 |
| Magistrates' Court Reform is one of the key topics in the field of English Criminal Justice System. |
The magistrates’ Court is perhaps
one of the busiest divisions in the English judicial system, which currently
undertakes approximately 95 per cent of the criminal cases in England and Wales
(Davies, 2010: 271-272). The magistrates’ court is functioning as a lower
court, however, since the court processes the most of the criminal cases, it is
playing an essential role in the English criminal justice system. This article will discuss how far is the magistrates’ court in need of reform by analysing the
outcome of the recent field trip to Reading magistrates’ court. The details of
the two criminal cases will be given, followed by a brief analysis of several
recent academic studies on the magistrates’ court reform. It will be concluded
that the substantial functional enhancement of the magistrates’ court, such as
the expansion of jurisdiction (Green, Ministry of Justice: 2013), is
indispensable to reduce the amount of public spending on the current judicial
system and to attract more civil awareness towards criminal actions, which may
ultimately lead to more reasonable and effective system.
As mentioned above, this article will focus on
two criminal cases, which have been assessed by Reading magistrates’ court on
31st of October. The first case was committed by a male offender, who has
stolen a 15GBP worth of meat products (a leg of lamb) from one of the stores of
Sainsbury’s. Upon realising, he has been caught on a CCTV camera and was
arrested after he walked out of the store. Although he pleaded guilty
immediately after the beginning of the case and the amount of the damage was
relatively small, three of the magistrates considered the case seriously since
he has a possible sign of illicit drug use and eventually they imposed a fine
of 105GBP including 15GBP of compensation for the stolen meat on him in
addition to a six-month community order. In contrast, the second case was
committed by two Romanian male migrant workers, who have conspired with each
other to purloin some 500GBP worth of garments from TKMaxx. Both of the Romanian
defendants pleaded guilty and they claimed that it was unavoidable to commit
the theft since they have recently lost their car wash jobs and their financial
condition was in a critical situation at that moment. However, the magistrates
have acknowledged that the crime was carefully planned and vicious because they
drove over 120 miles to Reading from their home town to commit the crime and one
of the defendants was acting as a human shield in order not to be detected by a
shop clerk, which resulted in the serious disturbance of the initial police
investigation. In response to this, the solicitor repeatedly emphasised the
point that the defendants have suffered continuous destitution for a long
period since they have been paid only 35GBP per day. Furthermore, given the
situation that they have been dismissed from the car wash company, which used
to contribute to maintain a tiny shred of hope, they have been impelled to give
up their life plan. Interestingly, however, the magistrates’ attention was
mainly focused on whether the offenders have a plan to return to their country
or not. When the magistrates discovered the fact that the Romanian offenders
were going back to Romania immediately after the court case, one of the
magistrates nodded her head. In the end, three magistrates agreed to impose a
fine of 50GBP on them and no particular compensation order has been made. Although
the magistrates have given the punishment, the defendants have to wait within
the court building until the local police issue the criminal reference number. The
defendants’ solicitor seemed overcame with surprise and he put up opposition
that the defendants should be released immediately after the court case since
the criminal reference number should have been provided to the court earlier. Although
the solicitor pointed out that there were a potential neglect of duty and a
breach of Criminal Procedure Rules committed by the local police and the
magistrates’ court, he reluctantly agreed to wait at the court with the
defendants.
 |
| Magistrates are mostly unqualified citizens from local towns. |
Whilst these two cases can be categorised as
petty theft, the punishment for each case was considerably different. For
instance, the former case, which caused a damage of 15GBP, resulted in a 105GBP
fine and a low-level community order, however, the latter case, which caused a
damage of 500GBP, resulted in a 50GBP fine for each offender only. However,
according to Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines, it is clear that the
Romanian workers should have received harsher punishment (Band B fine to medium
level community order) for the crime since the court has found some evidence to
prove that they had some planning to commit the crime. Although the assessment
of the culpability of the case and the sentencing decision is made depending on
the seriousness of the crime (Sentencing Guidelines Council: 2008), the reason
why the Romanian offenders received relatively small fines is unclear. Additionally,
although a smooth cooperation between with magistrates’ court and police
organisations is crucial to maintain the quality and efficiency of justice,
there were some technical or human errors occurred during the court case such
as the delayed submission of the criminal reference number.
