Judge overturns race case verdict in landmark ruling

[saru]

A follow-up to last weeks story....I hope they sack her now!!!!

http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News ... ruling.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A decision by a leading Judge has said that Bedford magistrates got the case of a woman accused of racism completely wrong.


Christine Jones at an earlier court appearanceThe magistrates had cleared Royal Mail manager Christine Jones of Station Road, Ridgmont, of a racially aggravated public order offence but at the same time had convicted her of harassing her neighbour Alan Lawson last year.

But in an astonishing turn-around at London’s High Court on Friday, Justice Duncan Ouseley, in a landmark ruling, allowed appeals against both decisions.

He sent the case back to the magistrates with a direction that they must convict Mrs Jones of the racially aggravated public order allegation and acquit her of the harassment charge.

In his ruling, Mr Ouseley said: “In my judgment on the facts found the defendant should have been convicted on charge one (the racially aggravated public order offence).


“The magistrates misdirected themselves in law in requiring there to be a motivation of racial hostility in order to convict on this offence.”

He added: “There was a victim present. The words were liable to have an impact whether hostility was intended or not. The language used plainly demonstrated on any view hostility towards Mrs Lawson based on her racial group.

“Whether Mrs Jones objectively intended to demonstrate such hostility or whether her motivation was simply to abuse Mr Lawson is neither here nor there.” The judge added that the magistrates’ decision was ‘perverse’.


Turning to the harassment charge, he said: “I am satisfied that on the two particulars found proved the magistrates, properly directing themselves in law as to the gravity of the conduct required to constitute harassment, could not reasonably have convicted.”

He continued: “A threat to paint her own garage door may be insulting or provocative but it is of itself quite trivial.” And, while he said that making allegations to the police was capable of being part of harassing conduct this was not the case here.

When the challenges to the decision of the magistrates was previously heard, the court was told that in April last year, the Bedford Magistrates’ Court found Jones had, during an altercation with her neighbours Alan and Nilufar Lawson, asked the eight-and-a-halfmonth pregnant Mrs Lawson: “So he had to go to what country to buy you and get you pregnant?”.

However, the justices found that the reason she committed the offence was because of animosity towards Mr Lawson after a long-running dispute, and that it was not racially motivated.

Lawyers for the Crown Prosecution Service argued that, once they had found that she had used racially abusive language, they fell into error in thinking they had to go on to determine the motivation behind it.

They convicted her of harassment and fined her £585, plus £455 in costs to the Lawsons and a victim surcharge of £15.

At the same time, Mrs Jones appealed against the magistrates’ decision to convict her of harassing architectural engineer Mr Lawson between August and November 2008.

After the ruling, Tim Riley from the Bedfordshire Crown Prosecution Service, said: “Important issues of law needed to be decided.

“We are pleased that the Court has directed a conviction in respect of the racially aggravated offence.”

[baldrick]

A follow-up to last weeks story....I hope they sack her now!!!!

More likely she'll be promoted.

[smokerjim]

A follow-up to last weeks story....I hope they sack her now!!!!

More likely she'll be promoted.

I dunno - with RM wanting to get rid of managers, they might think they've found their first candidate......but they should still bleeding sack her, in the full glare of the bad publicity she has brought to the job ( can't see RM being so impartial if she wore a blue shirt instead of a white one )

[fmrPOSTIE]

whats it got to do with work though?

[baldrick]

whats it got to do with work though?

RM sacked two brothers fpr alleged football hooliganism which they said brought RM into 'disrepute'.
What did that have to do with work?

[fmrPOSTIE]

Exactly, they were both found to be unfairly dismissed by Royal Mail. They reinstated 1 and refused to reinstate the other, although he got at least £125,000.

[clashcityrocker]

Bringing RM into disrepute is a sackable offence which is why people have to be careful what they post on here.
But not complying with an obligation to have an independent analysis of Quality of Service figures is deemed acceptable?

[fishtank]

whats it got to do with work though?

Signing a contract of employment is an act of faith by both parties.
Royal mail are placing faith in you that you are the type of person they wish to employ and you are placing faith in them that they are the type of employer you wish to work for.
If it transpires through actions either in or out of the workplace that you are not the type of person they wish to employ why should they not be allowed to terminate your employment.
They are not your parents and have no duty to love you warts and all.
The only question is what constitutes a serious enough breach to warrant dismissal.