Monthly Archives: September 2023

A 37-year-old Ipswich man has been given a suspended prison sentence after admitting burglary offences at convenience shops in the town.

Scott Hyam, of Ramsgate Drive, appeared at Ipswich Magistrates Court on Wednesday 27 September, where he was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for 17 months. He was also ordered to pay 1,285 in compensation.

Hyam had pleaded guilty to two offences as follows: an attempted burglary at the Co-op Daily shop on Woodbridge Road (at the junction with Brunswick Road) on 5 September; and a burglary at the Co-op in Hines Road on 6 September.

In both incidents two men were seen on CCTV to smash the glass in the front door of the buildings. No entry was gained to the Woodbridge Road shop, but in Hines Road the building was entered and approximately 2,500 worth of cigarettes and tobacco items were stolen.

Following police enquiries into these incidents, Hyam was identified as one of the offenders. The investigations remain open as the second suspect has not yet been identified.

Hyam had appeared before magistrates earlier this month, on Wednesday 13 September, when he admitted three other offences in Ipswich that had occurred after the incidents he was convicted of this week.

All three crimes occurred on Monday 11 September as follows: one count of burglary at the Co-op in Penshurst Road, where alcohol, tobacco and vaping products were stolen; and one count of attempted burglary at the Co-op in Clapgate Lane. In both of these incidents glass in the front doors was smashed.

The third charge was one of causing racially aggravated harassment by words, relating to comments made by Hyam when arrested.

The two burglary incidents had taken place between 4am and 4.40am and police were alerted to the alarm activation at the Penshurst Road shop.

Officers were immediately despatched and following a search of the local area, Hyam was located in Bucklesham Road at just after 5am. He was found to be bleeding and in possession of the stolen items. Blood had been found on the floor of the Co-op.

Hyam was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months and ordered to pay 500 in compensation, along with 379 in other costs and charges. He was also given a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement and an Alcohol Abstinence Requirement, which orders him to abstain from consuming any alcohol for a period of 120 days.

Detective Sergeant Nathan Hails, of South CID in Ipswich, said: Crimes against businesses are not victimless, in this case costing the owners significant sums of money in damage, stock loss and general disruption to the running of the shop if they have to close for a period to clean up and make repairs.

Scott Hyam is very fortunate that the offences he was convicted for this week, took place prior to the suspended sentence he was handed on 13 September, otherwise he would now find himself in prison which will be the outcome if he is convicted of any further offences over the next year and a half.

See the original post:

Ipswich Man given suspended sentence for burglary offences - Suffolk Constabulary

So Steven Rogers starts (his most recent Op-Ed) with a quote from Abraham Lincoln.

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.

Yet its dogmas of the past such as trickle down or supply side economics in which his party continues to insist on everyone.Add to that working to roll back reproductive freedom and marriage equality in the name of family values.

While were on the topic of Abraham Lincoln quotes, heres one youll never hear from any Republican this day and age:Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. While Lincolns quotes are respectable, Rogerss are laughable.

Now is our time to unite and embrace the heart, soul and spirit of every citizen from all walks of life and invite them into our big Republican tent had me laughing.While the Republican Party was a much bigger tent in the 19th and 20th centuries, it is not so much in the 21st century.

Is he talking about the same big Republican tent that wanted to ban Muslims from entering America?Or still has people in office who oppose marriage equality? Or doesnt want students knowing there is such a thing as someone being transgender?

Or 2012 when Mitt Romney referred to 47% of the electorate as people who live off government handouts and do not care for their lives. Then there was the McCain adviser Phil Gramm in 2008 who referred to us all as a nation of whiners during the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Theyre just as bad as Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters a basket of deplorables.The Republicans may be a circus tent, but I wouldnt call them a big enough tent that welcomes citizens from all walks of life. Rogers sure likes to hide behind the word freedom and wants us to believe it is only Democrats who are tearing down our freedoms and individual rights.With the help of many Democrats including the one currently sitting in the White House, it was mostly Republicans who delivered a failed drug war and mass incarcerations for victimless crimes.

When Rogers ran for the Republican nomination for governor in 2017, he opposed legalizing recreational marijuana.He said so during a June 1, 2017 episode of the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. You can still listen to it herewww.wnyc.org/story/nj-governors-race-steven-rogers. Or, listen to the embed right below this. A true freedom lover wouldnt share such a view.

Then there is the Patriot Act which gave the government more spying powers over American citizens.Only three Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against it. With few individual exceptions, they have not proven to be the party of individual rights and freedoms at any point in my life of 43 years so far.

While some Democrats may be a little better, not enough have been so Im not here to say Vote blue dont matter who. I dont care if you write in your pet dog. In fact, my response to the recent news about Sen. Bob Menendezs bribery charges is dont blame me, I voted third party.

