It has been proven, furthermore, that the outcome of similar cases tried in magistrates’ courts across the country is inconsistent. For example, one magistrates’ court will pass a different sentence on a specific criminal case to another magistrates’ court in a different district. Although the involvement of several Lay Magistrates in a case, as opposed to a single professional judge, could be argued to increase the fairness of the decision, the fact that such decisions are frequently inconsistent with similar cases across the country could be used to dispute such a claim that defendants tried by Lay Magistrates receive a fairer trial.
Perhaps the main reason that Lay Magistrates are employed, as opposed to professional judges, aside from the idea of the lay person’s involvement in the judicial system, is that the magistrates’ courts free up the Crown Courts to hear more complex and important cases. Particularly with the current increase in crime rates in this country, and the subsequent overload of cases in the UK courts, the magistrates’ courts play a vital role in reducing the burden of cases in courts run by professional judges.
In addition to the reducing the caseload in the Crown Court, hearings in the magistrates’ courts are also less expensive and often swifter to reach a conclusion. In an already overburdened judicial system, such factors mean that there are definite advantages to having Lay Magistrates as opposed to professional judges.
It must be remembered, however, that Lay Magistrates simply cannot devote the same amount of time and energy to their roles as professional judges. For a start, they only work part time in their role – most of them being in outside employment elsewhere – and therefore their position as Lay Magistrate is bound to be less high on their list of priorities in life. Added to that is the fact that they are unpaid in their role as Lay Magistrate and therefore they have less incentive to perform well than a professional judge.
Nevertheless, we should note that Lay Magistrates are thoroughly trained with a new mentorship scheme in place to ensure the practical skills of decision making about cases are well taught. If there is a question over a point of law, then Lay Magistrates can always discuss it with the Clerk of Court who is qualified in the theory of law as well as court procedure.
There have also been several movements for reform of the magistrates’ courts. Recent developments in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998 were meant to improve the performance of magistrates’ courts by increasing fairness of trials and encouraging a more thorough explanation of decisions made in such courts. However, many Lay Magistrates have complained that this simply puts too much pressure on an already overburdened system and many have resigned as a result of the Act and subsequent reforms.
Similarly, the Auld Report of 2001 has had mixed results in magistrates’ courts. The report encouraged the burden of cases to be transferred from the Crown Courts to magistrates’ courts to relieve the Crown Courts and the report also encouraged postal processing of cases. Again, magistrates have argued that these reforms could increase their workload and the pressure upon them even though the report initially set out to streamline the UK judicial system.
Bearing in mind the advantages and disadvantages of Lay Magistrates as opposed to professional judges, the question of whether they really do achieve their objective – to be representatives of their local community – must be considered. In reality, most Lay Magistrates are white, professional, middle aged and middle class. Whether this selection of individuals can truly increase faith in the UK legal system is doubtable. One can only hope that future advertising for and recruitment of Lay Magistrates is more truly representative of our local communities.
TMA (D) Rebecca Milburn Page
