The document compares the roles and functions of judges, lawyers, magistrates, and juries, highlighting their responsibilities and the pros and cons of each within the legal system. It details the advantages of local knowledge and community representation provided by magistrates, while discussing the need for professional judges in more complex cases. Additionally, it critiques jury effectiveness in trials, addressing potential biases and influences on verdicts.

1. By Lee James Partington

2. Compare and contrast the role and function of
Judges, Lawyers, Magistrates & Juries.
Judges
Lawyers
Magistrates
Juries
Solicitors
Barristers
Presides over
the court
Gives advice
(Majority)
Gives advice
(Minority)
Presides over
the court
Social
responsibility.
Can’t refuse
Paid (Job)
Employed
(can be self
employed
after 3yrs
practice)
Self Employed
Volunteers
(can claim
expenses and
lost wages)
Unpaid (can
claim
expenses and
some lost
wages)
Don’t decide
on verdict
Represents
(Minority)
Represents
(Majority)
Decides upon
verdict
Decides upon
verdict
Expected to
have legal
knowledge
Liaises with
public
Not allowed to Not expected
liaise with
to have legal
public unless
knowledge
they’re
professionals
Not expected
to have legal
knowledge

3. Advantages of the lay magistracy
over District Judges
 With Magistrates, you are judged by your peers. They have
excellent local knowledge because they have to live within a
15 mile radius of the court in which they work.
 A case where local knowledge came in handy was Bowman
v DPP [1991] where the defendant drove with excess alcohol,
at high speed around a multi-storey car park shortly after
midnight. Was the car park "a public place" within the
meaning of the Act. The magistrates (one of whom lived
near the car park, and another of whom used it regularly)
used their own knowledge that the barriers were raised at
night so that motorists used it freely, and convicted.

4. Statistics on Magistrates
 There are slightly more women (50.6 per cent) than
men, and just under eight per cent of magistrates
identify themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority
- almost exactly the proportion found in the
population as a whole.
 Even though anyone aged 18 to 65 can become a
magistrate, the average age is over 50, although there
are campaigns to get younger people to become
magistrates.

5. Magistrates are unpaid, although
they can claim expenses
These expenses are capped as follows:
 58p per mile. (29p per mile if you cycle)
 Financial loss allowance: Up to four hours £46.63. Over
four hours: £93.27
 Night subsistence: £100.00
 Day Subsistence 4 – 8 hours: £7.45
 Day Subsistence 8 – 12 hours: £10.38
 Day Subsistence Over 12 hours: £19.60

6. Disadvantages of the lay
magistracy over District Judges
 They may be far removed and out of touch with the
realities of life as they tend to be middle aged and middle
class
 Just because they live within 15 miles of the court, if they
live in Marple, does this mean they have any clue about
Brinnington?
 They could become case hardened, having seen the same
types of cases over and over again. One such case was that
of a man who, after a night out, entered the wrong house
instead of his own. The magistrate didn’t take his
intoxication, lack of threat or the fact he didn’t steal
anything or force entry into account before convicting him
of burglary. This case was overturned on appeal.

7. District Judges: Pros and Cons
 They tend to be ex solicitors (around 85%) so may
come from a variety of backgrounds because it is not
just the ‘elite’ who now practice law, this means they
may be more in touch with the people they represent.
 District Judges do not have to live in the local area and
therefore may not have any knowledge at all about the
type of backgrounds that the defendants come from.
 The taxpayer has to pay for the salaries of judges and
not magistrates.

8. Conclusion as to the worth of the
magistracy as opposed to District Judges
 All cases start at Magistrates Court. If Judges had to
see every case, it would cost the tax payer a fortune.
 Magistrates theoretically have local knowledge
 They are lay-people who are seeing the case as you or I
would see it (with assistance from a clerk who advises
them on points of law)
 If they make a mistake, it CAN be appealed and go to a
Judge

9. Two situations where ‘it will depend’ on whether the
magistracy are more valuable to the English Court as
opposed to District Judges
1) If the case is a simple one, then clearly there is no
need to waste tax-payer money having a Judge deal
with it. However, if it is more complicated then
perhaps having a Judge deal with it is best.
2) If the person in question feels they stand a better
chance of getting a favourable verdict with a Jury
than with three old magistrates then a Judge is best,
however if they just want it dealt with as soon as
possible, a Magistrate is best.

10. Advantages and Disadvantages of
using a jury in a criminal case
 A Jury is theoretically made up of 12 of your peers
 They don’t cost the tax-payer money
 They won’t have seen loads of cases so they’ll be taking
it on it’s merit, not just “Oh, not this again”
 They may struggle to come up with a verdict ‘beyond a
reasonable doubt’
 Being as they can’t refuse Jury Service, there may be
some that just go along with the majority so they can
get out of it quicker

11. Situations where ‘it will depend’ on
whether the jury are really effective
 Since Juries are not legal experts, they are not bound to follow the precedent of
past cases and don’t have to give reasons for their verdict, they can decide cases
based on ‘fairness’. However in some circumstances, this type of decision can
be seen as a perverse decision and one which is not justified. Juries have
refused to convict in clear-cut cases such as R v Randle and Pottle (1991). The
Jury acquitted them, possibly as a protest at the length of time between the
offence and the prosecution.
 Media coverage may influence Jurors, especially in high profile cases. One such
case was R v West (1996) where she appealed against her conviction because
the media coverage made it impossible for her to receive a fair trial.
 Although Jurors have no direct interest in the case, they may have prejudices,
eg racial or may be biased against the police, this could affect the outcome of a
trial.
 Furthermore, because the Jurors have no legal expertise, they may not fully
understand the case in hand.

12. Judgement on the effectiveness of
juries in criminal cases
 In an ideal world, Juries are an ideal way of ensuring a
fair trial. Sadly we don’t live in an ideal world and as
previously mentioned, may things can influence a Jury.
Be it bias, media coverage, not understanding what’s
going on, not wanting to be there, wanting to get it
over with as soon as possible or any number of other
things.
 However, until someone comes up with a better idea,
Juries remain the best way to go if a case warrants it.