A judge has condemned ‘ludicrously low’ guidelines for sentencing welfare fraudsters after handing one woman a punishment that would see her clear the debt only if she lived to 105.

Judge Beverley Lunt’s comments came after she ordered mother-of-two Louise Coulter to pay back £40,000 in fraudulent benefits.

Coulter, 38, can afford to pay only £10.95 a week, meaning it would take her a total of 67 years to repay the taxpayer.

Judge Lunt also said the guidelines fail to act as a deterrent, as people assume they will escape prison if they are convicted of fiddling the benefit system.

She handed Coulter a sentence of 20 weeks in prison, the most severe punishment she could impose under current guidelines.

Coulter could be free after serving only ten weeks behind bars if she maintains good behaviour, and that could be further reduced to just five weeks if she is deemed suitable for an electronic tag.

Judge Lunt said: ‘The guideline sentences set down by the Sentencing Council, which judges must follow, are so ludicrously low that everyone thinks the sentences will automatically be suspended.’

She told Coulter it was unlikely that the stolen money would ever be recovered, and said the payback scheme was ‘clearly not acting as a deterrent’.

Custodial terms for those who plead not guilty can range between 12 weeks and 18 months depending on the amount of money stolen and the length of time over which the fraud took place.

Those who plead guilty, saving the cost of a trial, can expect reductions of around a third on their jail terms – and will often serve just half of their reduced sentence.

Burnley Crown Court heard Coulter claimed income support, housing and council tax benefits.

She signed a form declaring that she was single and said she had no income other than child tax credits and child benefits.

But Julian Goode, prosecuting, said surveillance was carried out on her home which showed her 45-year-old partner John Wilcox going to and from the address.

His car was usually found either parked outside the house or at his workplace at a logistics firm.

Further investigations found Mr Wilcox’s car was insured at that address and the couple had a house insurance policy together. Neighbours said Coulter bragged of buying new widescreen televisions, a three-piece suite and a gas cooker worth around £1,000.

Read More

The Labour Party are desperate to force sub-standard and inferior judges onto the British people. They are preparing for what they call the ‘nuclear option’ which I presume is so called because of the devastation it will cause to the already corrupt and ineffectual courts.

Instead of judges being picked for their high intelligence and knowledge of law, they want to see them picked on the basis of their race or gender, ‘to reflect the composition of the population’.  Regardless of the fact that women think emotionally and not logically and Blacks are a full 15 points lower in IQ than Whites, why do they see it as so important that positions reflect the composition of the population?

The majority of the population are incompetent. Does that mean the majority of judges should also be incompetent? A small portion of the population are mentally disabled, surely they should get a chance to play at being a judge too? But why stop there, a sizable minority of people have criminal records and they already have extensive knowledge of the system.

The whole premise of equal opportunities is flawed and does nothing but punish excellence and reward mediocrity.

From The Guardian:

A Labour government would be prepared to introduce the “nuclear option” of quotas for female and black and ethnic minority judges to avoid a 100-year wait to achieve a judiciary reflecting the composition of the population.

The shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, said reform had slowed to a snail’s pace and called for radical thinking to ensure judges were selected from beyond the “male, white and Oxbridge” world.

Khan, who accused the government of harming progress towards a diverse judiciary with swingeing cuts to the legal aid budget, has appointed Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC and Karon Monaghan QC, two of Britain’s leading progressive lawyers, to “think big” on how to achieve a balanced judiciary. “Nothing is off the table,” he said of the remit.

Khan said: “This is such a big issue that I don’t want Geoffrey and Karon to be afraid to recommend anything.”

Bindman and Monaghan are expected to focus on practical proposals such as introducing a mentoring and talent-spotting scheme to identify talented women and black and minority ethnic (BME) legal figures early on in their career.

But the two QCs will be free to recommend the introduction of positive discrimination along the lines suggested in a speech this year by Lady Hale, the only woman who sits in the supreme court.

Khan believes it is important not to rule out introducing quotas for women and BAME judges as a last resort. “Let us see what Geoffrey and Karon come up with,” one Labour source said. “You would want to keep the option of more radical measures like quotas on the table as a last resort. It would be the nuclear option.”

The introduction of quotas would be controversial because they were rejected by the House of Lords, which in a report in 2012 laid bare the poor representation in the judiciary of women and BME candidates. The committee heard evidence from the association of women solicitors that quotas would send out a message that a candidate had been chosen solely on the basis of gender or race.

But the Lords committee did call for non-mandatory targets after five years if little progress had been made towards a more diverse judiciary. It said 22.3% of judges were women – the fourth lowest rate in Europe – while 5.1% had BME backgrounds.