If more of those options were in this years election, perhaps more people would care about it as local offices are where such options have the most success (throughout America right now, the Green Party holds over 100 elected offices while the Libertarian Party holds over 300).

I understand a lot of Republicans and Democrats on the local level arent like a lot of the scum on the federal level. Regardless of our political views, we have more in common with our local politicians than we do Biden, Trump, Pelosi and McConnell. But still keep an eye out. Especially on the school board elections. Regardless of ones political affiliation or how innocent sounding a narrative they hide behind, remember that those who want to ban books are never on the good team.

Rogers also likes to bring up the Constitution. We all know he was an adviser for Trump who on Dec. 3, 2022, called for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution on Truth social.

We now know who not to trust in protecting the Constitution.

He says I know this Op-Ed has ruffled the feathers of some Democrats. No, it just sparked eye rolls and face palms among people who have at least half a brain.Then he ends with Now is our time! Whose time? Partisan hacks like him who claim only their faulty party will save us from the other party that has many of the same corporate campaign donors as them?

Its been their time my entire life and look where it landed us.

Now is their time to take a hike.

Andrew Miller North Arlington

Kevin A. Canessa Jr. is the editor of and broadcaster at The Observer, a place where he has served on and off since 2006. He is responsible for the editorial content of the newspaper and website, the production of the e-Newspaper, writing several stories per week (including the weekly editorial), conducting live broadcasts on Facebook Live, including a weekly recap of the news and much more behind the scenes. Between 2006 and 2008, he introduced the newspaper to its first-ever blog which included podcasts, audio and video. Originally from Jersey City, Kevin lived in Kearny until 2004, lived in Port St. Lucie. Florida, for four years until February 2016 and in March of that year, he moved back to West Hudson to return to The Observer full time. Click Here to send Kevin an email.

Read this article:

Miller: Hey, Steve Rogers take a hike with your cronies! - The Observer Online

1. Introduction

This document sets out the agreement between Her Majestys Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

This Agreement:

Aims to ensure that acts of criminality that occur in prison are properly addressed within the criminal justice system where:

a) the prison determines that the internal prison disciplinary process is insufficient, and the circumstances indicate that a criminal prosecution is appropriate or where a statutory obligation exists, or

b) the prison determines that that a terrorism offence or terrorism-connected offence may have been committed.

Establishes a common understanding of the roles and responsibilities of HMPPS, the police and the CPS relating to the referral, investigation and prosecution of crimes committed in prison.

Aims to achieve an improved and consistent performance in the investigation and prosecution of offences in a custodial setting.

Applies to all prisons, including those contracted and Young Offender Institutions.

Recognises the principles agreed upon are not legally binding and are not intended to create any legally enforceable rights or obligations. Each party will discharge its own statutory and common law obligations.

The principles outlined in this agreement reflect a national minimum expectation for all signatories. Additional guidance may be provided to each agency.

The prison should contact the police immediately (and in any case within 24 hours) if there is a serious incident such as a sudden death, life threatening injury, rape or sexual assault by penetration, an active escape or serious disorder/ incident where staff require the immediate attendance of police to protect life or the integrity of establishment, in line with locally agreed contingency plans. The prison should also discuss the forensic strategy for these serious incidents with the police.

Any serious assault as detailed in Annex A, sexual assault, escape from a secure establishment or escort, concerted indiscipline with extensive damage caused, conveyance into or out of an establishment of explosives or firearms, must be referred to the police. Please see Annex A for a more detailed list.

All crimes suitable for referral under Annex A, should be referred to the police within 7 days of the incident. 2. Any offence that prison staff consider may amount to terrorism, or any offence by a prisoner convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Acts or an offence having a terrorism connection as defined under section 30 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 -must be referred to the police. Guidance and mandatory actions are provided in Annex B.

Whilst the views of the victim are always important and may influence the decision to refer to the police for investigation, the crimes in Annex A and B must be referred to the police, as there may be circumstances where a case would be pursued without the victims involvement (this is often known as a victimless or evidence-led prosecution).

Where a prisoner wishes to report a crime to the police, to achieve this, prisons must have mechanisms in place.

Before reporting other incidents to the police that are not listed in Annex A, the prison will consider whether a case could be more appropriately dealt with by the Prison Adjudication System or whether the victim wants the crime referred to the police. For crimes referred to in paragraph 6, an adjudication would be opened and adjourned simultaneous to referring the matter to the police. See Prison adjudications policy: PSI 05/2018 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) for the relevant procedures.

