As a serving JP I have a look at this site ( and others) fairly frequently. It’s a good way to find out about the misconceptions that people have about the way courts work and a chance for me to alter my practice to try to minimise problems of that kind. I don’t normally respond but there are so many misunderstandings in this thread that I have decided to reply.
Please understand that I am not expressing an opinion either way about cameras or the use of speed. I can say that in common with most JPs I am a driver and have no immunity from the sort of problems that all drivers face, but the rules of conduct for JPs limit my involvement in debates.
Magistrates Courts Committees ceased to exist on the last day of March 2005. They were replaced by Her Majesty’s Courts Service which (in theory) makes all criminal courts part of a seamless whole and gives magistrates courts administrators even less chance to influence policy over cameras and the money they raise.
Quote:
Zamzara wrote
Exactly, without the court in the partnership they might give fair judgements which would mean people are encouraged to request a hearing; therefore no cash to the partnership. The system relies on scaring people away from requesting the hearing they are entitled to under international law by punishing them if they do ask for it.
I can see why people believe the higher sentences handed out in court are a punishment for daring to refuse a fixed penalty but the truth is rather different. Courts sentence in accordance with the guidelines set down by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. These penalties are higher than Fixed Penalties, but this is because a Fixed Penalty is, in court terms (if not for the recipient) a bargain, provided of course, you are guilty and have no major mitigation.
I know you won’t believe me but, at court level JPs have no power over how money is used and are not pressured to punish people who have turned down a fixed penalty. It is, however, strongly suggested that when someone turns down a Fixed Penalty because of a genuine misunderstanding about what constitutes a defence that we impose the equivalent i.e. £60 + 3 points and no costs.
As a matter of interest the Sentencing Guidelines Council has 14 members of whom only one is a JP in spite of the fact that JPs deal with about 95% of all crimes.
Quote:
^Qwerty^ wrote
Knowing a sitting magistrate quite well (i.e. my mother), she has said on previous occasions to me that she knows nothing about law. That being the case, and I can safely assume that most other magistrates are the same, who is the person that directs them to find somebody guilty?
With the basic training we have to do before getting anywhere near a court, the ongoing mentoring, regular competence appraisals, compulsory refresher courses etc I am amazed that any JP claims no knowledge of the law. You can’t safely assume that ANY other JPs are the same.
In general no one has the power to “direct” us to find anyone guilty. There are some VERY rare occasions when the court clerk will say that a particular course of action, be it guilty or not guilty, is the only possibility. This is usually because we are dealing with a strict liability offence (often wrongly called absolute offences) or because there is case law which is so strong that there is no leeway.
.
Quote:
JT wrote
And finally, to complete the loop, the magistrates court service has a clear influence over how cases are dealt with. I think we can all agree that a lay magistrate usually has little or no knowledge of the subtleties and nuances of the law, so will rely very heavily on the advice of the clerk in arriving at their judgement.
See my reply to ^Qwerty^ about knowledge. If you actually spend a day in a court you will see that clerks don’t actually give a lot of advice to the bench, and when they do the nature of that advice is made clear to both prosecution and defence. If either party disagrees with the advice they are at liberty to say so.
Quote:
Ernest Marsh wrote
Magistrates sit in threes, with one usually being more experienced acting as chairman. However, they may still be in complete ignorance of the technicalities of the law, and are often only made aware by a defendant’s lawyer contesting a point.
If a technicality is raised, or they are unclear in their own minds, they can consult the CPS. However if the CPS were always right, and not just offering their opinion, they would win EVERY case they elected to bring to court - but they dont.
As far as I am aware, the Clerk to the Justices only offers advice on court procedure, and not points of law regarding the facts of the case.
An over-zealous chairman can intimidate his fellow magistrates, as well as the defence, and make questionable decisions, which if not challenged by the defence, can lead to the defendant being denied his rights/justice.
Onlooking junior magistrates seeing this, can be moved to accept this as proper procedure or point of law when it is not, which is why the court service rotates magistrates, and offers training days on particularly contentious points of law - like the new ASBO legislation.
Some magistrates bring to the court, their own beliefs and morality, which can influence their decisions. There was one magistrate in our area, who allowed an instance of burglary in their own home to affect their judgement of such defendants, and some say the outcomes of such cases were affected. I am certain the propaganda put out by the government and the camera partnerships will have a similar effect if not properly challenged!
The JP chairing the court will have been specially trained (and appraised) as a chairman. Part of that training and regular testing is to ensure that they fully consult their wingers and don’t bully. Any chairman who does bully is swiftly removed from the list of approved chairmen.
We NEVER EVER consult the CPS on points of law. The CPS do, of course, get a chance to respond if the defence raise a point of law (as do the defence if the CPS raise something).
The Clerk to the Justices is the chief executive officer in charge of the court clerks and (usually) legal aspects of JP training.
It is the court clerk who has a SPECIFIC duty to give advice on points of law.
In court if a chairman makes a decision which would “lead to the defendant being denied his rights/justice” the clerk would step in and point out the error. As would the wingers (that’s what the non chairing JPs are called, there being no such thing as a junior JP) and the CPS.
Assuming we are referring to the same person, there is no evidence that I am aware of that the JP mentioned allowed her feelings to affect any judgement. However, her public comments did raise the suspicion that this might happen which is why she is no longer a JP.
Quote:
Richard C wrote
It seems to me that Clerks not only read out what they think is the relevant law but interpret it for the mags and tell them that that is what the law says.
As corrupt as hell. Im sure there are some who try to be impartial but most know that their fat salaries are paid for whether directly or indirectly out of fines.
The relevant law is pointed out. If we ask for interpretation we are referred to case law. The decision about how to interpret always lies with the bench (unless one of the rare occasions I mentioned earlier applies).
Any lawyer who wants a fat salary doesn’t work as a court clerk. We have just lost a clerk who has got a new job teaching A level law at the local college. It pays more for less hours and has better holidays. Any clerk who is proven to have not been impartial will soon need a new job. The savage way in which small errors are punished by employment sanctions never ceases to amaze me.
Hopefully I have cleared up a few misunderstandings.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
