Structural reforms needed to ensure timely justice, say magistrates

In its response to the government’s review of the criminal courts, the membership body for magistrates in England and Wales has made recommendations in key areas that it believes will increase crown court capacity for the most serious cases, including increasing the proportion of less serious cases dealt with in magistrates’ courts, utilising youth magistrates in cases involving 18-25-year-old defendants and resolving the bottlenecks in magistrates’ courts.

Mark Beattie, national chair of the Magistrates’ Association, said: “Crown court backlogs remain at record levels and delay justice for all – victims, witnesses and defendants. So, we welcome this critical work to explore options and recommendations for reforming the criminal courts, ensuring cases are handled proportionately and efficiently. Our consultation response focuses on structural reforms to the court system as they pertain to magistrates. In particular: “Increasing the proportion of cases dealt with in magistrates’ courts: Drawn from their local communities, magistrates are highly trained and already deal with over 90 per cent of criminal cases. They have the motivation, skills, capacity, and experience to take on additional responsibilities to help reduce the crown court backlog and thus enable the most serious offences to be dealt with quicker.

“We believe that the most effective and straightforward way for magistrates’ courts to assist in reducing the crown court backlog is to extend magistrates’ sentencing range in adult courts to 24 months, aligning it with the sentencing range for magistrates in youth courts which has proven effective. Magistrates have previously undertaken training for the extension of their sentencing range to 12 months in adult courts. This means that this change could be introduced relatively quickly.

“We also propose that the category of ‘either-way offences’ is removed and the decision on case allocation between magistrates’ courts and crown courts is transferred to the magistrates’ court during the first hearing. We believe it is an anomaly that defendants can choose the type of court for their trial for certain offences. This system can be exploited, particularly when crown court backlogs are significant. Some defendants may choose to delay proceedings strategically, knowing that crown court hearings may take years to be scheduled and may eventually be dropped.

“We also support the establishment of intermediate courts to handle cases with maximum custodial sentences of two to five years, composed of a bench of one district judge and two lay magistrates working jointly for both fact-finding and sentencing. The involvement of active citizens – whether as part of a jury or a bench of magistrates – has been a cornerstone of our justice system for centuries. Therefore, magistrates’ involvement in all aspects of the case is crucial, especially in the absence of a jury, to maintain public confidence and ensure the lay perspective. Magistrates come from all walks of life; they are ordinary people with common sense and the capacity to make fair decisions.

“Youth courts and young adult defendants: In 2021, we published research on the maturity issues affecting 18-25-year-olds in magistrates’ courts and recommended that courts hearing cases involving this age group should be more aware of maturity issues. Given the underutilisation of youth magistrates due to the reduction in cases coming to court where the defendant is under 18, we propose that in cases where a defendant is aged 18-25, at least one magistrate but ideally more on the bench should be a trained youth magistrate.

“Resolving bottlenecks: The changes that we propose would make a dramatic difference to crown court backlogs, but they are not cost-free. There are serious bottlenecks in magistrates’ courts too, particularly with the lack of availability of legal advisers and probation officers needed to support magistrates, which often leads to delays and cancellations. So, to be most effective, reforms would need to go together with more court resources – especially targeted at these bottlenecks. There must be a long-term, sustainable and considered investment in the whole criminal justice system, which we and many others have long called for.”