When an incident is referred to the police, internal disciplinary charges should be laid by the prison within 48 hours of the incident, and an adjudication opened on the following day and adjourned, pending police investigation. If the police or CPS decide not to proceed with a prosecution then the adjudication may be reconvened and the disciplinary charge heard, if it is fair to continue, considering the natural justice principles as set out in PSI 05/2018. A referral to the Independent Adjudicator should be considered in line with Prison adjudications policy: PSI 05/2018 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) where the seriousness test has been met.

Whilst the lists in Annex A and B are the minimum requirement for referrals, there may be local arrangements based on current threats and risks to the prison to include additional offences. Discussions on the current threats and risks should take place regularly between the Governor, prison managers and local law enforcement.

In making a crime referral, the prison will:

[1] The Prison Community Impact Statement does not form part of the evidence, however, highlights the impact crimes committed within prison has.

If a prison determines that an offence does not meet the threshold in Annex A or B, but the victim wishes to report the crime to the police, the prison must allow the victim to do so. Where the victim is a member of staff, they must be informed by the prison of their right to refer the crime to the police. Where a prisoner wishes to report a crime to the police, to achieve this, prisons must have mechanisms in place.

The prison should assist in facilitating the provision of any Victim Personal Statement or Prison Community Impact Statement to the CPS prior to the first hearing. These should be provided at the earliest opportunity, and at the latest 14 prior to a sentencing hearing, however they can also be submitted at any time prior to sentencing. A further statement may also be submitted if the impact to the victim changes.

Referring a crime to the police does not automatically mean that a full police investigation will take place or that the CPS will be consulted, and a criminal prosecution take place.

Following a referral, the police will acknowledge receipt to the prisons Crime in Prison Single Point of Contact (SPoC) or Local Counter Corruption Manager for corruption cases, within 10 working days and advise of the next steps, this may include requesting additional information. For crimes referred to in paragraph 6 above, please refer to Annex C.

Where a decision is made that a formal criminal investigation will not take place, the police will advise the prisons Crime in Prison SPoC/ Local Counter Corruption Manager within 10 working days with the reasons for the decision not to pursue the investigation. The prison can also request an explanation or further information as to why a crime has not been investigated. See paragraph 25 for escalation processes. The decision not to proceed should be recorded in the Crimes Referred to the Police Tracker. For crimes referred to in paragraph 6 above, please refer to Annex C.

Where a formal police investigation commences, the police will update the SPoC/ Local Counter Corruption Manager and make any arrangements to progress the investigation, who will, in turn, keep Governors, prison managers and Adjudication Liaison Officer advised. Victims are entitled to be informed of any progress to the investigation under the Victims Code. For crimes referred to in paragraph 6 above, please refer to Annex C.

The police will keep the prison SPoC/ Local Counter Corruption Manager informed regarding the progress of the case regularly. The frequency of the update should be agreed between the police, the prison SPoC/ Local Counter Corruption Manager and the victim. The minimum requirement for providing updates is once a month. For crimes referred to in paragraph 6 above, please refer to Annex C.

When cases meeting the referral criteria are referred to the CPS by the police, the CPS will make a charging decision in accordance with the:

The police are permitted to make charging decisions without input from the CPS for less serious offences.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors (paragraph 4.12) sets out the requirement to consider each case on its own facts and merits, when reviewing cases involving assault on prison officers, and in assessing the public interest, prosecutors should bear in mind the impact of the offence as set out in the Prison Community and Victim Impact Statement, (paragraph 4.14e).

In considering the public interest, prosecutors must have regard to the provision of the Code that states that a prosecution is more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public, (paragraph 4.14c).

The CPS will explain a decision to take no further action or to reduce a charge to the police and will write to the victim in accordance with the obligations under the Victims Code. The police will inform the prison SPoC/ Local Counter Corruption Manager of such a decision, explaining the right to appeal.

If the prison disagrees with the decision not to proceed with an investigation, this can be raised locally with the police force and their appeals process can be followed. For crimes referred to in paragraph 6 above, please refer to Annex C.

Where the police do not agree with the CPS charging decision, the process of appeal under management review of charging decisions and actions will apply. The prisons should be kept updated of any appeal.

Where such a decision is taken by the CPS, a victim of crime in prison may be eligible to seek a review under the CPS Victims Rights to Review scheme. The scheme enables victims to seek a review of certain CPS decisions not to start a prosecution or to stop a prosecution.

The Sentencing Council Definitive Guidelines on Offences Taken into Consideration and Totality states that a consecutive sentence will ordinarily be appropriate where any offence is committed within the prison context.

Members of the public, including the victim, can ask the Attorney Generals Office to examine sentences handed down by Crown Courts in England and Wales within 28 days of sentencing under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. A sentence will be considered unduly lenient where the sentence falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. There must have been some error of principle in the Judges sentence, such that, in the absence of the sentence being altered by the Court, public confidence would be damaged.

