The Criminal Courts and Lay People

1
The Criminal Courts andLay People

• Advantages and Disadvantages
• Of Using Lay People

2
Lesson Objectives

• I will be able to state the advantages and
  disadvantages of the use of magistrates
• I will be able to give relevant examples of these
  advantages and disadvantages
• I will be able to state the advantages and
  disadvantages of the jury
• I will be able to give relevant examples of these
  advantages and disadvantages

3

• Advantages of the use
• of magistrates

4
Cost

• Magistrates are unpaid apart from expenses
• This means large majority of criminal cases are
  tried without the need for a Judge, Recorder or
  District Judge salary would be over 90,000
• Annual saving is in the region of 100m takes
  into account the cost of the legal adviser in the
  court which would not be necessary for a full
  time salaried judge

5
Local Knowledge

• Ms local knowledge is invaluable when it comes
  to understanding where an offence took place
• In the Crown Court much time can be taken
  explaining the location of a crime and where a
  witness was standing
• Sentencing can take into account local problems
  that can be helped by sensitive sentencing
  Drugs Act 2005 pilot scheme looking for
  trigger offences
• Paul v DPP (1989) was kerb-crawling likely to
  be a nuisance to the neighbourhood M knew that
  it had become a problem

6
Availability of judges

• If all Ms were replaced by judges, approx 1,000
  judges would have to be appointed
• Would require a new approach to appointment of
  judges as the pool of candidates at present would
  be nowhere near big enough

7
Can deal with the issues that arise

• Over 90 of defendants plead guilty and most
  trials deal with issues of conflicting evidence
  rather than questions of law
• Ms are perfectly able to decide who is telling
  the truth and can decide what behaviour is
  reasonable in the circumstances e.g. when
  self-defence is pleaded
• In many ways they are better able to do this as
  they represent a cross-section of society than
  the judiciary seen by comparing the respective
  statistics on race and gender

8
Public confidence

• Public have great confidence in the Ms system,
  even though there is perhaps less confidence in
  Ms than in the judiciary
• Studies in 2000 and 2001 suggest that the public
  would neither understand nor support any moves to
  lessen the role of Ms, who are seen as an
  example of active citizenship within the criminal
  justice system

9

• Disadvantages of the use
• of magistrates

10
Unrepresentative of society

• Surveys reveal that the magistracy fundamentally
  remains socially unrepresentative, as it is
  disproportionally white, middle class,
  professional and wealthy
• Situation varies from town to town, and in
  general the local magistracy reflects at least to
  some extent the local racial mix
• Magistracy remains disproportionally middle-aged
  in comparison to the population despite the
  reduction in the minimum age for a M, only about
  5 are under 40 years old
• Approx 2/3 have managerial or professional
  backgrounds, compared to 1/3 of the population
• 2/5 of Ms are retired and the vast majority of
  defendants in the Ms Courts are under 25
• There are an increasing number of younger Ms,
  but some people take the view that they lack
  experience

11
Inconsistent

• 2 of the major criticisms of Ms have been
  inconsistency between neighbouring benches in the
  sentences they impose and bail refusal rates
  pointed out by research in the 80s and 90s
• Since then there have been increased efforts to
  be more consistent without losing the ability to
  vary sentences to suit the needs of the
  individual offender and crime
• The sentencing guidelines and revised principles
  on bail are major reasons for improvement
• However, inconstancies still remain between
  sentencing in neighbouring benches
• Justice should be consistent across the country
  and not vary according to views of local
  magistrates

12
Case-hardened and biased

• Ms often hear very similar cases, with similar
  evidence and with the same witnesses
• Can lead to a suspicion that evidence is not
  really considered and that convictions are rubber
  stamped particularly if the defendant is not
  present
• It is inevitable that the same police officer
  witnesses will appear to give evidence given the
  local nature of the courts Ms could be
  suspected of knowing and always believing the
  police witness particularly where the defendant
  is not properly represented an example of this
  was Bingham Justices ex p Jowitt (1974)
  Chairman of the Ms said My principle in such
  cases has always been to believe the evidence of
  the police officer.

