Comaprison between Magistrate and Crown Courts

Gurminder Sihra W0410993

ISLC402 Introduction Law

In the UK there are two types of courts that are most commonly used to administer the punishments of crime, these are the Magistrate and the Crown court. The magistrate and crown courts are run by the Department for Consititutional Affairs. The magistrates courts are known as the inferior courts, this is because they do not have authority over the High courts. The crown court is one level above the magistrate court but they also have no authority over the high courts. There are significant differences and comparisons that can be made between the proceeding in both crown and magistrate courts with advantages disadvantages, and how they deal with verdicts and decisions.

The Magistrate court is at the bottom of the hierarchy of the criminal courts and the civil courts.The Magistrates' court could be said to comprise of three smaller courts, they are: the Magistrates' court itself, the youth court and the coroner's court. In general proceeding all cases in there first stages will go to the Magsitrate courts whether it is a summary offence where the defendant has no jury at the trial, these offences include minor assaults or vehicle crime. Or whether to decide if the case should be heard at a Crown court. The Magistrate deals with cases that are considered as mainly minor offences, in fact over 90 percent1 of all criminal cases are tried by magistrates. Even though the Magistrate courts have civil jurisdiction, there main case load is criminal. The most significant difference that is noticed in the magistrate court is that cases are heard by Justices of the peace or magistrates, there can either be three judges or one district magistrate judge. As these are the judges and are people who do not have formalised legal training and are volunteers but are advised by the magistrate clerks on legal issues, who also handle the general administrative court work.There are generally three main types of cases that come to Magistrate courts. These were briefly touched upon earlier and they consist of firstly Summary offences where the offences consist of minor assault and vehicle offences. Secondly, there are Either way offences where the defendant can either be tried at a crown or magistrate court this because the magistrate judge(s) are unable to reach a verdict so the trial can be heard at a crown court. The third of the types is an Indictable only offence where the offences include murder and manslaughter which must be heard at a crown court.

The Crown court is above the magistrate court in both civil and criminal jurisdiction. This is because the crown court exclusively deal with criminal cases where the defendant has been convicted and the magistrate believe that the offence requires a harsher punishment or appeals. There are 78 permanent and 15 satellite Crown Court centres throughout the country The types of offences that the crown court deals with consist of homicide, serious physical and sexual assaults and property crime that has caused damage which is of high value. In general view the Magistrate courts are much more general and varied as there is a more variety of minor that have different out comes, where as compared to the crown court where extreme cases are only heard.

This is a preview of the whole essay

On observing the proceedings in both the magistrate and crown court there are many differences between the both. The magistrate courts differ from the crown court in the way that the judges are volunteers and have no legal background where as the judges in the crown court have an extensive knowledge the of legal proffession and that not only is there a judge but there is also a jury. Also there is the use of jury in the crown court for the serious offences. This was evident in the observation at Snaresbrook crown court where in one case the judge acquitted the case of terms that the prosectution barrister had come in to conflict with of one of the acts that the barrister had to obide by which showed the extensive knowledge that the judge had. Where as the judges at the magistrate in one case took a large amount to deliver a verdict. The crime was was theft and the offender was a young single mum who was white in her early twenties. The problem that in that judges had was that the defendant had commited previous offences of theft and they judges were torn betweent whether they would deliver a cutsodial sentence or a community rehabilitaion order, which in they end they gave her community service. The advantages of having lay magistrates is that the cost is cheaper this is because they are unpaid it is cheaper for cases to be heard at the magistrate court. Another advantage is that because the lay magistartes usually sit in threes they may make a balanced judgement more likely. With all this in mind there are still disadvantages that of the lay magistrate that make the crown court better. These consist of the inconsitentcy of the decision making by the magistartes and how the decision are made by them. Also that the magistrate courts are inefficient when it comes to knowledge of legal and issues where as compared tyo proffessional judges whos knowledge is extensive.

Another aspect that the two courts are differ is the length of the proceedings. The length of a trial is very short in magistrate court compared to that of a crown court where it can last from days to months. This was evident as in the magistrate court more than five cases heard and a verdict was given with in thirty minutes. Where as in the crown court it would take much longer to give a verdict as both sides of the case would present there case to the jury and the jury would then retire to give a verdict. This time span on each case would be an advantage of having a trial in the crown court. However most cases at the magistrate courses are preliminary hearings where the actual trial has been moved to a later date or that the crime is serious enough to be heard at a crown court. This was emphasised by my observation at Redbridge magistrates court where the case of “Begum vs the Crown” was moved to the crown court and the defendant was released on unconditional bail. The amount of time taken on each case is one difference that is clearly evident between the crown court and the magistrate court.

In addition the comparision between the courts and how organised the personnel are in the courts was also evident. Both courts were similar in the fact there was on the occasion that I observed a lot disorganisation from solicitors and barristers who were prosectuing. There were a number of occasions where in both magistrate and the crown court the prosectors were unorganised with there paper work and thus delaying the case. This was more evident in the magistrate court where the cases had to be moved to later dates so the prosecution would be fully organised for that case. Upon observing this there were a number of cases that were moved to a later date for reasons to do with paper work that was not present. This was also evident in the crown court but the judge ridiculed the. prosecution for wasting the his time, the defendant and the courts time. There was in addition disorganisation as the magistrate judges in two cases that were observed the judges would not give a punishment as they did not have any previous information on the defendant for example if they had committed crimes before or whether it was there first offence. This disorganisation was not evident in the crown court, only on one occasion where it was the prosectuing barristers individual mistake. But the disorganistation wastes too much time and the as the judges have no legal training it is difficulty for them to reach a decision.

