The cases that are to be heard in the Magistrates Court are expected to pass through legal system efficiently, and at a very rapid rate. This is due to the preparation of both the defence and prosecution lawyers, but also, mainly because of the way in which the Magistrates Court is structured. The cases are not expected to continue for much longer than an hour, which should mean that quite a few cases could be heard in any one courtroom in a day. Along with this the number of courtrooms was expecting to range between four and six, within the courthouse. It is expected that the first hearing of the day will begin at ten a.m. and the last to be heard between the hours of four and six p.m. The language spoken is suspected to be of a very formal nature and to involve a sufficient amount of legal terminology. This is to be understood by not only the Magistrates, lawyers and the clerk, but also by the defendant and prosecution. On entering the courthouse, the level of security is expected to be very high. Expected to be seen are security cameras on both the inside and the outside of the building, and a number of security guards on the premises.
In relation to the personnel and administration of the court, there will be a wide mixture of ethnic and culture backgrounds, ages, and genders. The personnel will not be of a very young age however also, not very old. The clerk who is a qualified solicitor is expected to be of quite a young age within the late twenties, thirties. This being that the clerk’s knowledge of the legal system and the recent laws would have to be very modern and advanced. This idea is also true of the Magistrates. They need to be experienced enough to be able to pass sentences, and have both recent, and background knowledge of the law.
With all expectations in mind, on arrival to the Magistrates court, it was noticed that there were not any security cameras to be seen on the exterior of the building. Entering the building there were offices on either side of the door facing each other for both Enquiries and the other for Payment. Walking into the courthouse one security camera was visible, facing towards the door, where one guard stood.
The building is quite old and from what could be seen there were not many signs of modernisation. Having said this, there was a machine making available hot beverages, and another for small packets of biscuits. Other signs of modernisation that were incorporated into the design of the building were the facilities for the elderly and wheelchair users. There was a ramp along side of the stairs to get into the court and double doors to proceed into the main court area. What had become aware, was that to sit in the public seating area within the actual courtroom would have proven very difficult as only single doors led to this area and once inside there was not much space to place a wheelchair. For the elderly, railings and seating were clearly visible and easily accessible as also were the public toilets, which had also been adapted for wheelchair use.
It was quite a small building, with only three courtrooms in dissimilarity to what had been expected. There was no much seating space in the one waiting area, which was placed in the centre of the court. From what could be seen there were not any smaller, private rooms for the families to talk or otherwise. The initial impressions within the waiting area were very calm, there was not much talking and talking which did take place was in a very secretive and hushed manner. On arrival, there were Ushers organising the proceedings of the day, sorting out who the different people were, and where they should be for the first hearings, which started at ten a.m. The ushers were very helpful in which one showed us to the public seating in court one.
The layout of the court was very similar to what had been expected with the Bench sitting at the front, facing toward everyone else except the clerk. The Magistrates were also placed higher up than every one with a coat of arms above the Chief Magistrate whom sat in the centre. The coat of Arms was a shield shaped and divided into two parts. One half depicted a lion and the other showed a unicorn, with ‘Dieu et mon Droit’ written. An usher told us that the writing was in Latin, but unfortunately, did not know the meaning. As mentioned the Chief Magistrate sat in the centre of the bench with another magistrate either side. The Clerk sits directly in front of the Chief Magistrate facing in the same direction. There are then two benches, the first of which is occupied by the defence and prosecution lawyers, and the defence and the prosecution themselves, occupy the second. The ushers then sit in line with the second bench helping the Magistrates operate a smooth running court. The seating for the defendants that are not in custody is at the very back of the room, but in front of the seating for the public, which is enclosed in glass. There are separate entrances for the courtroom and the public gallery.
During the three hours that was spent at the court, two cases were heard. The first of which was sent directly to the Crown Court to be heard in fourteen days. The case was of a black male whom had been charged with child abduction. This was in court one, where the Bench consisted of two females and one male, of which all were white and of the older generation; ageing between late forties and mid - fifties. The Chief Magistrate was female and placed in the latter part of the age range. The clerk was male and looked to be in his mid thirties, he was also white. The defendant was in his late thirties and gave the impression that he was very uncomfortable. He looked very scared and uneasy when asked by the bench as to whether he had understood the proceedings of the court. As the Magistrates Court can not deal with such cases as abduction, this case was rightfully sent to the Crown Court. The usher was also white and was aged about forty years. The defence lawyer whom was an Asian male, did not look surprised when the verdict came in from the Magistrates; but as a lawyer, was more than certainly expecting the decision.
After having to leave Court one, due to the family wanting to sit in on the next case and insufficient space we were pleasantly moved by the usher into Court two.
