Lay Magistrates occupy a particularly controversial position in the English Judiciary. They are usually unqualified in the law, being lay people and the Courts they rule over, the Magistrates Courts, do not have Juries

Authors Avatar

09014534801S                LAW-10022

Lay Magistrates occupy a particularly controversial position in the English Judiciary. They are usually unqualified in the law, being lay people and the Courts they rule over, the Magistrates Courts, do not have Juries; that is, whether a defendant did in fact commit a crime is determined by the Magistrate and not by a panel of the accused's peers. Juries are often seen as a strong defence of individual liberty and trials without them are derided by elements of the press as being dangerous precedents. The Magistrates Court, then, is a Court where the decisions of fact are essentially made by a “professional juror.” Nonetheless, this still follows the principle of participative democracy, which has a rich history in English Common Law; that ordinary citizens should be involved in the decision making process of law. Magistrates themselves date back to the 14th Century, (p. 1, McKittrick, 2000.)

It could be said that there is no need for a Jury if the Magistrate is fair. Yet there is evidence to show that Magistrates are not fair, a direct results of their capacity as lay people; in fact, in regards to individual liberties,“[Magistrates] are less schooled in due process rights than judges.” (p. 148 ,Belloni et al, 2000). In addition they are “likely to be less attentive to procedural safeguards aimed at protecting accused persons” and “seen as pro police and prosecution-oriented.” (Ibid.) Summary offences are still serious nonetheless; they can include the deprivation of the liberty of the accused, and as such, it appears to be non-controversial to suggest that they be taken seriously indeed: but the evidence put before us seems to show that Magistrates are not serious about those who appear before them.

It might have something to do with money; of particular importance, “the Lord Chancellor introduced fixed fees for contested trials. In the past you were paid by the hour, but now there are fixed fees for a trial... no one wants proper preparation.” (p. 150, Ibid.) Fixed fees per trial give an incentive for Magistrates to see as many trials as possible; pay by the hour is not an incentive for any particular kind of action, but to pay Magistrates, Justices of the Peace, in a manner that might persuade them to treat trials less seriously probably has had unintended consequences; or not. An incredibly high “98.2% conviction rate” lends good credibility to Police forces who have political targets to meet. It could be possible that the unqualified character of Magistrates has lent itself to political manipulation. Yet for the amount of summary offences, 1,569,279 including motoring offences, the Government spent £6.4 billion on all UK Courts, less than 1% of the totality of public spending at this time. So it could be said that some of the issues in the Magistrate Courts that concern the amount of interest Magistrates take in cases might be solved by financial assistance. If it is the issue of funding, there is nothing intrinsic about Magistrates that makes them less able than qualified personnel. The restrictions previously described upon the ability of Magistrates seem to look towards finance as a primary issue.

Join now!

It could be argued, though, that even a qualified Judge, schooled in Law and the Rule of Law, would still take into consideration the rights of those put before his Court even when starved of resources. Since finance is a variable issue; i.e. we can hypothetically change it at any time, we should look at other comparisons between lay and non lay personnel. Lay Magistrates are supposed to be independent and aware; and they have advisors to assist. “All Magistrates courts are advised by a team of legal advisers (court clerks) who, since 1 January 1999, must be professionally ...

This is a preview of the whole essay