TREASURY ££ -v- PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

It was with a perhaps muted fanfare that recently the now former Lord Chancellor [the 11th since 2010] announced that there would be set up a new level of intermediate criminal court over which a District Judge[MC] would preside with two lay magistrates as wingers. After a mixed reception from the legal profession all has gone quiet on the proposal.  If, however, the concept were to materialise there are many questions arising.

Currently DJs sit alone answerable to no one excepting themselves, their conscience and the Appeal Court or  Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.  That will not change.  What will change will be training programmes for DJs.  Just as Crown Court judges have training for sitting on appeals with two magistrates as wingers to deal with fact finding and/or sentencing similar training will be necessary for DJs.  This will be conducted through the Judicial College.  Crown Court judges’ training covers criminal procedure, sentencing, appellate review and the particular role of the Crown Court when exercising appellate jurisdiction from magistrates.  It is not unlikely that DJs are likely to receive similar training for serving in any newly proposed intermediate courts alongside magistrates but with some important caveats.  The Criminal Courts Review explicitly recommended that, in the event of structural changes such as creating a unified Criminal Court joint training for District Judges and magistrates would become necessary. It suggested that the Judicial Studies Board should oversee the development of such training and involve DJs  actively in training magistrates as well.  I remember all too well that at my court we were fortunate to have two DJs who excelled at training sessions; indeed who put those who professed specialised qualifications in such tasks as rank amateurs.  Magistrates will also need refreshed training to work effectively in these new intermediate courts covering collaboration, sentencing responsibilities and procedural changes.  I would opine that experienced magistrates who undertake chairing responsivities as presiding magistrates might be dismayed if such sittings are much reduced. Perhaps there will be a two tier structure.  Currently interested parties can only speculate.  

If intermediate courts are introduced (handling either-way cases that might otherwise go to the Crown Court for jury trial) then this immediately raises the number of sitting days required from DJs and consequently additional DJs would likely need to be recruited to ensure availability and avoid bottlenecks.  There is a possibility that magistrate recruitment might be affected.  In the last two years over £1 million has been spent on such efforts. Sitting in a more “serious” jurisdiction (cases that would otherwise go to the Crown Court) may make the role more attractive to volunteers but on the other hand such cases can be more time consuming which could deter younger people sacrificing earning potential but encouraging older and/or retired JPs to offer increased sittings. 

As with selection of magistrates qualified to sit on Crown Court appeals there might develop a two tier system for the proposed new intermediate court where a higher level of experience and competence will be needed to sit as a winger: a Premier League and a Championship?  The driving forces for the proposals are the unsustainable backlog at Crown Courts and the reduced costs of summary versus jury trials.  However the increased costs of employing the additional DJs required would go some way to mitigate the hoped for savings.  

In the long run this might have the negative effect of reducing the participation of magistrates in all but the most minor offences and be a stepping stone to a completely professional judiciary. For many criminal lawyers it would be an overdue and welcome positive effect.  All this speculation might be premature. As of now there’s no sign of consultation or training course outlines specifically tailored to the proposed intermediate courts.  Considering that this nation`s justice system is now operating under its 12th boss in 25 years is it any wonder that chaos reigns?  On the 6th prime minister within that same period only adds to the disfunction of the political environment which has resulted.  

Without Justice the concept of a free democratic society is a chimera.  Even when the J factor is still alive and occasionally kicking there must be public confidence in its function.  That confidence is daily being eroded. It`s hard to see how the proposed court changes will be of value except in the balance sheet at the Treasury. 

NO TO HUNG JURY OR SCOTS VERDICT SO COMPROMISE RULES THE DAY. NOT SATISFACTORY

First shown: Channel 4 Tuesday 26 August 2025 "The Jury: Murder Trial" was fascinating for me as probably it was for many with an interest in how justice works in England and Wales.  I would opine that in the last year or two trial by jury; its history, implications, limitations and future have crossed the minds of many people who previously have not had a care how the guilty are found guilty and the innocent acquitted.  At least that`s the theory.  Indeed it has been a subject here over the last few weeks. 

Last night I watched the final most dramatic episode also available on Channel 4 online. The 12 jurors seemed to belong to three groups of people:

1. Those whose inner beliefs or inbuilt prejudices seemed to be a filter through which they digested the information presented to them.

2. Those who despite having an opportunity refused to consider only the evidence or apply reasoned analysis.

3. Those who seemed to be influenced by the most recent argument put to them and felt overwhelmed by the position of  responsibility into which they were thrust.  

The result was a compromise decision brought about by fearing to announce that they were a hung jury.  I would suggest that if this trial had been under Scots law a verdict of "not proven" would have been a more likely result because that in effect would have reflected the reality. The final verdict of manslaughter did not appear to have been a logical ending to a finely balanced argument.  It was compromise that in our English legal system was like trying to square a circle.  That justice was done and seen to be done is a moot point.  The stark contrast between the guilty group and the acquitters  underscores how verdicts can diverge despite identical evidence simply due to personality clashes, emotional biases or group dynamics.   All 12 were startled when the judge told them that the verdict of the jury at the actual trial some time previously was guilty of murder.  If ever there was cause to take a deep breath this was it.  If ever there was "proof" of the capriciousness that is in effect "the jury system" and a clear argument for eg a judge and two assessors to decide on guilt or innocence this was it.

Missing from the production was any reference to the manner in which the foreman was chosen.  As any magistrate will attest the quality and abilities of that individual who should control the parameters of the discussion and direct attention to vital areas of the evidence was IMHO an omission where realism was sacrificed for time considerations and/or more dramatic conversations or pieces to camera which seem to have been dominated by a young woman in pink and a retired chef.  The programme brought into stark relief the disturbing situation when prosecution and defence counsel offer to the jury evidence from "experts" who have opposing opinions.  Two decades or more ago when DNA statistics` analyses were in their infancy and thrown at jurors like tennis balls from an automatic server, opposing apparently authoritative "experts" served their opposite opinions  to jurors, likening them to answers from a deity.  Currently the Lucy Letby case is provoking considerable discord among experts who testified and those now being consulted by the defence working towards a retrial. 

In sum the last part leaves viewers torn: empathising with everyday citizens attempting gravely serious legal work but also troubled by the system’s susceptibility to bias, spectacle and inconsistency.