Inferior judges are so called because they do not exercise unlimited jurisdiction but instead their powers are defined by statute. Accordingly if the statute does not prescribe any authority then they may not exercise any jurisdiction. The principle inferior offices are: circuit judges, recorders and district judges.
Laypersons are members of the public. They are legally unqualified personnel, making decisions on individuals’ guilt or innocence. Their participation in the criminal justice system is based on the principle that an accused should be judged by his peers. Such lay-persons are either members of the jury or magistrates. They are not paid for their involvement but do receive expenses and a contribution to possible loss of earnings if appropriate. Therefore some may say it is cheap justice and perhaps potentially dangerous to leave such important decisions that may affect people’s lives to seemingly ordinary members of the public, some of whom may not fully understand the law and what is being argued. However, others say that it is the crux of British justice, ‘Hallowed by time’ and essential to the system of criminal trials.
Lay magistrates deal with the vast majority of criminal cases in the English legal system. All criminal cases start in the Magistrates' Court and around one million cases a year are heard by Magistrates. They uphold the important principle in our legal system of trial by one's peers.
Lay magistrates are appointed by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the Local Advisory Committees. They do not, strictly speaking, hold a judicial office. However it must be noted that a district judge, who may at times preside at a magistrate’s court, is a judicial officer and is appointed in the same way as an inferior judge.
Although lay magistrates do not need to have any formal legal qualifications there are some requirements which were set out by the Lord Chancellor in 1998. These are known as the six key qualities and are as follows; good character, understanding and communication, social awareness and maturity, sound temperament and judgement, commitment and reliability.
Appointment is by way of a two-stage interview process. The first interview is used to find out more about the candidate's personal attributes, the panel are particularly interested in the six key qualities mentioned above. The candidate will also be questioned to find out their attitudes on various criminal justice issues such as drink driving and young offenders.
The second interview is aimed at testing the candidate's judicial aptitude; this is achieved by a discussion of at least two case studies which are typical of those normally heard in the Magistrates' Court. Once the interviews are completed the advisory committee will submit the names of the suitable candidates to the Lord Chancellor who will then appoint new lay magistrates from this list.
Lay involvement in judicial decision-making is intended to ensure that the courts are aware of community concerns. However, given the restricted social background of magistrates, and their alleged bias towards the police, the true value of this may be doubtful. Magistrates do not have the option, as juries do, of delivering a verdict according to their conscience. It is also a weight of numbers and the simple fact that magistrates must usually sit in threes may make a balanced view more likely. Local knowledge is seen as essential as magistrates must live within a reasonable distance of the court in which they sit, and therefore, being picked from their local constituency, many have a more informed picture of local life and the problems facing the public within it than professional judges.
It has traditionally been assumed that because lay magistrates are unpaid volunteers and are relatively low cost, they are understandably cheaper than their professional colleagues as the majority of magistrates deal with an enormous amount of summary offences which would be seen to be a waste of a qualified judge’s time. However, when considering the disadvantages certain questions must be raised as to whether or not they are trained adequately considering someone’s livelihood is at stake. Is cheap justice good justice? And do they fully understand the law?
Indeed magistrates do have a legally qualified clerk present in court to assist them on points of law if necessary, who must also in turn be paid, but this does not necessarily mean they will fully understand it. In addition to this; the time spent considering such advice makes them significantly slower than professional judges (one judge handles as much work as 30 magistrates). Ultimately, despite being ‘true representatives of the people’, this does not necessarily mean they are proficiently capable of handling out justice.
The Home Office noted in the Managing Criminal Justice Report 2005 that, though benches tried to ensure their own decisions were consistent, they did not strive to achieve consistency with other benches. To achieve the fundamental goal of a fair trial; ‘similar crime committed in similar circumstances by offenders with similar backgrounds should receive a similar punishment.’ This report was initiated as a result of numerous complaints that magistrates were biased towards the police.