Khan said radical action was needed because insufficient progress had been made in the two years since the committee’s report was published.

He said: “If we just sit back and do nothing, it’ll take a century for our judges and magistrates to reflect wider society. I’m not prepared to sit by and let things move along at a snail’s pace.

“Too many judges are still drawn from too narrow a background. An overwhelming number are male, white and Oxbridge. People’s differing backgrounds and experiences bring different and rich perspectives that improve their decision-making as judges. If we achieve this it’s my view that we’ll see a dramatic impact on the public confidence in our justice system.”

SHOULD any of us be unfortunate enough to be called to appear in front of a court any time soon we can at least take some comfort. We may no longer have to show our face.

That isn’t to say we won’t be obliged to turn up. For the time being at least that will probably remain necessary. But we will not need to actually show our face. For a great precedent has now been set. Earlier this week fanatical Muslim convert Rebekah Dawson made legal history in this country. Up in court on charges of witness intimidation Dawson – who wears the full Islamic face covering – simply refused to show her face.

This was the fanatical 22-year-old convert to Islam who (although she could not be named at the time) made headlines last September when a judge asked her to remove her face-covering in court and she refused. Indeed Dawson’s barrister Susan Meek argued at a pre-trial hearing that her client had a right to remain fully veiled in court, revealing only part of her eyes.

The barrister’s defence was that her client’s “right” to do this was protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Did those learned, if misguided, minds who put together that ill-fated convention ever imagine this was where their legal system would end up? IN ANY case, stuck on the issue the judge at Blackfriars Crown Court Peter Murphy reached what was soon applauded as an eminently sensible British compromise. It was suggested by the judge that the defendant should not have to show her face when listening to the evidence of others but only when giving evidence herself.

In that moment a fatal compromise was made between British justice and Islamic fanaticism. For the principle that it is important that the judge and jury should be able to see the face of the accused is as old as trial by jury itself.

It is based not just on the court knowing that the person in the dock is the person who is meant to be in the dock. It is also based on the fact that one of the ways in which a jury can reach a verdict is by observing the defendant, when they are listening to others give evidence and when they are giving evidence themselves.

In compromising a part of this principle last September Judge Peter Murphy took a fatal step. But it was one which in any case the woman we now know to be Rebekah Dawson had no intention of obeying.

Dawson continued to refuse to show herself, eventually waiving her right to give evidence. Her insistence on the most fundamentalist interpretations of Islam thus led to endless cost and waste of court time.

Not just in the endless to-ings and fro-ings over whether the accused should have to show her face. It was also wasted in steps being taken such as a female police officer having to repeatedly go into a private room at the court and ask the defendant to lift her veil so the policewoman could confirm that the person under the veil was the accused.

Read More

While Christian laws against usury, sodomy, miscegenation and multiculturalism are being ignored or denied that they ever existed, laws from the Koran are now being officially incorporated into the British legal system.

From Metro:

Islamic law is set to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time in a controversial move that will allow solicitors to draw up ‘sharia-compliant’ wills.

New guidance from the Law Society will allow solicitors to write wills that can deny women an equal share of inheritance and exclude ‘non-believers’ altogether while still being compliant with British law, according to the Sunday Telegraph.

The move has been highly criticised by Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer who leads a campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, who said the development was ‘deeply disturbing’.

‘This violates everything that we stand for,’ she said. ‘It would make the suffragettes turn in their graves.’

Some lawyers have also been critical of the move, describing it as ‘astonishing’ and suggesting that it could be the first step to a ‘parallel legal system’ in Britain.

According to the report, inheritances in Islamic custom are determined by a list of heirs through ties of kinship rather than named individuals as is custom in the UK.

Although sharia principles are not currently recognised by British courts a system of such courts has grown across the country to help mediate in disputes between Muslim families.

The new guidance will allow people the freedom to choose a will to reflect their own religious beliefs but will no doubt spark a wider debate around the implications for gender equality.

THE trial of a Harlow man accused of rape and trying to deliberately infect a woman with HIV collapsed yesterday (Monday, March 17) after the prosecution announced it would no longer be seeking convictions.

Prosecutor Kate Davey told Chelmsford Crown Court that, following a high level review, the Crown would not be continuing its case against Botswana-born Malani Kumwenda, 32, of Collins Meadow.

As a result, judge John Dodd directed the jury to return not guilty verdicts on all seven charges and Mr Kumwenda was discharged.

The defendant had denied rape, attempting to cause grevious bodily harm with intent due to his infection, sexual assault, three offences of assault by penetration and assault causing actual bodily harm.