In the second court which was of a middle aged male trying to keep his betting licence, there was quite a diverse mixture of race and age within the court. The Bench consisted of three males aged in their late fifties early to mid sixties, the Chief Magistrate was black and the two other Magistrates were white. The Clerk, on the other hand looked very young in contrast he was aged in his late twenties. Throughout the case it was seen that the clerk repeatedly, got up and turned around to advise the Bench. It was surprising to hear the speed at which the Clerk spoke; it proved very difficult to fully understand what was being said. The defendant as mentioned who was in his late thirties, was a white male. He seemed to have a great understanding of the proceedings of the court. This was shown in the way that he spoke and answered the questions asked by both the prosecution and the Magistrates. What was also seen was the prosecution ‘objecting’ many of the defendant’s points. Especially those in reference to figures ‘[which] could not have accurately been recorded and printed as figures to be used in court’. The defence called in an 'Aid to the case’, but the prosecution claimed that the information known by the Aid was too general, and that it was not ‘in special relation to the case’. The case lasted approximately two hours, which in contrast to the expectation is a great deal longer than the expected time. The verdict given by the Magistrates was that the defendant was to be given his new betting licence. This was thought to be fair, as it was a long running independent family business and did not pose any threat to other local businesses.
In both courts as the Magistrates entered the courtroom all persons of the court were asked by the usher to stand, and seat as the Magistrates were seated.
As can be seen, the expectations before going into the courthouse differ in many ways, to what was actually observed. What had been thought to be very quick and speedy cases, turned to be quite a slow case. Where we had been expecting to see a number of cases we were only able to see two. One of which was sent to the Crown Court. What was very surprising was the lack of racial diversity within the courtrooms. As mentioned the majority of the personnel within the court was white; along side this, the age range was also very similar. The Bench tended to be of the older generation whilst the Clerks tended to be of the younger. It is suspected that in a larger courthouse, there would be sufficient space for more courtrooms. In the case of Harrow Magistrates Court, there was only enough space for the three. What was also unexpected was the level of security that was at the court. As mentioned many more security guards were to be expected on the site, but there was only one. This could be due to the size of the court, being that if it had been any larger then there would have been more. Similarly if the court had been adapted to be more modern, there may have been more security cameras in place.
However, what was of a similar nature was the language that was spoken in the court. As expected, the speech was very formal and used a fair amount of legal terms and concepts. Also, another similarity was the fact that the defendants were able to understand what was happening in their case.
Swarbrick argues that the Crown Court juries are more likely to give the verdict as not guilty compared to the Magistrates Court, the reason behind this is said to be that the Magistrates form bias towards the defendant as they hear hundreds of cases and view the ‘defendants in a jaundiced way’. Whereas in a Crown Court, the juries arrive with a fresh mind, and are said not to be biased against the defendants. Surprisingly in Magistrates Court only 20% of the defendants are found not guilty, in comparison to the 60% in the Crown Court; but having said this when a guilty verdict is passed in a Crown Court the penalty is much harsher.
Magistrates when sentencing, are limited to give a maximum of six months in prison, but also stated by Swarbrick, is that ‘Crown Court judges are willing and ready to use their sentencing powers’, and the idea that, if the same case was brought to trail in a Crown Court the sentence can swiftly change to a three years imprisonment.
It is also felt that the Magistrates Court are able to bypass their responsibilities as Magistrates too easily. This is clear as the Magistrates need only say that their ‘sentencing powers are insufficient’ and then the case will be sent to the Crown Court for a trail. Although this may be true in some cases, it is fair to say that sometimes the magistrates feel that the defendant should receive a more severe punishment for their actions. It is almost impossible to say whether the Magistrates are passing on their responsibilities, or if they truly believe that the case should be sent to the Crown Court.
As the Magistrates Advisor, in some courts it is felt that the Magistrates rely upon the clerk too heavily. Although they are not allowed to help in the decision making of a sentence, their advise may influence the way in which the Magistrates view certain cases.
As found in the observation, many of the Magistrates were found to be ‘middle-class, middle-aged and middle-minded’ (Martin ). They do not represent a fair ‘cross-section of the local community’ (Swarbrick) from which they have been selected; and have very little in common with the younger working class whom make up the majority of the defendants.
In conclusion it was found that the expectations of the court and the proceedings very broadly matched those that were seen and observed. Although there were some similarities, the differences outweighed these as mentioned above. In reference to the case that was seen, and the case that was sent to the Crown Court, both of the decisions that were made by the Magistrates were believed to be of a very fair nature and did not show any bias posed on the defendant.
The observation was able to show us what actually happened, and the full proceedings of a case, which will help in future studies of the legal system.
Word Count: 2966
Bibliography
Martin, J; The English Legal System
Randle, M; (1995); How to Defend Yourself in Court; The Civil Liberties Trust, London
Skyrme, T, Sir; History of the Justices of the Peace; Barry Rose Publishers
Swarbrick, D; [email protected]/lawb/crmMagiCrown.html
Watkins, M; Gordon, W; Jeffries, A; (1995); The Sentence of Court: A Handbook for Magistrates; Waterside Press, Winchester (p 107-10)
www.bbc.co.uk/crime/fighters/magistratescourt.shtml