Despite the fact that the court did not spend
more than an hour on reviewing the cases since both cases were summary offences,
the court observed criminal procedure rules including the examination of a
witness and the submission of sufficient evidence. The procedures gave the
impression that the magistrates seemed to have already acquired the legal
qualifications in order to serve as a magistrate at the court because the court
proceedings were formal and dignified. However, it is astonishing to notice
that the magistrates are usually consist of unpaid volunteers and their
position does not necessarily require any professional legal qualifications,
which means they are mostly ordinary citizens came from a variety of personal
backgrounds. According to the government’s webpage, candidates who want to
become a magistrate have to fulfill some non-legal requirements, such as age,
health condition, personal qualities and characters. Candidates have to be over
18 and under 65 and they must have a certain level of condition to meet all the
health and personal requirements. That is to say that the vast majority of the
citizen of England and Wales can be a magistrate. With regard to this point, as
stated by Malcolm Davies, although all magistrates’ court are advised by a team
of legal advisers who, must be a barrister or solicitor, since magistrates have
final authority to make decisions, the constitution of magistracy has triggers
some reasonable criticism such as what is the justification for “such vital
roles as the adjudication of guilt and the sentencing of the offender to be
carried out by amateurs, who cannot be expected to appreciate the finer points
of criminal liability, let alone the complexities involved in making sentencing
decisions” (Davies, 2010:271-276). However,
the government clearly states that the candidates are required to complete
mandatory training session in order to maintain the quality of justice (GOV.UK,
Ministry of Justice, 2014). Moreover, it can be said that the current system of
magistrates’ court seems appropriate since it is successfully representing
reasonable degrees of gender, ethnic and generational diversity (Davies,
2010:274-276). According to Davies, nearly half of the magistrates are female
and the participation of ethnic minorities in the system is steadily increasing,
which contribute to maintain a certain degree of diversity (Davies,
2010:274-276). It is assumed that although there is some concern over the role
of magistrates, the participation of ordinary citizens in the criminal justice
system has positive effect, such as the cost-effectiveness of the system and
the diversity of magistrates. Although the government is trying to strengthen
the power and influence of magistrates’ court by increasing the limit of fines
(Green, 2013 & Dean, 2014), the research conducted by The Civil Liberties
Trust indicates the fact that magistrates’ courts attract less public
confidence than jury trial (Said, 2002: 4). As stated by Damian Green, the
effective use of magistrates’ court will reduce the cost of judicial system,
however, it is also essential to improve the public confidence in the system to
realise the court reform (Green, 2013).
In conclusion, it can be argued that the role
of magistrates’ court is important since the court system directly facilitates
ordinary citizens to participate in the process of the criminal justice system.
Magistrates are mostly unqualified unpaid volunteers who live in England and
Wales came from diverse personal backgrounds. Magistrates’ courts have successfully
representing social diversity, since more female citizens and ethnic minorities
are participating in the system as magistrates. Although the government is
trying to enhance the function and the role of magistrates’ courts since such a
reform will lead to reduce the amount of public spending on the criminal
justice system, one of the researches on the public awareness towards
magistrates’ courts indicates that the courts attract less public confidence
than other trial system. It is submitted that the magistrates’ courts reform in
general is acceptable, however, there were several human errors and issues in
judicial consistency, such as the delayed submission of criminal reference
number, which need more consideration.
Bibliography
-
Davies M, Croall H, Tyrer J (2010) Criminal
Justice, Harlow: Longman, 4th edition
-
Dean L, (2014) “Speeding Fines Up to £10,000 Under Magistrate Courts Reform”,
International Business Times
- Green D (2013) “Reforming
the role of magistrates”, Ministry of Justice, GOV.UK
-
Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines, Definitive Guideline, Sentencing
Guideline Council
-
Newburn T (2012) Criminology,
Routledge, London: 2nd edition
-
Said T (2002) Magistrates’ Courts and
Public Confidence, A proposal for fair and effective reform of the
magistracy, The Civil Liberties Trust: London