There is a suspicion that magistrates tend to favour the police in particular resulting in a distinct level of prosecution bias leading to conviction rates in the magistrates' court being much higher than the Crown Court. Police officers are frequent witnesses and become well known to members of the bench and it is alleged that this results in an almost automatic tendency to believe police evidence. This view gained greater credibility when one magistrate was reckless enough to admit it in R v Bingham JJ ex parte Jowitt (1974): a speeding case where the only evidence was that of the motorist and a police constable. The chairman of the bench said:
“Quite the most unpleasant cases that we have to decide are those where the evidence is a direct conflict between a police officer and a member of the public. My principle in such cases has always been to believe the evidence of the police officer, and therefore we find the case proved”.
The conviction was quashed on appeal because of this remark.
The stereotypical view of the background of lay magistrates also serves as a significant disadvantage as they should be seen to have come from varied social backgrounds. However the facts are that they remain to be predominantly white, middle class and middle-aged, with a strong Conservative Bias. The selection process has been blamed for the general narrowness of magistrates’ backgrounds: Elizabeth Burney’s 1979 study into selection methods concluded that the process was almost entirely dominated by existing magistrates who over and over again simply appointed people with similar backgrounds to their own.
Magistrates from a narrow social and ethnic background do indeed make the bench unrepresentative of the general public thus weakening confidence further in it’s decisions as a part of society in general. Furthermore; for them to be seen as unrepresentative of the community as a whole is unequivocally damning to the justice system. Downs’ argument that those ‘set in authority over us always tend to be middle to upper class’ is not a good enough reason in itself for not trying to change things.
Furthermore, while men and women are represented almost equally in the magistracy, the number of ethnic minority magistrates gives some cause for concern. Despite this reflecting the general percentage of minority communities in the population, this still means that ‘white’ benches administer justice in areas where communities are much more diverse.
Points to consider when countering such criticism against lay magistrates are that although they do tend to be middle-class and only represent a narrow strand of society, magistrates are probably nearer in social context to defendants than judges and ultimately they can be chosen only from those who come forward. Middle-aged and middle-class people are more likely to have sympathetic employers who will not make it difficult for their employees to become magistrates. Moreover, since they lay magistrate is paid expenses only; many people cannot afford to take on such a commitment.
One of the benefits of having lay magistrates is that justice is given a local flavour and magistrates can decide to take a stronger line with particular offences in their area. Also, it would be impossible, given the number of cases arising on a daily basis, to report and digest all cases immediately, which is what would be needed to ensure complete consistency. This prevents the administration of justice falling totally into the hands of lawyers, and so preserves lay representation and public confidence in the system.
Magistrates get through cases quickly and the decisions tend to be accepted, with relatively few appeals as a result. One reason for this is that the majority of cases dealt by magistrates include some of the more routine, less serious (summary) offences, such as those relating to road traffic. Elaborate defences are therefore rare when compared with cases in the Crown Court where the outcomes are much more serious and the trial process takes longer given that a person’s liberty is at stake.
Like juries, lay magistrates have played a significant role in history, and from the 14th century to the 19th century the role of magistrates as ‘justices of the peace’ provided an important link between the Crown and the local people in the maintenance of the area, the collection of taxes and ultimately, the justice. Although their role is now more limited, the historical thread remains; lay magistrates are local people, often well known in their community who are responsible for administering justice in the local criminal courts. They do also have an advantage over juries in that they do receive some training (jurors are, by contrast, are limited to brief instructions).
Improved training programmes operated by the Magistrates’ Committee of the Judicial Studies Board are compulsory for all lay magistrates. This means that although they do not have extensive legal knowledge, magistrates are trained in the areas of law which commonly arise before them. This is supervised by the Judicial Studies Board which decides the key areas which Magistrates need training on. The training itself is carried out locally, often by the clerk of the court.
One of the great strengths of the English legal system is the participation of ordinary people in the administration of justice. Another area where this is seen in the criminal justice system is in the higher courts where juries are used.