Victims, regardless of whether they are staff or prisoners, are entitled to services under the Victims Code. Special measures are a series of provisions that help vulnerable and intimidated witnesses give their best evidence in court and help to relieve some of the stress associated with giving evidence. Special Measures apply to prosecution and defence witnesses, but not to the defendant and are subject to the discretion of the court.

Phil Copple Director General Operations, HMPPS

Deputy Chief Constable Jason Hogg Thames Valley Police, NPCC Lead for Prison Intelligence

Gregor McGill Director of Legal Services, Crown Prosecution Service

For further information or assistance, please contact crimeinprison@justice.gov.uk.

Continue reading here:

Crime in Prison Referral Agreement - GOV.UK

The American justice system guarantees a presumption of innocence and the right to legal counsel. For those that cannot afford an attorney, public defenders are available to provide a defense.

But a new report from Emily Hamer, a reporter for Lee Enterprises' Public Service Journalism team, reveals that public defenders across the country are overworked.

In the story "Public defenders work 3 times too many cases, milestone study and new data show," Hamer's research found public defenders across America regularly work triple the cases they can effectively handle, and some work upwards of 10 times too many cases, according to an analysis of Lee Enterprises data based on a milestone study of public defender workloads.

Lee Enterprises Public Service Journalism team requested caseload data from all 50 states to conduct the first-ever national analysis of public defender workloads using the new National Public Defense Workload Standards. The analysis proves public defenders are severely overworked a problem that threatens the constitutional right to effective counsel.

In this episode of Behind the Headlines, Hamer discusses the story, consequences of ineffective counsel and potential solutions.

Host Terry Lipshetz is a senior producer for Lee Enterprises. Besides producing interviews for this Behind the Headlines program, he produces the daily Hot off the Wire news podcast, co-hosts Streamed & Screened movies and television program and is the producer of Across the Sky weather and climate podcast.

Lee Enterprises produces many national, regional and sports podcasts. Learn more here.

Note: The following transcript was created by Adobe Premiere and may contain misspellings and other inaccuracies as it was generated automatically:

Welcome to another episode of Behind the Headlines, where we feature experts and journalists discussing a variety of topics. I'm Terry Lipshetz, a senior producer for Lee and your host. In this latest episode, Emily Hamer, a reporter for Lee Enterprises Public Service Journalism team, discusses her story Public defenders work 3 times too many cases, milestone study and new data show.

Emily, welcome to the program. Thanks so much for having me. Before we dive into this current story, this isn't something that's new to you. You've been working a little bit on public defender topics for a little while now. Can you talk a little bit about previous reporting you did for your series: Broken Defense: People's right to counsel routinely violated across the West.

In that series we really wanted to take a deep dive into what's happening into public defense systems across the U.S. and because I think we kind of everybody sort of assumes that public defenders are underfunded or they're not paid well and they're really overworked. But I think that people sense that's so commonly accepted. People don't really think it's a problem that we should actually try to fix.

So my series really sought out to examine that issue and look at how it's affecting real people's lives who are going through the criminal justice system. So we found people who lost jobs, lost homes while they were stuck in jail, while they're still presumed innocent, but they're waiting for an attorney to represent them. And there just wasn't one available.

That's happening in Oregon right now. There are also people who they plead guilty to misdemeanors before ever talking with a defense attorney at all because the the justice system is kind of set up to pressure them into pleading, pleading out their case and just getting it over and done with before they ever talk to that public defender, even though they have a constitutional right to that.

So we found about more than 100,000 misdemeanor cases each year where people go to jail without ever talking to a lawyer at all. And so we talked to a lot of people about how this broken system is affecting them and found that it's it's become really common, a really routine part of the criminal justice system for People's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, to be violated.

Don't want to go too far off track here, but what would the reasoning be to to plead out so quickly? Is prosecution just looking to turn over cases, especially lower level cases, a lot faster and kind of keep things moving along? Is that the reason for that then? Yeah, I mean, I do some of the people, some of the defendants who have been accused of crimes do see it as an advantage because they're able to just resolve their case and get it done with.

But some of those people might have wanted to fight their case. So in there was a court in Texas where I went to their initial appearance. Court and initial appearance is supposed to be where you go in front of the judge and you either have your bail set or your release to release from jail or given a signature bond to come back to court to to fight your case at another time.

Or you have to you were you were never in jail. So you are just kind of showing up to get things rolling on your case. So it's normally just kind of like a checkpoint hearing. But at this court, I went through in Texas, there were a ton of people who fled their cases on that very first day in court.

