The air around Petty France these days must be fairly poluted with proposals, consultations, recriminations and conclusions. On 13th January I posted on the very small numbers of appeals from magistrates courts to the crown court where the case is reheard by a judge sitting with two magistrates. That statistic indicates that the lower courts very rarely get it wrong, an offender is unaware of his/her rights or is simply relieved to have the matter over and done with. But just as important is that the offender has the right to that re hearing provided the necessary papers are lodged within 21 days of the verdict and/or the sentence. It would appear that without much fanfare that right is going to be resticted.
Under the government`s proposals this automatic right would be ended. Instead a defendant would need to seek permission (leave) to appeal and that permission would be limited to points of law not a full rehearing of all aspects of the case as is the current practice.
The government`s reasons for this substantial denial of rights of appeal are firstly that this would ease the backlog on crown courts. That argument is as thin as the clean air around Petty France. Such are the aforesaid limited numbers of appeals and that a courtroom and judge would be engaged for at least one sitting if not a whole day, to consider that the minimal benefits of such a change would ease the backlog is a disgrace to common sense even for this government which has shown such a facility is deeply lacking around the Cabinet table. We are supposed to accept their argument that such a change is a necessary improvement in efficiency as opposed to a fundamental erosion of rights.
This anticipated change combined with the reduction in jury trials, the increase in magistrates sentencing powers and the transcribing of magistrates courts` hearings is being discussed to support the new appeal regime where only legal points are reviewed. The change makes it likely that vital safeguards against wrongful convictions would be removed. Vulnerable or increasing numbers of unrepresented defendants who might have had fact based grounds to appeal under the current system would be disadvantaged, to put it mildly.
The government`s statements on this matter include, “The appeals process from magistrates’ courts will be reformed so that automatic appeals to the Crown Court in criminal cases are replaced with a permission stage, limited to points of law.” [my bold]. The official parliamentary statement of 2nd December 2025 reads as follows, "Magistrates’ courts sentencing powers will increase to 18 months, with provision to extend to 24 months if necessary to relieve pressure in the Crown court."
"The right of defendants to elect for a jury trial will be removed, meaning that it will be for the court to determine where a case will be heard, based on the severity of offences."
"A new bench division will be established in the Crown court for triable-either-way cases with likely sentences of three years or less, heard by a judge alone."
It is of no surprise that amongst the legal profession there is much scepticism on the reforms. However the Magistrates Association in line with its toadying up to any and every government proposal issued the following statement:-
"We have long called for radical action to deal with the crisis in our justice system. The system is in a mess, with the crown court backlog so acute that some cases are being scheduled to start in 2029. Every day that a case is not heard, is intolerable anguish and uncertainty for victims, witnesses and defendants, so measures that can speed up justice are needed – as long they balance efficiency with quality of justice."
"So, we welcome the government’s plan to enable magistrates to hear cases that carry a maximum sentencing range of up to eighteen months’ imprisonment (up from one year currently), with the option to extend it to two years. This can be introduced speedily and means that more cases will be dealt with in the magistrates’ courts, where they can be dealt with more quickly – making a dent in the huge backlogs of serious cases in the crown courts."
"The measures announced today are a big vote of confidence in magistrates, but to maximise the success of these changes, and so ensure speedier justice, we need to see more resources put into the magistrates’ courts. These include:
ensuring there are enough, trained and well-paid legal advisers (without whom magistrates cannot hear cases)
repairing and maintaining the crumbling court buildings and court rooms so they are safe and fit for purpose,
agreeing a long-term and strategic plan for the recruitment, retention, training and recognition of magistrates – so that people from all walks of life will want to volunteer as a magistrate, and will not be left out of pocket for doing so.”
It would seem that the M.A. is oblivious to the government`s failure in its repeated attempts to recruit more magistrates or more likely ignoring the reality of the situation.
The quoted press release does not specifically repeat or quote text on the change to appeal rights (i.e., replacing automatic rights of appeal to the Crown Court with a permission stage). However the context of the press release as a response to the Government’s statement which did include the appeal rights change implies the MA is broadly supportive of the overall reform package so long as necessary resourcing accompanies it. M.A. chief executive Tom Franklin said, " We welcome the government’s plan to enable magistrates to hear cases that carry a maximum sentencing range of up to eighteen months’ imprisonment…” “In addition, we supported Sir Brian Leveson’s original recommendation to create a new tier of the crown court, and we argued that those cases should be heard by a judge and two magistrates … We would like to see magistrate involvement in these, and we are ready to help should the government decide to revert away from this model…”
The conclusion must be that the M.A. is reluctant to be seen criticising with any effort the loss of these current automatic rights of appeal from magistrates courts to crown court. An observer on that proverbial electric Clapham omnibus might conclude that addressing that core but little known principle of our justice system would be a prominent subject of discussion. But then again like a friendly feline lying on its back to have its stomach stroked the M.A. relies on limited participation from its members when it comes to voicing support for government; any government, for like the scorpion stinging the frog as it is being carried across the river by the frog ensuring both their deaths, it is in their nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment