Safe Speed Forums

Damning Leeds Magistrates report uncovers lies, lies lies

By Mark Hookham
A damning report into Leeds magistrates courts has painted a picture of years of chaos and mismanagement which has rocked the city's criminal justice system.
A total of 555 defendants had warrants for their arrest withdrawn by legal advisers – or clerks – as part of an agreement drawn up by the courts, Crown Prosecution Service and police.

Some of the withdrawn warrants related to cases of indecent assault, actual bodily harm, assault, indecent exposure, wounding and robbery.

Court officials were also "guessing" outcomes of court cases and creating "artificial" court registers after a failure to record the outcome of thousands of cases.

The revelations has led to a review into whether records on offenders held by the Criminal Records Bureau have been "compromised" and a desperate attempt to track down those most serious cases which should have been placed on the Police National Computer.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said there was no evidence of criminal activity on the behalf of court staff but she stressed that legal action is not being ruled out "should evidence come to light in the future".

The explosive report was drawn up by the four inspectors who oversee the courts, CPS, police and probation service and presented to MPs yesterday by Justice Secretary Jack Straw.

It reveals in 1998 a practice started at the courts in Leeds of withdrawing outstanding arrest warrants. By July 2003, this practice had been formalised into a "protocol" between Leeds Magistrates' Court, West Yorkshire CPS and West Yorkshire Police.

Under this new agreement legal advisers at the courts withdrew warrants "in bulk" with no evidence that each case was given proper consideration by the court.

In total, 555 defendants had their warrants withdrawn between 1999 and 2004. Many of these defendants had been charged with low-level crimes. However, the withdrawn warrants also related to two cases of making threats to kill, one of gross indecency, three of indecent assault and 13 of actual bodily harm.

And 67 defendants found guilty of serious crimes also had the record of their convictions withdrawn.

The inspectors found that this bulk withdrawal of warrants was simply to "get rid of the significant number of outstanding warrants" clogging up the system.

Neil Franklin, the chief crown prosecutor at West Yorkshire CPS, yesterday stressed that the arrangement was only meant for "low level" crimes and that some cases were withdrawn without the knowledge of prosecutors.

He said: "Some cases appear to have been withdrawn without the involvement of any CPS lawyer in coming to a decision. The arrangement as far as the CPS is concerned was targeted at low- level volume offences where the police have not been able to execute warrants."

The report makes clear that the withdrawal of warrants was just part of wider failings in the Leeds magistrates' courts.

The inspectors discovered the court's records did not have an accurate result for 3,260 offences – 1,568 of them so serious they should have been immediately entered on to the Police National Computer – relating to 2,206 defendants.

The "worst case scenario" is that 1,200 defendants have not had the results for 1,568 offences added to the database. It means because no official record of their guilt exists, a Criminal Records Bureau check would not flag up their danger to the public.

Offences where the results are missing include wounding with intent, GBH, possessing ammunition, escape from custody, burglary, robbery, affray, dangerous driving, possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply and criminal damage.

And the inspectors discovered that legal advisers "made up" the results of court hearings where the results were missing by "guessing" the outcomes.

This happened on at least one occasion in 2004 when legal advisers fabricated the results of prosecutions involving 12 defendants and 27 offences.

Officials also created at least four artificial court registers in 2002 to deal with 1,728 missing court results.

On these registers, batches of cases were marked as "entered in error" or "audit cleardown" and effectively removed the system.

The next year a computer disc was created to store missing adjudications. Inspectors say 458 defendants are listed on that disk as missing an adjudication. And in the most bizarre twist, a prolific offender could have been imprisoned twice for the same offence.

Leeds Magistrates' Courts have refused to comment, referring all inquiries to the Minister of Justice. A spokesman said: "The Criminal Justice Agencies in West Yorkshire are establishing processes to review all of the warrants and proceedings withdrawn, and where appropriate, bring them before a formally-constit
uted court. Where necessary and in the public interest, steps will be taken to bring new proceedings or seek new warrants."

A West Yorkshire police spokesperson said: "WYP is not conducting a criminal investigation and one is not expected.

"We are aware that internal disciplinary processes are taking place within HMCS in relation to this; it is inappropriate to comment on these.

"The processes within the Leeds Magistrates Court at that time have been reviewed by the Criminal Justice Joint Inspection and the recommendations are in the report.

"WYP also await the publication of the independent Judicial Review of the processes within Leeds Magistrates Court at that time."

Commenting on the withdrawn warrants the spokesperson added: "Every case and warrant that was part of this withdrawal process has been reviewed and where necessary, prosecutions may be re-instated."

Last Updated: 12 March 2008 3:02 PM

Legal loophole closed after fines for speeding at Rawdon are refunded
By Annette McIntyre


A legal loophole which meant scores of motorist had their speeding penalties revoked has been closed, according to the body responsible for roadside cameras.

An administrative blunder meant the speed limit on the A65 at Rawdon could not legally be enforced.

And it meant the West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership had to track down all the 130 motorists who had been caught by the speed cameras on the affected stretch - from the Conservative club in Rawdon to the Horsforth roundabout.

Last week the partnership stressed that letters had been sent out to all those affected, and they are keen to drive home the point that other motorists do not need to contact them.

The problem came to light when it was discovered that a small section of the A65 had no traffic regulation order attached to it - which in turn meant the 40 mph speed limit was not enforceable.

The anomaly arose because of an oversight which meant that the 40 limit which was imposed in 1993 was not legally enforceable.

Officials from Leeds City Council say they had picked up on the error almost three years ago and had passed that information on to the Casualty Reduction Partnership.

A spokesman for the council said: "After checking our records in March 2005, we discovered there was not a speed limit order for 40mph in place for this stretch of road and informed the Partnership.

"We have now approved the making of a 40mph order for this stretch of road and that will be commencing in the very near future, and with full consultation."

But last week the Casualty Reduction Partnership insisted it had not been informed of the oversight until late last year.

Spokesman Philip Gwynne stressed that action had been taken as soon as the partnership was made aware of the problem.

"Just before Christmas it came to light that this speed limit order had never been completed.

"So technically speaking the speed limit could not be legally enforced.

"As soon as we discovered this we shut the cameras down."

Mr Gwynne, who described the oversight as an anomaly' stressed that the Partnership had stopped enforcing the limit as soon as it was made aware of the position.

He said they had written to the 130 affected drivers and had offered to return the fines and remove the penalty points in about 90 of those cases.

A small number of the 130 cases were not proceeded with at the time, and in about 30 cases the Rawdon speeding offences were part of a number of offence, and would not on their own have been responsible for the penalties which drivers received.

But he argued that even though fines were being returned and penalty points were being removed from licences, those drivers had still broken the speed limit.

"They broke the law," he said. "They admitted they broke the speed limit. Neither they nor we knew at the time that this order was not in place, so as far as they are concerned or we are concerned they have broken the law.

"Technically we were not able to enforce it - but that doesn't mean they were not speeding. They were speeding."

He stressed that all those who qualified for a refund had been informed, and anyone who hadn't heard so far did not need to contact the partnership.

He also stressed that the loophole no longer existed and the speed limit was being enforced again.

It had been thought the affected section of road ran through Yeadon, but the council spokes-man confirmed it was a Rawdon stretch which was affected.