THE SUNSET OF JUSTICE

"For an unpaid responsible public position it`s little wonder that recruitement is below published expectations." I wrote that in my post last week. I had intended to enlarge upon the possible reasons for the MOJ failing consistently to achieve its level of new magistrates sorely needed for appointement to an organisation with members` age as below:-


Median age ~58 years
Mean age ~59 years
% aged ≥50 81 %


Perhaps the onerous requirement to sign up to an annual unpaid 26 half day sitting commitment in addition to training days is a prime reason especially when the MOJ`s almost fanatical diversity programme strives to recruit younger more "diverse" and perhaps lower income magistrates to "reflect the communities they serve". To that end I have endeavoured to extract from official publications how many magistrates actually are sacked for failing the above sitting requirement and to note if there is any prevailing trend.

The latest J.P. to fall at this hurdle was disclosed yesterday as Mr Imtiaz Ahmed JP whose fate will be published in next year`s statistics. To quote from the official announcement; "removed for failing sittings requirement." Recent years saw results as follows for that same failure:-



For year 2025/26


Removal: 0
Reprimand: 2
Formal warning: 0
Formal advice: 0


For year 2024/2025


Removal: 6
Reprimand: 0
Formal warning: 1
Formal advice: 0



For 2023/24



Removal: 1
Reprimand: 1
Formal warning: 0
Formal advice: 0



For years 2021- 2023 there are no on line detailed figures now available. Whether year 2024/25 is a statistical outlier is beyond my capacity to interpret. The JCIO’s formal annual reports contain aggregate totals but rarely list every individual and many earlier statements are no longer on the website due to publication period limits. However it is my experience that many of those under sitting are dealt with informally by the courts` Deputy Justices Clerks who are in day to day control of magistrates courts.



To put these numbers in perspective in the five years since 2021 the numbers of magistrates has been fairly stable rising from 14,200 to 14,636 in 2025. It can be seen from the above that removals for under sitting are tiny and impossible to relate to any particular factor. 2025 was a spike and perhaps suggests policy emphasis or enforcement tightening.



An educated assessment of the consistent failure to recruit new magistrates could be a cause of concern to the MOJ especially as its proposals to increase the workload to relieve crown courts of their backlog comes under increasing scrutiny. 68% of Judges are aged 50 or over. Such a position requires years of experience in life as well as in affairs legal. The fixation in the MOJ with "local" justice is becoming increasingly distant from reality. District Judges [MC] are appointed on ability; not that they are paying council tax for living a bus ride from the court in which they preside over function in addition to fact finding and sentence. Archived materials suggest that around 10% of cases at magistrates courts are heard by DJs or Deputies. It seems logical to conclude that the current cheaper costs of lay magistrates cf DJs might soon have to be revisited and those costs accepted when the reality is that the backlog at magistrates courts midway through 2025 was around 310,000 to 361,000 unresolved cases. It has been estimated that if no additional cases entered the court system the current magistrates courts` backlog could be cleared in less than three months at the existing processing capacity. Of course that`s a fairy tale. There are currently about 1.3 million magistrates’ cases entering the system annually and timeliness to clear cases is rising. At more than six months, average times from offence to completion are now higher than pre‑pandemic. Extra sitting days and other reforms are intended to speed up justice overall but there is no officially published target for how long it will take once or if reforms are implemented. In simple terms there is an uncontrolable rise in the backlog unless what to some will be unwelcome innovations and/or changes are made. These could include:-


A. a major increase in the number of lay magistrates
B. an increase in their sitting requirements
C. a major increase in the number of DJs and Deputies or
D. revolutionary changes in the provision of diversionary availabilities.




It is difficult in the light of recent failed recruitment efforts as above to think A. is realistic. B. is possible but it would mean MOJ abandoning its flagship "diversity" policy and swallowing the reality that an older higher income strata of society might be willing to consider appointment. C. would be a realistic option if DJs would accept that they could run the court without the assistance of a legal advisor or at the very least accepting a lower grade lower paid clerk. D. is "in the clouds" thinking.




Since 2010 [even since 1997] the courts have been financially emasculated. Chickens are now home and roosting in their entrails. The current "proposals" will do nothing to change the situation. Cassandra has appeared on this site [and others similar] for many years. Many warnings were given by those on the inside as well as those offering advice from the periphery. The collapse, and that is what it is, of our once inernationally renowned justice system is now impervious to meaningful long lasting improvement. Government has so many other problems in future only rouble billionaires and their estranged ex wives, disinherited relatives of global AI innovators and others similar will consider London as the legal jurisdiction to decide their future. 

For the person  on that fabled electric bus to Clapham with an appearance pending in the criminal court as witness or defendant the sky might look orange but the legal situation looks bleak. It`s the sunset of justice.

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE ON APPEALS, BACKLOG AND JURIES

The most far reaching changes in our legal system in a generation have been proposed by the Secretary of State for Justice henceforth in this post to be referred to as "MOJ". Statisticians and others will be following their own political preferences and prejudices to paint them in their desired hue. This post is written by a  long retired magistrate and views the whole scheme of things as he has from the  beginning of this  in 2010(  https://amagistratesdiaries.blogspot.com) from the public point of view with the occasional volleys of common sense, incredulity and sceptism.