Furthermore, a comparison can be made by how the defendant is punished for their crime. In the observation of the magistrate many defendents were given community rehabilitation orders instead of custodial sentences, eventhough the magistrate court can give a custodial it was not evident in my observation at the courts this was the last solution. It also depended upon the seriousness of the offenece and whether the defendant pleaded not guilty and was proven guilty. Where as in the crown court most of the defendents convicted were given custodial sentences. This is because the crimes are worse so the punishment must fit crime, an example of this is mandatory imprisonment for murder. This indicates the risk of having a trial at a crown court and how harsher the punishment can be depending upon the crime. After comparing the courts in the way of the punishment it is evident that the advantage of having a trial at the crown court is because of the high acquittal rate and juries are more likely to accept ‘political’ defence and less likely to believe the police.

Also a comparision can be made about the seriousness of the offences that are heard at a crown and magistrates court. On my observation there were two cases that were the same offence which was theft. However the differnces between the offences was that the offence that was tried at the magistrate court was the theft of four passports and birth certificates. Where as the case in the crown court was theft and robbery and the facts were that they defendants planned the robbery and on the 9th of July 2004 at 2.00pm the defendants set upon a securicor worker as he was delivering wages to a company. These fact indicate how serious the crime was at it was planned and calculated, where as the case in the magistrate court, the defendant was not deemed not to have palnned the theft as the stolen good were found at her residence. This was months after she committed the offence. But the most obvious difference between the crime was the seriousness of at the case at the crown court. The confusing thing is that the magistrate case was still theft and should go through the same phases as all the cases where the offence is either theft or robbery. The main observation were how many cases that were vehicle related were heard at the magistrate court and the verdict only took a short amount of time. The most serious case that was heard at the magistrate on my observation was one of serious domestic violence.

Another comparison that ws noticeable is the gender of the people who work in the courts. The role women in court differed between the crown court and the magistrate court. In the observation of the crown court the female barrristers did seem to be taken seriosuly by the judge and on one occasion the judge was extremly harsh to the female barrister where as in the crown court there were no gender differences problems where as the 3 lay magistrates consisted of 2 women and one man. It is evident that the reason for the harshness of the crown court judge was because of the crown court itself, meaning that it is a tradidtional place.

There is also a comparison between the way that the crown and magistrate courts deal with appeals. Th eappeal process is used to spot cases where there have been wrongful convictions at a premature stage of the case so it can be promptly resolved Through the magistrate court there are 4 routes of appeal, where as in the crown court there are 3 routes.

After comparing the courts it is evident that there are postive and negative aspects of both courts that can be reformed to make the courts more efficient. Starting off with the magistarte court, probably the most inefficent aspect of court is that fact that the judges have difficulty making decisions. So it would be a better improvement if the magistrate judges were professional. The advantages of theis would be the there would be no need for the court clerks. This would also speed up the time of the proceedings in the magistrate court. Also decisions would be made effectively and promptly. Another reform that would improve the proceedings would be to make sure that all paperwork is organised before each defendants trial so there would be no time wasted of the court of the CPS (crown prosecution service). Also this would cost less for the court as there would be no need for trial to go on longer. The reason for these reforms would be the observation that I made on my visit to the magistrate court where there were a number of cases where the paper work was incorrect so the case had to be rescheduled as a result. The main reason for the reform of the jusges is because the main case I witnessed was of samantha vs crown where she was accused of theft asnd had previous convictions. However with these postives to give a custodial sentence the defendant was a young single mother which to the judges was as decision which they took longer than usual to take. In my opinion I believe it would cause more grief to give a custodial sentence over a theft that was not intentional. As the defendant had been given community rehabilitaion orders on her previous offences it seemed that thy worked as the offences were commited after a long period of time from each other. I believe if the judge were professional it would not have taken thirty minutes to deliver a verdict. If these reforms were made it would surely result in no time wasted in the magistrate with it being more efficient.

The reforms that would be made to the crown court are not as obvious as the magistrates court. The main reform would be to try and shorten the time span of the trial as many defendants use legal aid which they never pay off. If the trials were shortened and preparation was more organised this would reduce the cost of the legal aids given to defendants. In additions in improving the performance

of the jury would make the crown court more efficient. One major way that would improve the jury would the Auld review which was discussed by Sir Robin Auld who believed that jury should be give an overall summary and issue of the case by the clerks so they no all the information of the trial. Then the judge would sum up case at the end of the trial by forming questions that would need to be addressed. The end result would be that the jury would declare a verdict with accordance to the questions that the judge had put before when he summed up the case. This would improve the performance thus improving the efficiency of the crown court.

Ther are general reforms that could be made to make both crown court better. Auld again also was implicict that it would benefit the court systen if it was modernized. Auld emphasised on the use of information technology with in the court. This would in my opinion dramatically improve courts efficiency as there would be no need for paperwork. Other procedures that would make the courts morew modern would be video links to witnesses, which in one case I observed at the crown court was asked for as the witness was a young girl who was raped. Conversely this would take time penertrate and take over the current system that is used in the courts. Also it would cost the government a large amount of money to modernize the court system and its procedures. Also the tradition wigs should not worn any more as they are seen out of date by the lord chancellor and this surely be of sum relief to barristers

In conclusion the comparisions of the crown and magistrate cort have indicated that there are signifivcant diffeernces between the two courts. The differences are major but as the current system is always changing, the courts can only efficient to an extent. With Britain joining the EU it has in a ways has poisoned the english legal system which must now be changed and modernized so it would be efficient for Britain in the civil courts and criminal courts. In saying this the cases that are heard magistrates should not be entirely of a criminal majority also civil, so it would not put strain on the magistrate court as it is now inefficient as a result with the number. With saying what must be strongly emphasised is that if both systems of civicl and criminal are modernized and made up to date they would surey improve the efficiency of the courts in punishing crime.