When it comes to the position of magistrates and juries as a form of unqualified judges, it seems as though the use of magistrates for ninety-five per-cent of criminal cases has decreased the role of the jury in the justice system. It has even been suggested that ‘there is no need at all for the jury in the justice system’ as they try such a menial amount of criminal cases (indictable offenses) and some civil cases, such as defamation.
It has often been argued that it is an ineffective method of promoting justice as some of the cases (such as fraud) are too difficult for such “ordinary” members of the community to understand (although section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 says that the prosecution may, in very serious cases apply for trial by judge alone). It may be a problem for the court in that they cannot question the decisions of juries (Section 8 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1981) and that juries do not need to give reasons for their decisions.
It has also been suggested that lay people such as juries are given too much power. The Auld Report 2001 suggested that juries will often acquit defendants on the basis of conscience, or because they feel that the sentence is too harsh. This links in with the concept of the ‘dishonest juror’, and suggests that juries will often favour the defendant if the offense involves matters that they do not consider to be wrong. Such opinionated decision-making will undoubtedly lead to unjust decisions.
For example, in the case of R v Young (1995) the jury claimed to have been contacted by the deceased victim in an ‘ouija board’. Needless to say it was necessary for a re-trial to be conducted.
Although there have been suggestions that trial by jury should be reduced, the English legal reforms have never attempted to completely abolish the jury system. In fact, reforms have actively tried to encourage participation (most recently in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which abolished the right to excusal on the basis of professions such as doctors and lawyers).
Jurors do not need any relevant qualification; however they need to have a clean criminal record, be able to speak the relevant language and have good reasoning. The only people who do not qualify for jury service are those who are mentally unstable. To be excused from jury service one will need to have a credible reason or have a duty that is of more importance than jury service.
The role of the jurors is to come to a decision based on the facts presented. Trial by jury has in the past been described as “more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives".. Jurors are meant to be independent assessors and are intended to promote natural justice. However, the jury, which constitutes twelve randomly chosen individuals from an electoral register, requires a hugely expensive amount of preparation to summon and reimburse the twelve members required. Furthermore, voter registration can be imperfect, often with poorer and ethnic minorities not registering and therefore not even included in the pool of potential jurors.
Arguments that favour the jury system are public participation and the ability to judge according to conscience. Juries allow the ordinary citizen to take part in the administration of justice in order that verdicts are seen to be those of society rather than of the judicial system therefore satisfying the constitutional tradition of the judgment by one’s peers.
Lord Denning described jury service as giving ‘ordinary fold their finest lesson in citizenship’. The jury then adds certainty to the law, since it gives a general verdict which cannot give rise to misinterpretation. In a criminal case the jury simply states that the accused is guilty or not guilty, and gives no reasons. Consequently, the decision is not open to dispute. Secrecy ensures freedom of discussion in the jury room; protects jurors from outside influences and prevents reluctance to sit on juries. It further ensures finality of verdict regardless of whether popular or not.
The major milestone in the history of the jury that brought about the principle of ‘the ability to judge according to conscience’ came in Bushell’s Case (1670) who was cleared of alleged misconduct as a juryman. Before this, judges would try to bully juries into convicting the defendant, particularly where the crime had political overtones, but in this case it was established that the jury’s members were the ‘solid judges of fact, with the right to give a verdict according to their conscience’, and therefore could not be penalized for taking a view of the facts opposed to that of the judge.
The importance of this power in the modern legal system is that juries may acquit a defendant, even when the law demands a guilty verdict. Because juries have the ultimate right to find defendants innocent or guilty, they are seen as a vital protection against oppressive or politically motivated prosecutions and as a safety net for those cases where the law demands a guilty verdict when genuine justice does not.
For example, in R v Kronlid and Others (1996): the defendants were three women who broke into a British Aerospace factory and caused damage costing over £1.5 million to a Hawk fighter plane. The women admitted doing this and left a video explaining their actions in the plane’s cockpit. They claimed that they had a defence under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that: ‘it is lawful to commit a crime in order to prevent another (usually more serious) crime being committed, and that this may involve using ‘such force as is reasonable in all the circumstances’.
