The JG has
heard evidence
from the Centre
for Justice
Innovation and
the Howard
League, both
arguing that the
Government’s
review be
brought forward to the earliest
opportunity. Whilst it would not be
appropriate for me to seek the JC
chairman’s personal views because
this is still a current issue, I will leave
it this way… that all members of the
JC are well aware of the indignation
and plain anger in some quarters over
the introduction of this fees by Michael
Gove’s predecessor Chris Grayling and
the matter is still being discussed.
The oral and written evidence so far
submitted to the JC has argued that the
charge is:
•
•
•
Influencing Defendants’ choice of
plea
Ineffective in recouping costs
related to running courts, and
Encouraging reductions in
compensation orders to offset the
burden imposed by the charge.
We have not heard the last of what
is seen as a MoJ policy folly but a
word of warning- the JC takes time to
deliberate (quite normal for us lawyers)
but readers can be reassured that the
JC is on the case.
Sentencing Policy
Perhaps an area of long term
interest to the Criminal Bar, applied
criminologists, readers of “The Daily
Mail” and those who regularly criticise
jail terms without attending the
hearing of the case in court would be
interested to follow the JC’s remit on
“Sentencing Council Guidelines”. An
emotive area at the best of times, I
was curious to know who was on the
council and how they were elected
or appointed. I would hope that in
one of the future JC direction setting
meetings that this subject might be
raised as sentencing appears a main
agenda item for successive meeting.
The same can probably be said for the
JC’s role of ‘pre-appointment scrutiny’
depending upon whom the committee
can scrutinise. Members of the JC will
clearly have a lot of work to do during
this Parliament.
The Future
So it is really a ‘thank you’ so far for
the work that the committee members
are undertaking. We agreed at the
interview that “a constructive dialogue
with government” is the approach
being adopted and, to coin a phrase
from the past, it does appear to be the
Right Approach (I hope some members
of the committee will not be unhappy
with that phrase). The application of
scrutiny, checks and balances are what
this committee all about and I came
away feeling that the members and
their chairman would not shy away
from dealing with the ‘hard cases’
concerning the Executive. Whether
at national or local government level
scrutiny is, rightly, the function of
the moment and Bob Neill’s affable
but firm manner is something we as
practitioners… and voters… appreciate
when keeping the government in
check. Thank you.
16 the barrister Hilary Term 2016
barmag67.indd 16
03/12/2015 10:21