And there's no defense attorney or public defender at all in the courtroom to help them understand the consequences of pleading guilty to that misdemeanor. There was one guy who went before the judge and he had he was in jail for like a marijuana charge. And the judge asked him if he wanted to plead guilty to the charge. And the guy said, no, he didn't.

But then the prosecutor came back over and was like, well, no, what we talked about is if you plead guilty, you get out of jail today. And then the guy kind of flipped the switch and said that he does plead guilty now. So they're just talking with the prosecutor by themselves without any kind of counsel and without any understanding of the collateral consequences of pleading guilty to even just a minor crime.

Maybe they could have had a defense against that. But they never talked with a public defender to to find that out. It's interesting. So now moving on to the current story that you're working on. You know, first, I think most people listening to this probably have a basic understanding. But can you explain what exactly as a public defender, what is the role and how do they play a part in the justice system?

Yeah, So a public defender is an attorney who is appointed to your case when you can't afford to hire your own private attorney yourself. So they are provided to people, to people who are poor or they call them indigent in the criminal justice system when when they can't afford an attorney, you're provided an attorney to fight for your case at the state's expense.

And your constitutional right to an attorney is is not just to any public defender to just like sit by and watch your case, but to an effective public defender who actually fights for you. We're all entitled to an effective legal counsel, basically. Yes. So now what is this current story that you're working on in and what kind of data did it reveal?

This movement of people, lawyers and researchers who are trying to fix public defense systems? And they came up with these new metrics that are not allow anybody really to measure public defender workloads to find out how many cases is too many cases for a public defender to handle. So they want to make sure that public defenders are taking on because when a public defender takes on way too many cases, they can't be effective for every single one of those clients, every every person that they're representing, some cases get thrown to the wayside.

These new national public defense workload standards that have have come out are a way to kind of get public defender caseloads on the map and find out when there are way too many cases that a public defender is handling. So I took the those figures that kind of the big the big number there is that attorneys should never handle more than 59 low level felonies in a year.

And there there are 11 other figures like that. But that's kind of the the biggest one, I think, to wrap your head around. So I requested data caseload data from all 50 states in order to get an understanding of of where public defenders are at in terms of their caseloads. And I got data back from about 36 states, and it represents about 9000 public defenders and in 30 states.

And their average caseload were nearly three times the maximum that they were supposed to have under the new standards. And that's even under a conservative analysis. So basically, public defender workloads are really, really high, unreasonably high. And they have been for a really long time. But this these new standards and this new data is kind of the first nationwide analysis that really shows just how overworked they are.

So when you say upwards of three times as much, I mean, the standards are now saying no more than 59 low level felonies. So if they're going three times, you're looking at attorneys that are pushing, you know, closing in on 200 a year, then in some places it's even higher. Like in St Clair County in Missouri, the St Louis Post-Dispatch did a story where public defenders there had more than 350 felonies.

And in 2022, which is like six times too many cases, and that's that's assuming all of the felonies are are low level felonies. If they're mid-level felonies, you should only work 36 of them in a year. And that's assuming that you're working 2080 hours, which is 40 hours every week of the year without taking any vacations or sick time.

And you're spending and or doing administrative tasks like responding to e-mails where it's all piecework. So it really is a conservative analysis that show that shows that public defenders have tripled the cases they should. Yeah. And if it's based on 20, 80 hours, too, that's in a sense, a little bit unfair because we presumably all want to have a little time off.

I'm not sure we're all operating at peak levels when we're never getting a day off. So, yeah, for sure. My series I talked with one public defender in a rural California county and he said that he worked, I think it was something like every day, including weekends for the past three years, and he was taking a step down from one of his public defender positions because he he wanted a little bit of a break.

He got out of one of his contracts, but he's like, yeah, I can't work every single day anymore. So yeah. And there and I found in in Texas and Idaho and Maryland there were a handful of attorneys who had ten times too many cases according to the standards. Well, and one judicial circuit in Florida where attorneys had nine times too many cases.

There are some public defenders who are handling just a crazy number of cases, and they can't provide a rigorous defense to every single one of those clients. So it results in a system where some clients are getting this great defense. But then that's at the expense of these other cases that are just getting pushed through the system. You speak about like low level felonies and mid-level.

Can you just give some examples of what qualifies? I mean, I'm assuming obviously like a murder isn't going to be something that would fall under a lower, lower level felony. So can you just kind of give a sense of some of the crimes that would fall under each kind of grouping? Yeah, there's actually a separate Corey for murder cases and those you should only handle eight of those in a year and you should spend a around 250 hours on each of them.

So there's, there's 11 different case type categories under the standards where there's a different sort of calculation for for each of them. But the low level felonies would include things like DUI is resulting in death, less serious property crimes and some drug felonies and theft, larceny, burglary. Those are some of the cases that might be considered low level felonies depending on the state that you're in.

And it's usually it's a sentence of up to two years. This is what the standards say, mid-level, mid-level felony is, can include serious property crimes, more serious drug crimes, less serious violent crimes, arson breaking and entering, drug distribution, battery, and a possible sentence of 3 to 15 years. And these are all kind of variable. I there are some a most states only have just felonies generally, but there are some sites were able to break it down a little bit more and with their felony classes I, I sorted those into the categories that are the 11 different categories that there are under the standards and there are misdemeanors and and DUI is in there, too.

It's not just felonies that are there any particular states right now in which the case loads for public defenders are particularly alarming? I think when you look at the average cases, it's across the board. It it's pretty bad. There's not very many states that like stick out as is being a lot worse than the others. I will say that Tennessee is one of the states that had some of the worst case loads.

They had kind of the highest figures under this analysis. I think they had nearly six times too many cases. Yeah, it was about 5.6 times too many cases in Tennessee. The fact that the average cases is three times too much is a really bad place to start. And so, yeah, there are a few states that seem to be doing okay.

Like Vermont was one of the states where their case loads appear to be within the standards, but the data is kind of incomplete and and nasty. So depending on how you measure it or how you categorize things, Vermont might be above the standards as well. Their data just isn't great. So it's kind of a mess everywhere. And if you dig into it, I'm sure you're going to find patchwork defense problems in in your state.

So in your story, you kind of reference, obviously these new standards. What were the old standards? Can you explain a little bit about, you know, what were the guidelines or standards previously and why were they kind of updated? Now, the old standards are 50 years old and they are based on much of anything at all. There's a longtime civil rights attorney that I've been talking to, Steven Hanlon, and he is kind of a leading this public did national public defense reform effort.

He said that the old standards, they're called the next standards were developed, which is a generous term on a cocktail napkin by a couple of defense attorneys 50 years ago. So they there wasn't really any data, there was no methodology. And they're just kind of ballpark numbers that the defense community has been relying on for the last half a century.

So they really needed to be updated and they finally are. Yeah, it's probably a good idea to actually base guidelines off of some level of metrics. Yeah. Measuring things in your story. You do reference Oregon multiple times and I guess it serves, you know, a little bit of the basis of the story. Can you talk a little bit about what's going on in that state and what's of concern there in Oregon?

They're really having a big public defense crisis right now, and they have a shortage of public defenders. And because and they have public defenders who are starting to stand up and say we we can't accept any more cases. We're not going to be able to provide effective representation to these people if you make us keep accepting more cases.

And because of that, there are a bunch of people, there are hundreds of people each day who aren't getting attorneys on their cases, and some of them are in jail. I talked with one guy in Oregon who he spent six months without an attorney after he was arrested and charged with a crime. Three of those months he was in jail and he couldn't he had to figure out on his own how to argue for a lower bail and filed motions for himself.

So that he could get out of jail in order to fight for his case. And during that time that he was in jail without an attorney, he lost his job and he lost his apartment. And so, a, it's a really huge problem in Oregon right now. And there are people who are going without attorneys while they're trying to navigate a really confusing criminal justice system.

There was another woman who I talked with who her public defender was so overwhelmed that her public defender showed up in court one day and was like, sure, sign these papers before this court hearing. And so the woman signed them and she didn't realize she was signing her plea agreement to plead guilty to a crime that she wanted to fight against.

And she said she would have accepted some of the charges, but she didn't want to plead guilty to what she ended up pleading guilty to because her public defender was just in such a rush. So Oregon is in a really bad spot right now, and they have put a ton of funding toward the problem and they're trying to rework their public defense system there.

So it it functions a little bit better. But they Oregon's unique because it doesn't have any statewide public defender agency. So there's no there's no public defenders in the state who are like government employees and people generally say that it works better to have staff public defenders in an office as the form of public defense, because then you can have support staff, you can have social workers, you can has immigration experts who can talk about the potential immigration consequences, whether or not it a charge could get someone deported.

So there's all these resources that you can have in public defender offices and Oregon largely doesn't have that. There are few public defender nonprofits who have that sort of structure, but most of the state is in public. Defense is provided through contract. It's got it. Yeah, that actually seems interesting. The concept of having a larger state agency, because in a sense it would act as a law firm because if, you know, if you can afford to hire an attorney who comes from a law firm, they do have support staff and they do have other people that can conduct research.

So it's almost like, you know, if you don't have that, then you're stuck with a single person who's making for you whatever time that person can make available to you. And and again, it gets to the point that you may not be receiving effective counsel. Yeah. A lot of people on a public defense experts recommend having more public defender office, since that's one thing that Texas is trying to do, is their statewide indigent Defense Commission is trying to build more public defense offices throughout the state.

Besides, you know, obviously these guidelines, but the guidelines don't necessarily solve the problem. They just establish a guideline. So what what needs to happen to actually solve the problem? Is it a case of we need more funding for public defenders? Is do we need to change any laws that, you know, are there are there are too many people getting charged with crimes that maybe you shouldn't be getting charged with to begin with or, you know, certain felonies maybe really would be better said, is misdemeanors.

Has any of that come up in your reporting? Yeah, it's it's kind of all of the above with with what you said. And so the the data suggests that local public defender's offices and local governments should triple or sometimes quadruple the funding for public defense, which I assume is probably not going to happen. But so there's the guy I mentioned earlier, Steve Hanlon.

Hey, he's working with a group called the Quality Defense Alliance. They're trying to improve public defense and through advocacy in sometimes through litigation. So Hanlon has come up in some states with five year plans to improve public defense, and that's through both funding increases, but also through the decriminalization of some nonviolent charges. A good example of one of these plans was in New Mexico, and they had a one of these studies concluded that New Mexico needed about 900 attorneys, and they only had about 300 attorneys.

So that's a gap of about 600 attorneys that they need. But if you and provide more funding and then you also decriminalize some crimes, it closes that gap by quite a bit. According to this new Mexico five year plan, the state needs to about double the funding that it currently has for public defense, and that would increase the number of public defenders in the state to about 600.

And then decriminalizing some minor crimes that are victimless. So they're not like violent crimes or anything like that that would reduce the caseload and reduce the pressure on attorneys and reduce the attorney need to 720 instead of 900. So it's not completely closing the gap. And speaking of huge improvement, before the gap was 300 to 900. After this five year plan, it would be 600 to 7 700.

So that's a big difference that the local governments could make. The quality defense alliances also going to be advocating for federal public defense grants to help out local governments make these changes. So they are advocating for federal funding that that could provide a lot of help because this is a federal mandate in the Constitution to provide a public defender's effective public defenders to everyone who needs one who can't afford one.

And has there been any success with getting more funding either at the state or national level anywhere? Where is this? You know, is that's just kind of tied up in legislatures and Congress? Not so far. It it has been kind of stuck. I think the hope is that once these standards come out, that that'll really help push things along and demonstrate the need for this funding.

And on that, Emily, I appreciate you taking time to talk about this. It's a fascinating and important topic. Thanks so much for chatting with me about it. We hope you enjoyed this latest episode of Behind the Headlines. You can find us on every podcast platform and we'd love it if you could take a moment to subscribe and leave of review.

Finally, if you appreciate what we're doing with this program, we encourage you to invest in local journalism by supporting the newspaper in your community. I'm Terry Lipschitz. Thinking you so much for listening to behind the headlines from Lee Enterprises.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

See the original post:

Reducing public defender workloads across the nation | Behind the ... - Missoulian

This week, two defendants involved in the years-long SIPT trial were found guilty of bribery and money laundering charges. They are set to be sentenced early next month.

They face a lengthy prison sentence, a hefty fine, or both.

Two others were found not guilty and have been acquitted.

What are your thoughts?

Every rope has an end

This trial went on and on and it could have gone either way. It however should be seen as a warning for others who would abuse the offices that they hold.

Politicians work for the people, their primary focus is to enhance the lives of the people, not themselves.

Crime does not pay

Don't do the crime if youre likely to be worried about the time.

Let's hope that despite the ludicrous time this is taking the outcome is a deterrent to future corruption.

Expensive

This trial has been going on for almost eight years; having started in December of 2015, what has that cost done to this country?

We cannot only look at those eight years in terms of the cost because the SIPT team was put together in March of 2010 so we have been paying for this from 2010, over 13 years so far and the process is not finished yet either. We have the appeal process to go through for the two defendants who were found guilty in this trial and an entire trial and appeal process for the other three defendants whose trial has not yet started.

We have no real idea of the cost of the trial today because there has not been full and open disclosure. There has been some disclosure but after a public outcry over the cost of the trial in the early years and in one instance a government refusal to continue to fund it, funds have come from other parts of the budget and it is not therefore possible to know the true cost of the trial to date. If we are paying for it we deserve to know what it is costing us and what it has cost us! You do not buy something or pay for something unless you know the cost. We need to know the true and full cost not just the sums paid to the SIPT attorneys, but also the sums paid to outfit the court for this trial the legal aid for the defendants attorneys, and the costs for our legal system to pay for this trial. Only by knowing the cost can we know what kind of value we are getting for our money. I have to say it does not appear that we are getting any value for money when you look at the facts, this part of the trial started with four defendants with five counts and ended up with two findings of guilt, which is not a win in my books, especially when the one count that Hall was found guilty on relates to a guilty plea by Padgett!

