|
Following from this, a brief insight into the
origins of the magistrate court will be given, as it is important to understand
the origins of any system as this will inform the reader of the initiative
behind the original concept. After discussing the origins of the system, the
procedure of appointment will then be discussed. This process will then be
examined when the analysis is focused upon the procedures contained within the
Magistrate court for assessing the guilt of a defendant. As a defendant will be
denied a trail by jury, the system in place for the appointment of these
magistrates is of paramount importance, as all individuals must be judged by
their peers. If, after considering the evidence, the current system is deemed to
be defective, then possible solutions will be considered to improve the present
situation. The article will conclude that although the current system is far
from perfect, it serves as a significant filter for more serious crimes which
are tried in the Crown Court by a jury.
What is a Magistrate?
In the courts of England and Wales, it is the
function of a magistrate to hear prosecutions for summary offences. They have
the power to make orders in regard to and placing additional requirements on
offenders. Magistrates' sentencing powers are limited compared to that of the
Crown Court (See Criminal Law: A Critical Analysis of the Crown Court),
extending to shorter periods of custody, fines, probation and community service
orders, and a miscellany of other options. Magistrates hear committal
proceedings for indictable offences, and establish whether sufficient evidence
exists to pass the case to a higher court for trial and sentencing. Magistrates
have power to pass summary offenders to higher courts for sentencing when, in
the opinion of the magistrate, a penalty greater than can be given in
magistrates court is warranted. The function of a magistrate is of great
importance, but where did they originally come from?
Origins of the Magistrate Court
The origins of the magistrate system can be
seen to have been initiated in the 12th century. Richard I (Richard the Lion
heart) commissioned certain knights in England to keep the Kings peace in unruly
areas. By the 14th century, a new phrase had been coined to describe individuals
who had accepted the responsibility of keeping the peace. The title Justices of
the Peace was initiated during the reign of Edward III and referred to 'good and
lawful' men to be appointed in every county to 'guard the peace’. The magistrate
system has evolved since its early inception and now deals with over 95% of all
prosecuted crime and is responsible for handing out over £336m in financial
penalties per year. (Source: Department for Constitutional Affairs [DCA]) If a
magistrate is responsible for presiding over certain criminal cases, then there
must be a proficient system in place to appoint these individuals.
The Appointment Process of Magistrates
The Municipal Corporations Act 1835 provided
for Justices of the Peace to be nominated by the Lord Chancellor for the
boroughs, in consultation with local advisers. The county benches, however,
continued to be confirmed by the Lord Chancellor by way of the nomination of the
Lord Lieutenants, who had their own methods for finding suitable candidates. The
system was inadequate and was challenged by the Liberal Government in 1906 as
there were too many conservatives sitting on the benches. Lord Loreburn, as
Liberal Lord Chancellor, nominated 7,000 magistrates of whom 3,197 were
Liberals. The Royal Commission on the Appointment of Justice of the Peace in
1910 recommended the institution of an Advisory committee system. A year later
Advisory Committees on which Liberals and Conservatives were equally represented
had been set up in most counties to advise Lord Lieutenants on nominations. A
few years later the boroughs had also formed advisory committees. Originally,
appointment to these committees was for life, however, in 1925, Lord Cave
introduced appointment for 6 years and ordered half the committees to retire by
rotation every three years. A magistrate can, however, still remove a person’s
liberty for criminal offences. If we are all to be judged by our peers, then a
magistrate should be just that. The problem is, however, that the appointment
process is engineered towards professional people who share very little with the
people that they judge.
Assessing Guilt in a Magistrate Court
As stated above, magistrates will decide on the
guilt of a defendant. There will be no trial by jury, therefore, it is essential
that the people who sit in judgment are the defendant’s peers. If one looks at
the application process as provided on the department for constitutional
affairs, the qualities needed are good character, ability for understanding and
communication, social awareness, maturity and a sound temperament, sound
judgment and a commitment to the job. These are all admiral qualities, yet these
are not imposed upon any jury that sits in judgment of more serious cases. Why
is this so? There are numerous possible explanations for this polarized
approach, and often depends upon a person’s particular ideological persuasion.
Nevertheless, the statistics speak for themselves. Most magistrates are white,
middle class males. If one considers that defendants should be judged by their
peers, it would be interesting to see how white, middle class males go out
stealing cars, or indeed committing other petty criminal offences. What are the
possible solutions for this problem?
A Call for a More Diverse Magistrate Pool
Magistrates work on a voluntary basis and need
time off work to honor their commitments. There have been Proposals to make it
easier for magistrates who are in employment to take time off from work to sit
in court (Monday 7 November 2005 10:37 Department for Constitutional Affairs).
This, for me, does not solve the problem of having a primarily middle classed
system acting as judge, jury and executioner. What is needed is a more diverse
magistrate pool. This will provide for a more understanding magistrate. If one
has lived in a cozy, secure, insulated world, how are you going to have any
affinity with an individual who has had a disrupted childhood? The answer is
that you are not. The arguments in favour regarding a more diverse pool of
magistrates is deafening, however, it remains to be seen as to whether they will
be heard.
Conclusion
This article has assessed the role of a
magistrate within the judicial process by tracing the origins of the magistrate
and looking at the way in which a magistrate is appointed. The role of the
magistrate is one that should never be undervalued. They give up their time on a
voluntary basis and provide a vital service in filtering the more serious crimes
to be tried in front of a jury. There exists a fundamental problem, however, in
that a magistrate often shares no life experiences with the people that they sit
in judgment over. The sociological implications for a system, such as the one in
place cannot be underestimated. The time has now come for a more diverse
magistrate pool that draws from all members of society, regardless of their
previous background.
|
