The diamond in the rough story during silly season

The summer months are invariably a tough time for journalists. There is a reason it is called the 'silly season' and this year is no exception: the public has discovered the prime minister's preferred choice of potato and wheat based snack chip, become fearful of 'cannibalistic' seagulls, and laughed out loud as a 'drunken squirrel' vandalised a private members' club.

A news cycle that informs or stimulates debate between July and August tends to be as rare as a fat cat legal aid lawyer. One story, though, has generated copious copy for all the right reasons, as the true impact of the highly controversial criminal court charge comes to light in all its ugly glory.

The Howard League for Penal Reform's campaign for an urgent review of the charge - Chris Grayling's final two-fingered salute to the criminal justice system - has received widespread coverage in the local, national, and trade press as a plethora of news stories illustrate how the draconian charge is both unfair and unrealistic. These cases have put a human face on the suffering caused by an ill-judged and unconscionable diktat that puts pressure on defendants to plead to an offence at the earliest opportunity, irrespective of actual guilt.

For example, a Kidderminster woman who, having had her benefits sanction by the DWP, was so hungry she stole a pack of Mars bars worth just 75p, was issued with the £150 criminal courts charge, plus a £73 fine, £85 prosecution costs, £20 victim surcharge, and 75p compensation.

The punishment of £328.75 doled out to Louisa Sewell for the theft of a chocolate bar caused one anonymous barrister to call for the abolishment of the magistrates' courts after the Halesowen News reported the following comment from magistrate Maurice Lashford: 'We do not readily accept you go into a shop to steal just for being hungry.'

This lack of empathy led the Secret Barrister to suggest Lashford's comments were indicative of a 'closed-minded, self-righteous, vindictive, and gonad-grindingly pig-thick cockwomble', the likes of which pervade the court.

Though it would be unfair to tar all magistrates with the same broad brush - especially considering that many have or have threatened to resign unless discretion is allowed to be applied to the charge - I am reminded of a criminal law lecturer who once told me: 'If you have a client with an either-way offence, get them before a judge and jury. You don't want your client in the hands of a case-hardened magistrate.'

Unfortunately, any upheaval of the magistrates' court would do little for those who reside at Her Majesty's pleasure. While the absolute removal of legal aid for prisoners is (PAS), there remains a gap in justice that garners no great sympathy with the public. That may, however, be about to change.