In recent weeks the Metropolitan Police have revealed that until recently their vetting processes failed insofar as hundreds of applicants secured positions when they should have been eliminated by the Met`s filtering procedure which failed.  In all probability this disastrous outcome was the rush to increase numbers after the wholesale reduction in police numbers owing to Austerity. The recruitment of magistrates has followed a similar pattern.  The application form was published here on 25th May 2017.  In short the vetting system employed character and eligibility questions, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, pre-appointment checks and assessment at interview stage.  For an unpaid responsible public position it`s little wonder that recruitement is below published expectations. Although half the nation`s magistrates courts have been closed since 2010 the workload in general terms has not. There are now about half the number of magistrates since then to deal with Britain`s lower levels of criminality.  There were 373,084 open cases at the end of last year. 

It has been many years since the MOJ published details of appeals from the magistrates courts to the crown court.  MOJ announced "changes". There has been no follow up announcement of what restrictions are going to be enacted, for as certain as night follows day the MOJ is not going to make it easier and simpler for such appeals to be made.  Currently every sentence and/or conviction at the lower court can be appealed within 21 days and every magistrates court has the paperwork immediately available for offenders when they leave the courtroom. Indeed my personal practice was to make this information available in open court after every trial when appropriate.  The information that is available makes interesting reading. 

The last year for which fully transparent figures were made public for appeals was 2023 when there were  5,968 appeals from magistrates courts to the crown court (across conviction and sentence) out of well over a million magistrates’ cases total.  In 2024 there were about 121,500 cases received.  In the first half of 2025 there were 60,500.  Legal reporting (e.g., The Times) has quoted that over 40% of appeals against verdicts and 47% of sentence succeed in crown court. In 2021 during Covid appeals against magistrates’ decisions accounted for about 5 % of crown court caseload implying appeal numbers of only a few thousand per year at that time.   

The open crown court caseload was 79,619 by Q3 2025; a record high. It is indisputable that such appeals as above have a negligible effect on the overall logjam in crown courts and  they have not increased during the backlog crisis. Reducing appeal rights would affect thousands not tens of thousands of cases  and deliver negligible time savings. 

With regard to the proposals to reduce trial by jury specifically, cases with likely sentences under about three years and some complex cases would go to judge only hearings.  Consequently  magistrates would get greater sentencing powers so more cases stay in the magistrates’ courts, further reducing crown court demand. We have been told that those changes  would contribute to clearing the backlog by the late 2020s or early 2030s.  However The Institute for Government estimates that limiting jury trials would reduce crown court hearing time by only about 7–8 % overall and judge only trials would save just 1.5–2.5 % of court time on their own.

Those whose knowledge far exceeds mine have made clear that the backlog is due to:-

1. Court capacity limits (fewer judges, lawyers, courtrooms than needed.

2. Underfunding over many years.

3. High numbers of ineffective hearings (due to witness/defence unavailability, poor case preparation etc.).

The bottom line is the effect on the size of the backlog would be modest if the proposals were implemented. 

Changes which would improve matters are depicted below:- 

In simple terms:-

Jury-trial reform government estimates would improve matters by ~8%)

Extra judges would improve matters by  ~20%

More sitting days would improve matters by~30%

Abolishing jury trials would deliver the smallest gain while increasing judges and sitting days would do far more to reduce the backlog  without removing a constitutional safeguard.  So we are left with the obvious question; why has this government put so much effort into this proposal?  We continually are told it`s a government and justice system for victims.  Apart from the ideal that Justice is supposed to be impartial is not the underlying motive to be seen to be doing something and in its wake to abolish juries per se?  

Socialists always want more control over the lives of citizens.  By reforming magistrates courts sentencing powers [perhaps itself a temporary measure bearing in mind the ups and downs in available sentences of the last four years] it could pave the road to only District Judges sitting or with two magistrate wingers. Be that as it may the facts show that the MOJ is being less than truthful and as native Americans discovered about post Civil War treaties with the US government:- they speak with forked tongue.

JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A SIGNPOST

Having enjoyed or perhaps experienced my longest time overseas for over forty years the trickle of news I allowed to invade my quieter moments enabled my inner rants to coalesce in my mind even when the attractions of literally spending Christmas day gazing at palm trees and exploring the many concoctions that can be produced by mixing unknown fruits and well known  alcohols were all around.  Subsequently these incoherent abstractions permitted me to spend some of the long hours flying home  in trying to prepare the rant that follows.  

Since 1997 it has become increasingly difficult to sustain the comforting fiction that the weakening of the justice system is the responsibility of one political party alone. The evidence instead points to a prolonged period of bipartisan consensus that has steadily emasculated the machinery of justice. Decisions taken, defended and often renewed by both major parties have left the courts diminished in capacity, authority and public standing.

There is no shortage of areas where this consensus can be identified. Court reductions and closures have proceeded under successive governments of different colours  justified by efficiency arguments that rarely survive contact with reality. Disputes over judges` pensions and financial restrictions on the use of crown courts are current.  The loss of half the country`s  magistrates courts has not merely inconvenienced users of the system; it has weakened the principle of local justice itself. Longer delays, increased travel and overburdened remaining courts have become the norm rather than the exception.

