FAST ENTRY MAGISTRATES AND FEWER APPEALS POINT TO IMPENDING INJUSTICE

As with so many words in English the term appeal both noun and verb has a variety of meanings: plea, petition, entreaty and supplication are simple nouns which are readily associated with legal terminology. This noun also has another meaning with its own interpretations: charm, allure, fascination, charisma and magnetism. As a verb the word takes on another variety of uses: plead, entreat, implore, petition and beseech.


In a curious fashion the recent trial of a serial rapist in the public eye could have the word applied in many of the above forms or situations. However when the former Secretary of State for Justice aired the possibility of magistrates courts taking over some cases deemed currently for trial at crown court before a judge and jury that same term became almost a form of abuse from both sides of the subsequent and on going argument. My post of 3rd March 2026 explored this topic in some detail.


Before opening up this post to opinion some facts should be made clear. At the last count in April there were 15,259 magistrates. For the year 2025/26 over 116,000 days sat in magistrates courts. There are no separate figures for District Judge courts and lay benches. Between April and June this year 655 new magistrates were appointed. The number for that full year is 1,663 new magistrates. There are 75 administrative magistrates benches across England and Wales. Simple arithmetic indicates without any official numbers yet available an even distribution of these new magistrates is 22 per bench. Assuming that even distribution of magistrates there are 203 per bench so 9% of bench members are "newbies". Perhaps with an aim of being more open in the future MOJ will release statistics on the composition of benches with regard to seniority in addition to current disclosures on age and sex.

The above numbers are important because of the current situation with The Courts and Tribunals Bill (clause 7 and Schedule 2) which replaces the automatic right to appeal with a requirement for permission and replaces the current full rehearing in the crown court with a hearing limited to the issues for which permission is granted. 

It is proposed that these issues for appeal from the magistrates court to the crown court are being restricted from the current position of verdict and sentence being appealable within 21 days to a much more onerous requirement.  The government’s equalities statement says defendants will be required to seek permission to appeal based on an arguable point of law.  The Bill also provides for trial and sentencing proceedings in magistrates courts to be audio recorded to support the revised appeal process.  What perhaps will not be allowed is "new evidence" although that is not finalised.  There is no confirmation that the current situation of allowing appeals against sentence will be continued. 

Crown court juries since 1967 have been enabled to bring in a 10:2 majority verdict such decision being announced in open court. A magistrates bench must reach a majority in the retiring room of 2:1 but there`s a caveat: the decision is announced as a decision of the bench. No statement is made that there was a dissenting opinion. Were the aforementioned restrictions to become law it must surely increase the risks of there being an uncorrectable miscarriage of justice. In order for justice to be seen as having been done by a lay bench where a guilty verdict is by majority that in itself should be sufficient to allow an appeal to the crown court.



Much of the above depends on numbers and as noted on other occasions the MOJ is not over bountiful in that regard. Having done some back of the envelope calculations with my first year university maths still retained [according to AI] in some corner of my intraparietal sulcus (IPS) in the parietal lobe near the top and back of my brain I can present some tentative conclusions of how a rush to recruit more new magistrates might lead to possible injustices.

My main conclusion is that currently a lay bench has a roughly 30% chance of including someone appointed in the past year.  This might pose a problem for the presiding magistrate and the third member.  The newbie could well be influenced to override his/her own opinion in favour of the others.  With virtually no confident experience or knowledge the newbie might be overly influenced by an over attentive legal advisor whose offerings would be rejected by assertive colleagues. This shortage of experienced participants has been widely acknowledged by senior police officers subsequent to the cull of 20,000 officers a decade ago. The Mayor of London’s office acknowledged in a London Assembly answer that the Met had a shortage of experienced detectives.  A 2023 Sunday Telegraph analysis of Home Office data found that the current crop of officers is the least experienced since records began in 2007.

Summary justice is being asked to carry more with a thinner safety net. Magistrates courts already sat over 116,000 days last year and the government’s own assessment suggests the Bill’s jury reforms will add around 8,500 more while a permission stage narrows appeals. Meanwhile 1,663 appointments last year, roughly one in nine of 15,259 magistrates, mean many panels may include a novice and the 21,000 target demands faster recruitment still. Errors will be harder to correct on appeal so mentoring, legal-advisor support and reliable recording matter. Like detective expertise, judgement cannot be hurried.