SHOPLIFTERS should be dealt with on the spot in a special court set up in the Arndale Centre, says Chief Constable Peter Fahy.
Petty criminals would be hauled before magistrates who would hand out fines, community punishments or even jail, says Greater Manchester’s top policeman.
Mr Fahy said ‘radical thinking’ was needed to speed up the way police and courts dealt with prisoners.
As well as a courtroom, a mini-police station with cells could also be set up among the shops. The idea has been welcomed by the Magistrates Association, which represents 30,000 justices in England and Wales – but some lawyers fear it could be a ‘kangaroo court’. Association chairman John Thornhill said: “We need to be taking justice to communities and it seems to me having a court in the Arndale Centre would be one way of doing it. In principle, if we can deal with things speedily and pragmatically we are happy to do that.”
He said a court would have to be ‘properly designated’, independent of the police and with access to solicitors to defend prisoners.
The Trafford Centre also backed the idea. Gordon McKinnon, director of operations said: “We think this could be a good idea.”
But Mike Mackey, from Burton Copeland solicitors and former president of the Manchester Law Society, said: “Are the magistrates going to have a shop window in Boots? This is the Chief Constable shooting from the hip. It all sounds very wonderful but there are a couple of problems with it. First, if police arrest someone it doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty.
“Before they get to charging anyone they have to be interviewed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and require access to a lawyer. Are they going to be in the Arndale Centre too? My worry is these will be kangaroo courts.”
Mr Fahy’s comments came at a meeting of the Greater Manchester Police Authority during a debate on modernising the force. Greater Manchester Police is shedding 300 jobs as it faces a £5m budget shortfall. And it has given itself a 90-day deadline to improve after government officials expressed concern at its ability to detect crime.
Deputy Chief Constable Simon Byrne said the Arndale Centre plan would ‘speed up the whole justice system’ and prevent ‘hoicking suspects across Manchester to charge them and then wait a week before putting them before the courts’. The Arndale Centre declined to comment.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (18/01/2010 at 08:50)
Seriously though, why not have them wear a vest saying thief doing instant payback and give them a bin bag and brush to sweep the streets for the rest of the day, supervised of course, then ban them from the city centre for a month or two, day or night.
In reality, they will probably get an ASBO saying they are banned from shoplifting for the foreseeable future.
Ace Riley, outsidethebox (18/01/2010 at 08:50)
Mark,Radcliffe. (18/01/2010 at 08:53)
BluePurgatory, Manchester (18/01/2010 at 09:58)
Deejay, Bury (18/01/2010 at 10:08)
umpire 2, Salford M7 4HT (18/01/2010 at 10:15)
If in the long run we stop this no comment interviews and got on with the charges and moved forward instead of keep going back in the dark ages.
Mr Fahy idea would work and those against him are the people whom I have mentioned above and they need to look at the bigger picture instead of being I know the Law better than you and I will fight it all the way, some times this kind of attitude destroys society and you can not see it because you have your eyes on tunnel vision mode and it will not move of that circle of life
Mark,Radcliffe. (18/01/2010 at 10:23)
Black Flag (18/01/2010 at 10:31)
Huckleberry Mudsplasher (18/01/2010 at 10:41)
Food for thought there Chief Constable?
Anthony , Accrington,Lancashire (18/01/2010 at 10:48)
Kevin Ashcroft (18/01/2010 at 11:11)
chillbill, oldham (18/01/2010 at 11:54)
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (18/01/2010 at 12:09)
Black Flag (18/01/2010 at 12:10)
I don't believe I've ever said you are.
"A full deterent needs to be made clear and concise. Carry an illegal firearm - five years."
I addressed the absurdity of that approach last week when I highlighted the case of a man who now has a criminal record for handing a shotgun, which was thrown into his garden, to the police.
Black Flag (18/01/2010 at 12:15)
Now you certainly are in favour of lynch mobs, which you've made clear on numerous occasions.
I'd try to reason with you, but there's probably no point. I can only hope that, if this kind of nonsense ever come in to effect, you are pulled over by the police while you are driving, falsely accused of a driving offence, banned, fined, denied a fair trial and denied legal representation, because you were caught in the act and you don't need it.
And I really hope I'm there to point and laugh.
Chuckster, Cheshire (18/01/2010 at 12:20)
Ignoramus, Manchester (18/01/2010 at 12:21)
SteveDB (18/01/2010 at 12:23)
Spot on Ace but the problem lies with the instructions given to those in the courts. Most JP's would love to hand out relevant sentences but are instructed as to just what the system can cope with NOT what is actually needed in the case. Classic example in todays news 'Postman has £25,000 debt so is let off a custodial sentence'. It's nothing to do with his debt as all he has to do is declare himself bankrupt and the JP knows it. There is just no room in the prison system for him and so they take a calculated risk as to whether he will offend again or not (i.e. first offence, occupational offence etc). Another sad fact of life.
Andrew Cathcart (18/01/2010 at 12:26)
RED2THE CORE (18/01/2010 at 12:32)
If caught red handed theres no excuse and it would not be an injustace it would be fitting.
How much would this stop the offenders and the tax payer where the money would go to better things eg nhs ecy ect,by the way i turned out ok an joined the armed forces while the other lads i knocked around with were still doing the same as when i joined and still are to this day,i see this if i bumb into them when im in my city or on leave vistiting friends in salford.
Ace Riley, outsidethebox (18/01/2010 at 12:37)
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (18/01/2010 at 12:42)
No! you could hold an argument in an empty room. Nobody's right are they, except you!
"I can only hope that, if this kind of nonsense ever come in to effect, you are pulled over by the police while you are driving, falsely accused of a driving offence, banned, fined, denied a fair trial and denied legal representation, because you were caught in the act and you don't need it"
Who's talking about unproven crimes, I'm talking about being caught red handed, with the clothes or goods tucked under your coat or bag etc, not traffic offences, where did traffic offences get mentioned in this story.
Why should they be given legal representation costing the taxpayer (no doubt) thousands and creating revenue for solicitors to give some cock and bull story about why they committed the crime. They did and got caught, now they get punished, end of.
Finally, I'm not in favour of lynch mobs and I resent you implying that I am. I only want the justice system to be fair on the victims of crime at least as much as it is with the perpetrators of crime.
Maynard Kitchener Lampwick, Hulme. (18/01/2010 at 12:44)
Black Flag (18/01/2010 at 12:56)
"i remember when school kids didnt kill each other"
That time never existed. Just look up cases like that of Mary Bell and you'll see that those kind of incidents are nothing new. Crime wasn't invented at the end of the 20th Century.
"AT LEAST WE HAD LAW AND ORDER"
But what some of these "people" want (as well as you, I suspect) is to do away with law and order in favour of arbitrary exercise of power.
salfordrat (18/01/2010 at 12:57)
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead
Do you really want an answer to this question? Or would you like a little more time to have a think about it all? Okay. The first answer should be obvious - why should they get legal representation? Because we live in a democracy and everybody is entitled to have their side heard. If you don't like this, go and be a Mad Welsh Scotsman in a country with Sharia Law.
The second answer that springs to mind is this: If you have a 'kangeroo court' dispensing so called 'justice' un-checked, what happens when you mother, grandmother or some other aged relative or friend who, for examp-le, suffers from mental health problems or some form of dementure? If somebody close to you with Alzheimers was arrested and summarily charged and imprisoned for shoplifing because they had no legal representation - would you change your tune? I really do think you need to go and have a little think about your usual, ill thought out, knee jerk response to this ridiculous issue.