Making the Judges accountable?

[sunny-dave]

Interesting discussion on the radio yesterday (Woman's Hour - I was on the way to the dentist and needed distraction).

Someone pointed out that Judges are one of the last 'public servants' who have complete immunity from the consequences of their actions/errors.

In the case in point a Judge had given bail to someone with a history of convictions for domestic violence (he was awaiting trial for rape). The man on bail then murdered the person who had made the rape allegation. There appears to be no action whatsoever that anyone can take against the Judge for his perverse and dangerous decision.

Everyone else (police/medics/army/teachers) is accountable for their actions and can be sued/prosecuted if they get things wrong. Why not Judges?

< for anyone thinking they have deja vu, I originally posted this in another thread, but thought I'd give it some air of its own >

[ummmm]

Of course they should be accountable.

They do get grief at times because they are restricted by sentencing guidelines. But in cases like the one you mentioned, jeez, what world are they living in???

[boxtops]

There seems to be so much inconsistency though - one judge gives a custodial sentence for a misdeed, another gives only community service. Where's the overarching guidelines?

[ummmm]

I think the are too restricted by maximum sentencing.

[sir.prize]

More emphasis should be put on MINIMUM sentencing.

[daffy654]

I believe you are talking about the case of Jane Clough who was murdered in my local hospital car park by her ex boyfriend. Her parents are trying to force the courts to have him charged and prosecuted for the rape. He was convicted of the murder but seems to have got away with the rape.

Disgusting in my opinion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...d-lancashire-18722285

[ummmm]

And that sir.prize.

[Old_Geezer]

I've always thought it a little off that we, as citizens, have no say on who judges us. But common thought seems always wary of allowing fickle public opinion having a say. On top of which one doesn't want someone in that sort of job being influenced in their decisions, which I guess is one reason why they are not presently accountable in the same way most other public servants are. It's a difficult area to judge really.

[sunny-dave]

That is the case daffy - her parents spoke very clearly and movingly about it.

They seem to be (possibly) succeeding in getting the rape prosecution brought to court - but there appears to be no sanction whatsoever that can be applied to the Judge who released her killer on bail.

[jake-the-peg]

And you assumed that they were right?

Judges are accountable to the office of Judicial Complaints

http://www.judiciary....nd/principles-jud-acc

It's pretty dangerous to assume that the facts you're given by someone on a radio show are both accurate and representative - remember the person is clearly biased you're not getting both sides.

However if the decision to grant bail was as perverse as it's made to sound and the judge did ignore the strict guidelines with this result it sounds like a case for the office of Judicial complaints

One might already have been made withuot your caller being aware of it

[sunny-dave]

I agree OG that we don't want mob justice (or even tabloid justice) and so need to preserve the independence of the Judiciary.

I just wonder if it would concentrate the minds of the Judges on the rights of the victims rather than the rights of the (alleged) criminals if they had some personal accountability for the consequences of their actions.

[EDDIE51]

daffy sorry ! but in the cold hard world of reality there is no chance of trying someone for rape once they have already been convicted for the murder of the same person. To be convicted of rape it has to be confirmed beyond dought that there was no consent , how can a dead person be asked if they consented to sex ? . The defendant just has to say that it was with consent and it is impossible to prove otherwise.
To the main point Judges have to be totally independent, if they had to answer to a higher authority they would not be independent. I believe that a judge who constantly made judgements that were considered wrong can be asked to explain to a panel of other judges why they made such judgements . But just a single case is not a reason to question a judge's decision.

[sunny-dave]

It wasn't a 'caller' JtP - it was a detailed interview.

Yes I agree that the parents had a personal agenda - but they were very clear that they have followed the current process, outlined in your link, and that it has (my words not theirs) been about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

There is a culture of secrecy and 'we know best' about the whole process that is profoundly un-reassuring to outsiders.

[EDDIE51]

The judges accountability is explained well in this link
http://www.judiciary....acc-ind/jud-acc-ind-2

[parkie]

Some years ago the judges had the power to make sentences concurrent or consecutive.
If a person was convicted of two offences and sentenced to, say seven years, for each offence the judiciary had the option of either jailing the offender for 7 years, (making the sentences concurrent), or 14 years (making them consecutive).
I've not heard of the second option being used very often but if it were, (assuming the option was still available) I wonder how much of a deterrent it may be?

[EDDIE51]

Murder is a life sentence anyway so no point in getting a rape conviction even if it was possible , you can't get longer than life.