Despite the financial cost to these Islands, I remain proud of us as a people when I look back at the early Helen Garlic days of SIPT and the concerns raised with the British government over the ability to pay for the trial and their refusal to assist with the cost. I am proud to say that the cost has been met and it has not crippled our economy, confirming we are a strong and resilient people but enough is enough! We are depriving a generation of Turks & Caicos Islanders, many of whom were born after the Commission of Inquiry that started this and will have finished high school by the time these trials are over with funding that could be put to better use for their future benefit, again ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

I talk about the financial cost of the trial because that can be quantified what cannot be quantified is the cost to the individuals, those found not guilty so far and those who may yet succeed on appeal, their personal losses can never be quantified.

Weak internal governance structures

These convictions cannot come at a worse time for the Turks and Caicos Islands. Not a day of "rejoicing! This is a time when the TCI needs to position itself globally and expand its share of global tourism and financial services. The verdicts expose how TCI is suffering from weak internal governance structures within the government and political parties. It will not be fair or right to politicise these issues but matters of policy and related issues do arise. In a country with a ministerial government since 1976, laws like the Bribery Ordinance, are only 10 years old or so and came after the allegations were made against former ministers, "after the fact". It also begs the question of whether the governing party and opposition are prepared to call MPS, Ministers, and their representatives to account. If done so in the past: none of this would have happened. The reason being, if parties became their own Commissions of Enquiry, functioned like their own SIPT, and disciplined their members when allegations of corruption and crime arose, there would not have been any suspension of the constitution or these ten-year SIPT trials. This is a sore weakness of the TCI political system. The party system needs to mature to a point where sufficient internal governance structures can be imposed from within. Persons who push reforms of that nature are really unpopular and easily removed. There is a routine ignoring of party constitutions and rules so the "majority instead of "whats right tends to prevail.

These SIPT trials have set the islands back a good 50 years. The UK has imposed its own governance structures so that owing to deliberate misinterpretation of the constitution and the finance management laws, ministers must beg the governor on how to spend their own money. This cannot lead to good government and a proper policy regime. It is not even worth discussing the convictions and acquittals at this stage because the TCI people have lost so much.

Opportunities lost

It has been said that the crimes alleged against those former ministers were "victimless so maybe the convictions are "moot". The real victims were the TCI people. Reportedly over $100m was spent over a ten-year period to reach two convictions. What about the opportunities lost? Those monies could have been spent on upgrading the schools of the TCI, ensuring that everyone who graduated obtained a proper scholarship to a university of their choice, real small business development support and the expansion of local industry. So many chances are lost because between 2003 and today millions of dollars were handed over to outsiders instead of the TCI people. The TCI now has a retarded constitutional order, the land is beyond the reach of natives and it is a real paradise lost. Emerging in the light of all of this is weaponisation of the "Grace Bay Mafia which stands in the way of the economic empowerment of TCIslanders. The investors/developers were allowed to plead their way against these charges and allegations and left standing to hold the bill were former ministers and the TCI people.

Not over

All the SIPT has to show after many years of trial and wasted resources are two convictions. To hazard a guess, most TCIslanders would not like to see one of their own sentenced in a way like this, facing time in the UK or elsewhere. One cannot figure out what they will do, whether the SIPT will insist on fines, return of assets, or custodial sentences. A lot could happen behind the scenes until sentencing day comes around. Allegations of money laundering are however pretty serious.

Prevent a recurrence

There are two convictions and two acquittals after over ten years and reportedly over $100m spent. It is too late for a blame game. Turks & Caicos Islanders were well aware of the kind of government they were getting in 2003 and owing to money, bribes and largesse flowing on the street. All of that "free money people didnt ask questions on where all of "this free campaign money came from? Free money "isn't free". Ministers were bought and the country sold, the result, asset recovery efforts and endless SIPT trials. The lesson learned is that investors do not give money to "brilliant politicians" just because they "like them. In fact, they will be looking for the most dim-witted, easily controlled and gullible politician to share money with because that investor or developers eyes are focused on the people's land, the people's money, tax breaks and deals under the table. This is what happened and why politicians are so "generous" at election time. All of that free money in 2003 and 2007. The result was seen in the transfer of 1000s of acres of Crown Land and the loss of ministerial control over Crown Land. Lost with it is the control of TCIs constitution and "ministerial initiative in making decisions for the people. Will the wheel of politics in the TCI change for the better? Will parties wake up to realise that "we need to govern ourselves, call the ministers and premier into account"? Letting them "Do what they want is not good for the future and democracy.

Read the original here:

The SIPT Judgement - Turks and Caicos Weekly News