Legal aid has suffered a similar fate. Both parties have accepted its contraction as a regrettable necessity despite mounting evidence that its erosion undermines fairness and efficiency alike. Litigants in person clog court lists, hearings take longer and outcomes become more erratic. A well-honed justice system is not an optional adornment of democracy; it is one of its load-bearing structures. When justice becomes slow, inaccessible or inconsistent, democratic legitimacy quietly drains away.

What is perhaps more corrosive than any individual policy is the degree of agreement between government and opposition. When opposition parties largely endorse the justice agenda of those in power the electorate is left with little meaningful choice. In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that growing numbers of voters turn to fringe parties or protest movements seeking improvement where the mainstream has demonstrably failed to deliver. This is not healthy pluralism; it is a symptom of institutional stagnation.

The broader deterioration in political standards only reinforces this dynamic. The failure not only to exclude an openly Jew hating Egyptian individual from citizenship but to opportunistically associate with or excuse elements of his support base is a stark illustration of how principle has been subordinated to political convenience. That this behaviour is observable across party lines speaks to a deeper malaise: a shared indifference to the moral and legal consistency upon which public trust depends.

Recent revelations concerning the Tel Aviv Maccabi football match affair and the conduct of West Midlands Police add a further troubling dimension. The exposure of misleading statements and internal manoeuvring has fuelled the perception that civil institutions are increasingly anxious to appease rather than apply the law impartially. Critics argue that this reflects a growing tendency to kowtow to Islamist pressures particularly in cases where political sensitivity intersects with public order concerns. Whether or not every such criticism is fairly made the damage to confidence is undeniable.

This issue cannot be dismissed as marginal. The Muslim population of the United Kingdom is currently estimated at approximately 3.4 million and respected demographers project that figure could rise to around 13 million by 2050. These are not alarmist numbers; they are mainstream projections. In a diverse and democratic society such change demands robust, impartial institutions capable of applying the law consistently without fear or favour. The perception that policing or justice policy is being shaped by apprehension rather than principle risks entrenching division rather than cohesion.

Against this backdrop, proposals to resolve systemic failings through headline-grabbing recruitment targets appear particularly hollow. The suggestion that the magistracy can be expanded by 2,000 individuals within a single year borders on the fanciful. Previous recruitment initiatives have struggled, not through lack of publicity, but because the role demands time, resilience, employer support and a willingness to operate within an increasingly strained system. Training capacity, mentoring and courtroom availability are already under pressure.

Magistrates do not function in isolation. Their effectiveness depends upon properly resourced courts, experienced legal advisers, realistic listing practices and a political culture that respects the seriousness of summary justice. Increasing numbers without addressing these underlying deficiencies risks weakening rather than strengthening the bench.

Democracy depends on more than the ritual of elections. It depends on institutions that are trusted, resilient and visibly committed to fairness. A justice system treated as a budgetary inconvenience or a political afterthought cannot fulfil that role. 

The lesson of the past quarter-century is unambiguous: when both major parties agree to manage decline rather than reverse it they invite disengagement, cynicism and the rise of political alternatives that thrive on grievance rather than governance. Rebuilding confidence will require not consensus but courage above all; the courage to place the rule of law back at the centre of democratic life.  

Western democracy is not embedded in our genes.  It is a relatively new manner of governance incorporated into our political system from a parsimonious beginning at the turn of the 20th century and refined post 1945.  The enormous swings in the 2019 election [overall Tory majority of 80] and in 2024 [overall Labour majority of 174] should have been a clear indication for we non  psephologists that something was amiss. There is absolutely no certainty or god given assurance that our democratic institutions will outlast this century.  Between now and 2029 the foundations of our future lives and those of our children and grandchildren are being laid. The state of the justice system is a signpost to our future.  

As I have not yet got my jet lagged brain into gear my reader might want to peruse my entry of 1st January 2011 of my Magistrate`s Diary soon to be published following on from my entries from 2010.  

D.W.P. AND 6.[1] COMMITTAL

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 01. Jan. 2011. – 15:38:54

In my time on the bench I have sat on perhaps one or two sect. 6[1] committals. As I recall they have not been subject to any training I have undergone. They have rarely been alluded to in the normal course of events. I have sat on many dozens of cases brought by the Dept. of Work and Pensions. None has involved a 6[1] committal. But it seems that this form of process is alive and kicking in Blackburn where the chairman of the Lancashire Council of Mosques is facing a magistrates` bench in February who will decide if he should face benefit fraud charges. There will be no oral evidence and the defence are not entitled to present any evidence at all, documentary or otherwise. The bench can discharge the defendant, but this is a comparatively rare occurrence because the prosecution only need to show that there is "sufficient evidence to put the defendant on trial" which is a low burden (equivalent to showing that there is a case to answer).

The defendant by his position could be called high profile. Perhaps somebody with knowledge and/or authority can offer an opinion as to how common such proceedings are?

---