Law D1

This task is an extension of the content discussed in p4 where i discussed the role of lay people. Also i described the background of magistrates and jury. I also talked about formal requirements, qualifications, restrictions, selection and training to become part of the magistrates. Also explained what is needed to become part of the jury for example the eligibility, what disqualifications which will restrict you, and discretionary excusals. in this assignment to meet the criteria i will need to evaluate the effectiveness of using lay people in the English courts, i will also need to discuss what lay people are and the advantages and disadvantages associated with using them. There are two types of lay people lay magistrates and juries.
Lay Magistrates
Lay Magistrates deal with the vast majority of criminal cases in the English Legal System. All criminal cases start in the Magistrates' Court and around one million cases a year are heard by Magistrates. They uphold the important principle in our legal system of trial by one's peers. One of the great strengths of the English legal system is the participation of ordinary people in the administration of justice. The other area where this is seen in the criminal justice system is in the Crown Court where juries are used. There many advantages and disadvantages of lay magistrates.
Advantages
There are many advantages of lay magistrates below is a list of just a few.
Cross section of society
Lay magistrates provide a wider cross section of society on the bench with 50% of magistrates being women and over 7% ethnic minorities in comparison to professional judges. Lay magistrates are more representative than district judges in the magistrate’s courts. Statistics in 2009 showed only 30% of district judges to be women and 2% to be from ethnic minority background.
Local knowledge
Lay magistrates usually tend to live or work near the court they tend to have local knowledge of particular problems within that community. They are also aware of local trends of crime along with local opinion. However it is argued that they don’t have any real knowledge of the problems in the poorer areas because most magistrates come from the professional and managerial classes and tend to live in better areas.
Cost
By using unpaid lay magistrates this is a cheap method and reduces costs. The report the judiciary in the magistrates courts (2000) found that at that time the costs of using lay magistrates was £52.10 per hour whereas district judges in the magistrates cost was £61.78 per hour. Therefore it is cheaper to have lay magistrates than processional judges as they can several millions of pounds. The cost of a trial in a magistrate’s court is cheaper than having a trial in the crown court this may be because cases in the crown court are more complex and therefore likely to take longer.
Few appeals
Only a small number of defendants appeal against the magistrates decisions. Most of these appeals are against sentences not against guilty verdict other wise known as an conviction. There are very scenarios where an error in law is made suggesting that despite the amateur status the lay magistrates tend to do a good job. Duing the period of 2008 there were only 72 appeals to the QBD and only 30 were allowed
Legal adviser
Since 1999 all newly qualified magistrates clerks must be legally qualifies therefore this bring more of a higher level of skill to the magistrate’s court.
Disadvantages
There are some disadvantages of having lay magistrates.

Middle aged middle class
Lay magistrates are perceived as middle aged or middle class these are people from a stable background. The report on the judiciary in the magistrates courts (2000) showed this to be mostly true as the research found out approximately 40% of lay magistrates were retired and overwhelming from a professional or managerial backgrounds. There for it was unlikely that they loved in poorer areas and had knowledge of the problems within that type of community. Far too few working class people have the time to become Lay Magistrates.
Inconsistency in sentencing
Sentences vary greatly between different Magistrates' Courts and even between different Lay Magistrates in the same court. There are also inconsistencies in the granting of bail. There are inconsistencies in the sentencing within the magistrates from different area passing different sentence for similar offences the government white paper justice for all (2001) know as the geographical lottery. Burglary of dwellings twenty per cent of offenders sentenced to custody in Teesside whereas capered to forty one per cent in Birmingham, Receiving stolen goods 3.5% sentences to custody at reading magistrates court compared to 48% in south London.
Reliance on the clerk
Lay Magistrates have little legal knowledge and rely too heavily on the Clerk of the Court. Even though the clerk is legally qualified to give advice to the lay magistrate it does not stop inconstancies in the sentencing because the clerk is not allowed to help magistrates to decide on the sentencing
Prosecution biased
Lay magistrates may be seen as prosecution- biased due to the fact that the conviction rate in the magistrate’s court was much greater than in a crown court. They may also tend to believe that police is too readily.

Juries Juries have been used in our legal system for over 1000 years. Originally they were used for providing local knowledge and information and acted more as witnesses than decision makers. By the middle of the 15th Century, juries had become independent assessors and assumed their modern role as deciders of fact. In law a jury consists of twelve members of people who have randomly been chosen to decide the truth of factual evidence in legal proceedings and on instruction of the court, to apply the law to the courts. They sit in the crown court and listen to cases.
Advantages of trial by jury
There are many advantages of using trial by jury listed below are a few advantages.
Public confidence
The jury is considered as one of the most fundamentals of democratic society. The right to be tried by ones peers is a bastion of liberty against the state and has been supported by eminent judges. Lord Devlin said juries are the lamp that shows that freedom lives. People have confidence in the impartiality and fairness of jury trial.
Jury Equity
Juries are not legal experts, are not bound to follow the precedent of past cases or even Acts of Parliament, and do not have to give reasons for their verdict it is possible for them to decide cases on their idea of ‘fairness’. This is referred to as jury equity Open system of justice

The use of a jury is viewed as making the legal system more open. Justice is seen to be done as members of the public are involved in a key role and the whole process is public. It also helps to keep the law clearer as points have to be explained to the jury. Secrecy of the jury room

Furthermore the jury are free from pressure in their discussion and are protected from outside influences when deciding on the verdict. Impartiality

A jury should be impartial as they are not connected to anyone in the case. The process of random selection should result in a cross-section of society and this should also lead to an impartial jury as they will have different prejudices and so should cancel out each others’ biases. A jury is not case hardened

Since juries only sit for 2 weeks and are unlikely to try more than three or four cases in that time.