13

• Fewer than 1 in 100 M Court cases is appealed
  unsuccessfully on any ground whatsoever
• This figure should be seen in the context of a
  very low acquittal rate resulting from the CPS
  not bringing cases to court that are unlikely to
  secure a conviction
• Motoring CR of 90.2
• Burglary CR of 85.7
• Drugs offences CR of 93.6
• With such statistics, it is not surprising that
  there is a cynical and unfounded view of bias

14
Reliance on legal adviser

• There is a suggestion the Ms rely to heavily on
  their legal adviser
• Whilst the adviser is not allowed to help in
  deciding the sentence, a defendant who sees the
  adviser constantly conferring with the M and
  going in and out of the retiring room may form
  the view that the M is not making the decisions

15

• Advantages of the use
• of the jury

16
A balance against State interference in criminal
trials

• Lord Devlin stated that juries provide a balance
  against the power of Government
• A jury can find defendants not guilty even if
  they are obviously guilty and the judge tells
  them to convict the defendant seen in 1670 when
  the Quakers Penn and Meade were charged with riot
  jury refused to convict and were sent to
  prisons. Their trial established the independence
  of a jury to return a true verdict without fear
  of the consequences
• A modern example is in the trial of Clive Ponting
  this lead to a perverse verdict (a verdict that
  could not be reasonably expected based on the
  evidence given) can also be a disadvantage of
  juries

17
Can give a perverse verdict

• This is a view of public opinion and the justice
  of bringing a prosecution an example is the
  case of Kronlid

18
Racially balanced

• Research published in 2007 by the MoJ shows that
  there are no differences between white, black and
  minority ethnic people in responding positively
  to being summoned for jury service, and that
  black and minority ethnic groups are not
  significantly under-represented among those
  summoned for jury service or among those serving
  as jurors
• The research also found that racially mixed
  juries verdicts do not discriminate against
  defendants based on their ethnicity

19
Public participation in criminal justice system

• The fact that juries are drawn from the general
  public reinforces the view that the criminal
  justice system serves society as a whole and is
  not totally removed from society as a Government
  agency might be
• Home Office report in 2004 found that over 50 of
  those who received a jury summons claimed to be
  enthusiastic
• Just under 1/3 claimed to be reluctant more to
  do with the inconvenience, not the principle
• Many jurors found the experience reinforced their
  confidence in the criminal justice system

20

• Disadvantages of the use
• of the jury

21
Do not have to give reasoned verdicts

• Speeds up the process but means individual jurors
  can give their verdict on a whim could mean
  going with the flow to finish the trial and go
  home, or to produce a genuinely perverse result
• Juries deliberate in private and no one can
  inquire into what happened in the jury room
• The only time the public finds out what happens
  is when a juror complains and this leads to a
  retrial Stephen Young in 1994 granted a
  retrial after in emerged the jury had consulted
  an Ouija board!

22
Not truly representative of the public

• The jury represents the public, but many are
  excluded as being disqualified or ineligible
• Once those excused have been added in, it is
  likely that the jury will have a higher
  proportion of older people (most people with
  relevant criminal convictions are under 25,
  mothers of young children are often excused) and
  fewer people who are reluctant jurors as they
  will try harder to be excused or have their
  service deferred
• Jury vetting may also affect the representative
  make-up of the jury

23
Lack of ability to do the job

• Often suggested that jurors do not really
  understand the nature of the proceedings in a
  criminal court
• Lawyers make a point of ensuring the evidence is
  given in such a way that all jurors will
  understand the case being made some jurors see
  this as them trying too hard and become
  suspicious they are not being told the truth
• The real problem is claimed to be in long and
  complex fraud trials where there is now provision
  for a judge to sit without a jury, in order to
  avoid any problems of juror ability
• All these arguments are based on conjecture, as
  the actual workings of real jurors cannot be
  studied because of jury secrecy 1986 Report of
  the Fraud Trials Committee, which stated that the
  Committee was disadvantaged in determining
  whether or not jurors could understand the
  technical evidence and complex issues in fraud
  trials because they were prohibited from
  discussing the issue with jurors in such trials

24
Effect of jury service on jurors

• Most jurors find the experience interesting, but
  for some it can be distressing particularly
  where the case has similarities to a personal
  experience
• There is some follow-up counselling, but only in
  2007 has a system been set up
• Members of Crown Court juries struggling to cope
  with horrific cases are now being out in direct
  touch with the Samaritans through court staff
  contact numbers and leaflets are now available in
  jury rooms after the launch of the partnership
  between the Samaritans and the Courts Service
• Feelings of distress may not surface until some
  time after the trial
• Although Samaritan volunteers are not allowed to
  talk to jurors about their deliberations, they
  can discuss their feelings and emotions without
  disclosing jury room secrets