worthwhile unless 12 citizens are prepared to devote their time to listening to the evidence.

There would necessarily be a rôle for a Traffic Court, to handle driving offences, as well as, perhaps, a very minor behaviour court – the original notion of the 'police court' that morphed into a Magistrates' court; naturally the 2 minimal courts could be effectively one court.

A simple guide could be that all imprisonable offences be tried in the Crown Court.