In 1998 the Lord Chancellor has new directions to the Advisory Committees in attempt to standardise the Lay Magistrates selection process. There are six key qualifications that must be taken into consideration when assessing a potential Lay Magistrate. A Lay Magistrate must possess good character. This is personal integrity and the respect and trust of others, respect for confidences. Also the potential candidate must possess good understanding and communication. This is the ability to understand documents, identify and comprehend relevant facts, and follow evidence and arguments. Another factor that is taken into account is social awareness. This is the appreciation and acceptance of the rule of law, understanding of the local communities and society in general. Sound judgement is also considered.
This is your common sense, the ability to think logically, weigh arguments and reach a balanced decision. Maturity and sound temperament is also assessed. This is the ability to relate to and work with others, regard for the views of others. The last thing that is required is Commitment and reliability. This is your reliability and how committed you are to serve the community, willingness to undertake at least 26 and up to 35 half day sittings a year, willingness to undertake the required training, ability to offer requisite time. This is part of the interview process and these factors are taken into account.
The Lord Chancellor also demands that the bench of the magistrates should be based broadly and reflects the community it is rendering. The factors which are considered when choosing a Lay Magistrates are; gender, political affiliation, geographical location, ethnic minorities and occupation. Achieving a balance is, however, a secondary consideration to the essential and pre-eminent requirement that a candidate must be personally suitable for appointment, possessing the qualities required in a magistrate. The training of a magistrate is quite easy, as you do not have to be legally qualified. The Judicial Studies Board supervises the training of magistrates. The Judicial Studies Board sets out a syllabus of training topics but because of the huge number of magistrates involved the training has to be carried out locally. Some senior magistrates will act as mentors and train up newly appointed magistrates. When a magistrate has been appointed there is an induction programme of 16 hours where the magistrates will observe cases in courts and attend workshops on court procedure. During the magistrate's first year there is continued basic training, observing cases, visiting prisons, Young Offenders' Institute and a 12-hour course on sentencing and bail and legal aid. On the second and third year the Lay Magistrates will do an 8-hour continued training course. From them on there will be a refresher course every 3 years for 12 hours on weekends. Lay Magistrates are also appraised a lot. Criticisms of the training process is the since the training will vary from one region to another the training will not be same. This means that there will be no national training programme. But in the future reforms will be mace and the training process of Lay Magistrates will be more effective and relevant. A District Judge can replace lay magistrates.
To become a District judge you are required to have practiced as barrister or solicitor for at least 7 years, and to become a Recorder (part-time) you need 10 years rights of audience in County or Crown court. Requirements for a Recorder also apply to Circuit judges. To become a District judge you must respond to an advertisement by sending an application to the Judicial Selection Board (Lord Chancellor's Department). Then you are short-listed and interviewed after references have been taken up. Finally appointment is at the Lord Chancellor's discretion. This appointment procedure is also the same for Recorders and Circuit judges.
The appointment procedure for a High court judge begins with sending an application in response to an advertisement or by invitation from the Lord Chancellor's Department. Following this the opinions of all the High court judges is asked. Then there is a review by the Lord Chancellor's Department and Heads of Division (Queen's Bench, Family Division and Chancery Division). Finally appointment is by the Lord Chancellor.
The appointment procedure begins to change after the High court. To become a Lord Justice of Appeal you are invited to consider promotion by the Lord Chancellor, who then seeks opinions from Law Lords and Senior Lord Justices. Then the Lord Chancellor recommends appointments to the Prime Minister. Finally the appointment procedure to become a Law Lord involves the Lord Chancellor recommending Senior Lord Justices or Court of Session judges (Scottish) and Northern Irish judges to the Prime Minister. After consultation with all existing Law Lords and Heads of Division. Once appointed by the Lord Chancellor or Prime Minister training is given by the Judicial Studies Board. There are 2 main types of residential training for beginners (mainly newly appointed Recorders) and refresher courses for more experienced Circuit judges. Beginner courses usually last 4 days and taught by experienced judges about the duties, how conduct in conduct in court and problems that may be encountered. The main focus is on sentencing, and there lectures by probation officers, social workers, prison officials, psychiatrists, penologists and of course Senior judges. They are also given important Court of Appeal decisions, prison statistics, the patterns and trends of imprisonment, and informed about the alternatives of imprisonment. At some point there will be a visit to prison and young offenders' institution. They are also given practical training involving sentencing exercises. Where trainees are given an outline on a crime committed the offender's history and background (information judges would have in a real trial). These facts are all based on cases tried before the Court of Appeal. Following on from here, the trainee's discuss the case among themselves in small panels and decide on their sentence. Then the experienced judges analyse and discuss, and compare sentences with the Court of Appeal's decision. Refresher courses also last 4 days (regularly repeated for every judge) and are more advanced. There is still a focus on sentencing and courses to keep up to date - changes in law. There is special training on race issues and special when law changes or is reformed. For example when the Human Rights Act 1998 was passes judges received special training in human rights.
B) Identify and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the use of lay magistrates
Advantages -Cost- As magistrate try the vast majority of criminal cases, (95%), it is much cheaper. This is because in 1989, the system, cost £200 million income of £270 million in fines. This is better then giving the cases to professional judges and Crown Court this much cases it would be enormous caseload and very expensive. £100 million per year in salaries alone and even more expensive to trial these cases at the Crown Court.
- Lay involvement- the fact that magistrates are lay and not qualified there verdicts are fair because it is not biased in anyway. This fair verdict is made by people whose background is known unlike jury and also has the six qualities. Also as they live near the courts they have a better informed picture of normal life.
- Weight of numbers- the fact that magistrates must usually sit in threes may make a balance view more likely. In a real sense they sit as a "mini- Jury", this would mean as sexes are fairly evenly balanced among lay magistrates 54% men, 46% women and as there has been success in appointing ethnic magistrate e.g.: Hounslow, any prejudice or bias will be cancelled out and therefore verdict will be fair and judged one.
Disadvantages - Inconsistency- there is considerable inconsistency in the decisions, making of different benches, particularly noticeable in the awards of legal aid and the type of sentences ordered, for e.g. magistrates are untrained and the person that gives advise to magistrate is the clerk this can mean the verdict is biased therefore would mean the trial would not be a fair one. There is lack of consistency because courts are independent this would mean there would be different verdicts in different courts of the same offence.
- Bias towards the police- As police officers are frequently used in magistrates courts the, magistrate can be biased towards the police evidence because they are more professional, e.g. "R v Bingham JJ", where the evidence was that only of a motorists and policeman, this therefore meant the chairman of the bench said, ".. To believe the evidence of the police officer". The conviction was "quashed", because of this remark.
- Cheap armature' justice argument- because the chances of acquittal are substantially higher in, Crown Court, it is said that it is more fair in which to decide cases in, Crown Court then magistrate courts.
- Increasing complexity of the law- As there are more crimes being, down- graded", (forced to go down) to summary offences with new offences being created, sentencing has also become much more complex in recent years, e.g. Curfew orders, ASBOs etc.
- Power of lay judges- in no other European jurisdiction do lay judges have so much power. This is a disadvantage because lay judges don't have the training as a fully qualified judge therefore means there verdict in some cases will not be fair and will not be professional.