Disadvantages of trial by jury
There are also many disadvantages of having a trial by jury. Perverse decisions The jury can ignore an unjust law however this type of decision can be seen as perverse and one which was not justified. Juries have refused to convict in other clear-cut cases such as R v Randle and Pottle (1991) where the defendants were charged with helping the spy George Blake to escape from prison. Their prosecution did not occur until 25 years after the escape, when they wrote about what they had done and the jury acquitted them, possibly as a protest over the time lapse between the offence and the prosecution.

Secrecy

When the jurors have reached an verdict no reasons have to be given for the verdict, so there is no way of knowing if the jury did understand the case and come to the decision for the right reasons Racial bias

Although jurors have no direct interest in a case, and despite the fact that there are 12 of them, they may still have prejudices which can affect the verdict. Some jurors may be biased against the police Media Influence

Media coverage may influence jurors. This is especially true in high-profile cases where there has been a lot of publicity about police investigations into a case. Prosecution agencies are aware of problems that media coverage can cause. This was noticeable in 2006 when 5 prostitutes were murdered in Ipswich prior to anyone being charged there was already a lot of media coverage. Once a man was charged with the murders a member of the CPS made a public announcement to the press reminding them that they must be careful in any further coverage of the case. Lack of understanding

Jurors may not understand the case which they are trying Fraud trials have complex accounts

Being given in evidence and can create special problems for jurors. Even jurors who can easily cope with other evidence may have difficulty understanding a fraud case. These cases are also often very long so that the jurors have to be able to be away from their own work for months and this can place great strain on jurors and are often boring. High acquittal rates

Juries are criticised because they acquit too many defendants. 60% of those that plead not guilty at the Crown Court are acquitted. Jury service can be a strain

Jury service can be a strain. Especially where jurors have to listen to horrific evidence. Jurors in the Rosemary West case were offered counselling after the trial to help them cope with the evidence they had had to see and hear. Jury ‘nobbling’

Jury nobbling does occur and in some cases jurors have had to be provided with police protection. The use of juries makes trials slow and expensive.

Each point has to be explained carefully to the jury and the whole procedure of the case takes longer. Jurors may be against the whole system of jury service as it is fairly unpopular.

. Alternatives to trial by jury

Trial by single judge:

The method of trial in the majority of civil cases which is generally regarded as producing a fairer and more predictable result.
Used in Northern Ireland – known as the Diplock Courts and were brought in on the recommendation of Lord Diplock to replace jury trial because of the special problems of threats and jury nobbling that existed between the different sectarian parties.
However there appears less public confidence in the use of judges to decide all serious criminal cases because judges may become case hardened and prosecution-minded.

Panel of judges

Some continental countries try cases using a panel of three or five judges sitting together. This allows for a balance of views instead of the verdict of one person

However it still leaves the problems of judges becoming case-hardened and prosecution minded and coming from an elite background.

There are not sufficient judges and our system of legal training and appointment would need a radical overhaul to implement this proposal.

It would also be expensive

A judge plus lay assessors

Under this system the judge and two lay assessors would make the decision together.

This is used in Scandinavian countries and provides the legal expertise and the lay

participation in the legal system by ordinary members of the public

The lay people could be drawn from the general public in the same way as selecting juries or a special panel of assessors could be drawn up as in tribunal cases.

A mini-jury

If the jury is to remain then it might be possible to have a smaller number of jurors.

In many continental countries the jury has only 9 members.

Alternatively a jury of 6 could be used for less serious criminal cases that at the moment have a full jury trial as occurs in some American States.

To conclude by listing all the advantages and disadvantages of lay people i have come to an conclusion that lay people are effective within the English courts to a certain extent. There are many advantages of using lay people. I believe that lay magistrates are the most effective out of the juries and lay magistrates due to the fact that it is cheaper and they are the back bone of enforcing laws and sentencing. The workload is very high however they finish the task appropriately and efficiently. Moreover with juries they are successfully in the field to a certain extent as there are many disadvantages like cost and lack of understanding. During a trial Singh v London underground the use of jury trial was refused because the courts felt that due to technical nature of the case a jury was not suitable therefore it was clear that trial by jury will not always be appropriate believe i have successfully met the criteria required i have gone in to depth talking about the advantages and disadvantages of lay people.