The defendants pointed out that the plane was part of a consignment due to be sold to the Government of Indonesia, which was involved in oppressive measures against the population of East Timor, a region forcibly annexed by Indonesia in 1975. However, the prosecution gave evidence that the Indonesian government had given assurances that the planes would not be used against the East Timorese, that the British government had accepted this and granted an export license. In the face of the clear evidence that they had caused the damages they were widely expected to be convicted. The jury found them all not guilty.
As juries are not legal experts they are not bound to follow precedent in previous cases or even adhere to Acts of Parliament. They do not have to give reasons for their decision and are only expected to reach a verdict on the basis of fairness. This is known as jury equity. However as a result of such a verdict as that of R v Kronlid and Others (1996) it could be argued that juries undermine the rule of law and Parliamentary sovereignty as no ‘learned’ judgment means no accountability or justification for their decision.
The jury process is admittedly time-consuming for all involved and is unduly long, with juries spending much of their time waiting around to be summoned into court. The fact that everything has to be explained in layman’s terms and directed to the jury in addition to the judge means that jury trials take a considerable amount of time.
This may be manipulated by defendants who choose trial by jury in a bid to make use of the delays. This can pressurise the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to settle with a less serious charge. Prosecution witness may not turn up or forget facts, and time on remand is more privileged than time in prison as a convicted offender.
Despite the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which makes it an offence to intimidate or threaten to harm jurors ‘jury nobbling’ (corrupting the jury) is another problem with relation to the amount of time it takes to reach a verdict. However, The Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996, allows the prosecution to retry an acquitted defendant if someone is subsequently convicted of interfering with jurors. On the other hand a few members of a jury can be influential, even intimidating, in swaying the minds of less assertive jurors and it has been argued that juries are more susceptible to intimidation or bribery than legal professionals.
In addition to this, while jurors are deliberating during the trial the judge will usually tell them at the end of each day not to make any enquiries into the case. Despite this, it is by no means impossible that publicity outside of the court house, particularly the internet, may have affected the extent to which jurors can reasonably be expected to heed the judge’s directions about not looking for information regarding their case.
It further causes distress to jury members. Juries trying cases involving serious crimes of violence, particularly rape, murder or child abuse, may have to listen to deeply distressing evidence, and in some cases to inspect graphic photographs of injuries.
It is inevitable that some jurors may be biased for or against certain groups and individual prejudices can be unchallenged in the jury setting and even go unnoticed. For example, they may favour attractive members of the opposite sex, or be prejudiced against the police. Bias appears to be a particular problem in libel cases, where juries prejudiced against newspapers award huge damages, apparently using them punitively rather than as compensation for the victim.
One argument is that of Lord Denning who suggests that ‘the selection of jurors is too wide, resulting in jurors that are not competent to perform their take.’ Praising the ‘golden age’ of jury service when only ‘responsible heads of household from a select band of the middle classes’ were eligible to serve, he claimed that changes have led to jurors being summoned who are not sufficiently intelligent or educated to perform their task properly. Denning suggested that jurors should be selected in much the same way as magistrates are, with interviews and references required.
This throws up several obvious problems: a more complicated selection process would be more time-consuming and costly, finding sufficient people willing to take part might prove difficult and a jury that is intelligent and educated can still be biased and may be more likely to be so if drawn from a narrow social group. However, unlike magistrates who have been criticized for the fact that they are mostly white males from middle class backgrounds, it is arguable that the jury is a much more reliable system in terms of representation because of the diversity in terms of age, sex and ethnicity.
Despite the lack of training or expertise within the jury system it remains well regarded and is seen by many as a cornerstone of our justice system thus making the decisions of juries more widely accepted. Not only this, but it is also regarded as an ancient principle of justice as trial by peers was codified in the Magna Carta in 1215.