The case was halted after the jury had heard a week of evidence duing which the complainant spent two-and-a-half days in the witness box.

The judge added that he would be expressing his concerns about the case in writing, although he did not state to whom.

But at the end of last week he commented to jurors about “sloppy police practice” which he said might impact upon the fairness of the proceedings.

His remark followed the evidence of a police officer during which it came to light he had not made notes about some conversations with the alleged victim. The Crown Prosecution Service had been unaware of those conversations.

There had also been issues about non-disclosure of prosecution evidence to the defence.

In the absence of the jury the judge also commented on the complainant’s allegations and her inconsistent statements.

The prosecution had alleged that Mr Kumwenda, who was diagnosed as HIV positive in June 2011, had sex with the 29-year-old woman after that date. She has been tested and remains HIV negative.

But Mr Kumwenda denied he had sex with her after he was diagnosed and denied that any of the woman’s allegations happened.

The court heard the woman also made two other allegations to police after the rape claim. They were that Mr Kumwenda had threatened to kill her with a knife and the another related to immigration.

In both matters police arrested Mr Kumwenda and interviewed him but took no further action.

A judge accused of going soft on foreign criminals has stepped down after admitting handing cash to an illegal immigrant who had lived in his home.

Richard McKee, 65, was a senior judge at the country’s highest immigration and asylum court when he gave money to the woman, who is 26 years his junior, while she was living here illegally.

The Nigerian woman, Fatima Umar, 39, was found to have overstayed her visa after she was arrested at Mr McKee’s house after a disagreement.

She now faces being deported.

Mr McKee, who has previously been accused of ruling far more often than other judges in favour of those seeking to avoid deportation, has been allowed to retire on a pension of around £50,000 a year without disciplinary action.

Police had been called to Mr McKee’s £460,000 flat in Kilburn, North West London, in the afternoon of January 28 after a report of a break-in.

Umar was arrested and charged with causing around £5,000 of criminal damage at the property and assaulting two police officers.

She is now serving two eight-week prison sentences.

When the judiciary was informed that Mr McKee had been providing financial support to an illegal immigrant he was allowed to retire without any penalty.

It is thought that Mr McKee had allowed the ‘pretty’ younger woman to live at his property on and off for the last few years. He has refused to comment on the nature of their relationship.

In 2011, Umar was sentenced to 14 weeks in jail after she assaulted the judge.

Last year, Mr McKee was given a reprimand for falling ‘short of the standards expected’ of judges after he failed to inform the judiciary that police were investigating the use of his ‘premises’ for unlawful activities.

One of Mr McKee’s neighbours last night said that Umar was attractive, but seemed like she had problems.

The woman said: ‘She was a really nice lady, very friendly and polite and she would always ask how my children were. She was very skinny and pretty.

‘But she looked like she was off it most of the time. Whether it was drugs or alcohol, I don’t know, but she always looked pretty much out of it.’

On the day she was arrested, neighbours said she was taken from the property kicking and screaming.

Mr McKee, a Cambridge graduate, worked for the Immigration Advisory Service as a barrister in the 1990s, bringing appeals for immigrants and asylum seekers, before he started adjudicating on cases in 2000.

An analysis of his judgments in 2012 found that in the 13 cases he heard in the previous year, he ruled in favour of foreign criminals wanting to avoid deportation on 11 occasions.

Read More

Anyone in any doubt over just whose interests the British Justice System is serving need do no more than contrast these two stories.

In the first, a White man has his front teeth knocked out by three Black thugs when he politely asked them to stop ringing the bell on the bus. They pounced on him, slapping and punching him in front of a dozen other shocked passengers. The assault cost him financially in dental work, psychologically in fear of going out and socially in the loss of his job.

The three Blacks did not even receive a prison sentence and are free to commit more crimes in a land that never knew their ancestors.

In the second, in the emotional aftermath of the cold-blooded murder of White Soldier Lee Rigby by Black African Muslims, a White man posted on Facebook that a mosque should be burnt down in retaliation. This patriot has just been handed down a one year prison sentence for ‘abusing’ his right to free speech.

Apparently, ‘only prison is appropriate’ for registering vocal disgust at Non-White behavior, yet for actual violent behavior towards Whites that leaves physical damage, you have no fear of prison, just so long as you are non-White.

From Evening Express:

Derek Phin, 46, put the comment on the Scottish Defence League’s social media page because he was angry at what he thought was a lack of action over soldier Lee Rigby’s murder.

…

Phin appeared at Aberdeen Sheriff Court after previously admitting uttering an abusive and threatening remark and evincing malice and ill-will towards members of a religious group.

Sheriff Cowan told Phin, whose address was given as 205 Gordon’s Mills Road, Aberdeen, that only prison was appropriate.

Phin shook his head in disbelief as he was led away to begin a 12-month jail term.

MIGRANT criminals are escaping community sentences, like unpaid gardening work, by claiming their English is too poor to understand health and safety instructions.

The practice was exposed yesterday when Romanian, Simon Calin, avoided justice because he was unable to follow basic advice, sparking fury among campaigners opposed to mass UK immigration.

It is standard procedure for probation service staff to tell offenders to wear protective gloves and to hold equipment properly to avoid injury.

But Calin, 37, who admitted stealing 54 bottles of whisky from a supermarket, was let off a community sentence when his lawyer told the court his English was so bad, he could not follow basic advice.

The crook claimed the theft was his “first mistake” in nine days since arriving in the UK – 24 hours after borders opened to Romanian migrants.

He went to a Tesco store in Barrow, Cumbria, loaded his trolley with the Famous Grouse worth £1,108 and placed bags and paper on top in a bid to hide them.

But the married father was seen on CCTV piling the haul into a car – and arrested.

Furness Magistrates’ Court was told the probation service had assessed Calin for litter picking, fence painting or gardening, but had decided his English was too poor.

Read More

One of the country’s  most senior judges provoked fury last night when he criticised short jail sentences for interfering with the home lives of criminals.

Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, said he rejected the idea that a couple of months behind bars – and what he called ‘the clang of the prison gates’ – could help bring criminals to their senses.

Instead, he warned such sentences ‘can be disruptive’ for the prisoner’s job and home life. The judge made his comments after visiting Holloway women’s prison in North London.

He also expressed concern that prisoners there were forced to share a cell, when ‘the vast majority’ would, he said, prefer to have a room to themselves.

Bizarrely, he also complained about ‘bossy notices’ on prison walls, and the cheap furniture he saw in the jail, and expressed astonishment at how little money was spent on prisoners’ food.

His comments raised concerns that a senior member of the judiciary appeared to be intervening in highly political debate around sentencing policy.

Critics accused the judge of seeing things ‘entirely from the point of view of the criminal’ and failing to consider victims. Ministers defended short sentences as ‘effective’.

His comments came in an article for the November issue of Independent Monitor, the magazine for prison monitoring boards, after a visit to Holloway in North London earlier this year.

In the year to March 2013, a total of 18,724 criminals were given jail sentences of between three and six months.

Another 25,165 were given jail terms of up to three months.

The judge wrote: ‘As a judge one message I took away was the highly questionable value of short sentences.’

‘The notion that a couple of months in prison will help bring a defendant to her senses, the so-called “clang of the prison gates”, has always had a real resonance for me.’

He added: ‘But, following my visit to Holloway, having listened to the probation officers and others, I have a very different perspective. A short prison sentence can be disruptive for the prisoner’s job, home etc.

‘And on the other hand, if an offender needs help for any reason, such as substance abuse or training for a job, there is no point in her being in prison for much less than six months.

Read More

Legal proceedings over the aborted deportation of an African migrant who lured a vulnerable schoolgirl to a house for sex have cost the British taxpayer £350,000 – and he may now receive tens of thousands in compensation.

Jumaa Kater Saleh, 24, was convicted as part of a predatory sex gang for the ‘deliberate, targeted abuse of a young and vulnerable girl’, who was aged 13 at the time.

But he was allowed to remain in Britain under human rights law because he faced mistreatment if sent back to Sudan.

He claimed he was a member of the Zaghawa tribe, which has been persecuted by government forces and Arab tribe militia.

His trial cost an estimated £100,000, his asylum support costs drained the public purse of £20,000 and it cost more than £200,000 to keep him detained, firstly in jail and then in an immigration centre.

The Sunday Telegraph reported the total cost of interpreters alone was £25,000.

Details of the case emerged as Saleh went to court to demand compensation from the Government for locking him up. He claimed he was unlawfully detained following his prison sentence, when he was kept behind bars to protect the public.

His case was thrown out in January but the Court of Appeal has now ruled that eight months of his detention was unlawful.

The judges decided he was entitled to compensation as a result of Home Office administrative delays before it was decided that he could not be deported on human rights grounds.

The decision has sparked outrage.

The father of Saleh’s victim called the decision ‘crazy’ and said his daughter would never be free of what happened to her.

He said: ‘He was a paedophile preying on young girls, yet he was only locked up for two years. What does he have to be compensated for?

Read More