“No man is to be fined or imprisoned merely by the will of the state, but only by the judgement of his equals”
All in all, it would appear on the evaluation that the advantages of lay personnel in the English legal system do indeed outweigh the disadvantages, thus it is evident that these key court personnel significantly contribute to the effective functioning of the court system. The main problem must be the danger in their lack of understanding of the law and whether or not the narrow background of lay personnel and other legal advocates allows them to sympathise with the general public and reflect true justice is a matter which is questionable.
Bibliography
Alter, K. (2009), Oxford Dictionaries Staff, ‘The Oxford English Dictionary’ O.U.P
Burney, E. (1979), ‘Magistrate, Court and Community’, Hutchinson, London.
Downs, A. (1957), ‘An Economic Theory of Democracy’, Harper & Row, New York.
Elliot, C. and Quinn, F. (2009), ‘English Legal System’, 10th edn., Pearson Education Limited, Essex.
Gillespie, A. (2009), ‘The English Legal System’, 2nd Ed, O.U.P.
Joyce, P. (2006), ‘Criminal Justice: An introduction to crime and the criminal justice system’, Willan Publishing, Devon.
Malleson, K. (2007), ‘The Legal System’, 3rd Edn, New York, Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. (2006), ‘English legal System: Key cases’, Hodder, U.K
Michael, A and Thompson, B. (2002), ‘Case and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law’, 7th edn., O.U.P, London.
Pannick. D, (1992), Advocates’, O.U.P, U.K
Partington, M. (2008) ‘An introduction to the English legal system’, 4th Edn., New York, Oxford University Press.
Rivlin, G. (2004), ‘Understanding the law’, 3rd Edn, New York, Oxford University Press.
Slapper, G. & Kelly. D, (2003), ‘The English Legal System’, 6th edn., Cavendish, London.
Walker, W. (2002), ‘English Legal System’, 4th edn., Longman, Essex.
Zuckerman, A. & Cranston, R. (1995), ‘Reform of Civil Procedure’, London, Oxford University Press.
PPA Legal magazine of the year, ‘Step-by-step to becoming a lawyer: the right step’, 10 July 2009. (cited 07/05/2011).
Bar Standards Board: Regulating barristers, (cited 03/06/2011)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Annual Report 2005/06 (cited 07/05/2011).
Ministry of Justice, (2007), Judicial and Court Statistics, , (cited 07/05/2011).
The Department for Constitutional Affairs Archive, (2007), (cited 03/06/2011)
The Bar Council, (cited 03/06/2011)
(cited 03/06/2011)
(cited 03/06/2011)
(cited 03/06/2011)
(cited 03/06/2011)
(cited 03/06/2011)
(cited 03/06/2011)
(cited 07/05/2011).
(cited 07/05/2011).
Alter. K , (2009), Oxford Dictionaries Staff ‘The Oxford English Dictionary’, p.1107
Gillespie, A. (2009), ‘The English Legal System’, p.261
Per Lord Irvine in: Pannick. D, (1992), ‘Advocates’, p.136
Gillespie, A. (2009), ‘The English Legal System’, p.205
Partington, M. (2008) ‘An Introduction to the English Legal System’, p.75
Zuckerman, A. & Cranston, R. (1995), ‘Reform of Civil Procedure’, p.175
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Annual Report 2005/06 s.7
Elliott, C. & Quinn, F. (1996), ‘English Legal System’, p.236
Burney, E. (1979), ‘Magistrate, Court and Community’, p.237
Downs, A. (1957), ‘An Economic Theory of Democracy’, p.14
Elliot and Quinn, 2009, p.221
Lord Devlin, Trial By Jury, Pages 164-165
Zuckerman, A. & Cranston, R. (1995), ‘Reform of Civil Procedure’, p.258
Howell's State Trials, Vol. 6, Page 999
Partington, M. (2008) ‘An introduction to the English legal system’, p.78
Per Lord Denning in: ‘What Next in the Law?’, (1982)
Per Lord Elwyn-Jones in Rivlin, G. (2004), ‘Understanding the law’ p.11