Criminal Courts and Lay People
- Created by: Holly Jackson
- Created on: 04-05-15 09:42
View mindmap
- Criminal Courts and Lay People
- Magistrates
- Role
- Hear 97% of cases
- Summary and some triable-either-way offenses
- Committal proceedings (see procedure)
- Sentence
- Custodial
- Up to 6 months imprisonment
- Community
- Fine
- Up to £5000 fine
- Discharge
- Custodial
- Issueing sarch and arrest warrents
- Youth Court
- 10-17 years old
- At least one of each gender
- Must be specially trained
- Continued detensuion under PACE
- Hear 97% of cases
- Qualification & Appointmnt
- Recommended to the local advisory committee
- 6 Key qualities
- Good character
- Sound Judgement
- Social Awareness
- Undertanding & communication
- Maturity & sound temperment
- Commitment & reliability
- Interviews
- First Interview
- 6 Key qualities
- Good character
- Sound Judgement
- Social Awareness
- Undertanding & communication
- Maturity & sound temperment
- Commitment & reliability
- Attitudes towards things like youth crime or drink driving
- 6 Key qualities
- Second Interview
- Judicial aplitude
- Case study and sentencing options discussion
- Judicial aplitude
- First Interview
- LAC recommend to LC
- Elegablility
- 18-65 years old
- Retire by 70
- Live or work locally
- 18-65 years old
- Disqualifications
- Police
- Certain criminals
- Bankrupts
- Training
- Appointment
- Core Training & activities
- First sitting
- Mentored sitting
- Consolidation training (9-12 months)
- Appraisal (12-18 months)
- Ajucate in court as wingers
- 3 years continuous training until appraisal in 4th year
- Ajucate in court as wingers
- Appraisal (12-18 months)
- Consolidation training (9-12 months)
- Mentored sitting
- First sitting
- Core Training & activities
- Appointment
- Advantages
- Local knowledge
- Patterns of crime
- Local events and opinion
- DPP v Paul
- D picked up a prostitute in his car
- Magistrates used local knowledge that this was a frequent behaviour and convicted
- Cross-section of society
- 51% women
- since reforms in 1998
- Fewer appeals
- Only 5,00 out of 2 million
- Less than 1/2 are successful
- Cost
- Saves around £100 million a year that it would take to replace them with single judges
- Public Confidence
- Trial by peer
- Not case-hardened
- Local knowledge
- Disadvantages
- Prosecution Bias
- Acquittal rate is only 20%
- Crown court is 60%
- Believe police too redily
- Jowitt
- "My principle in such cases has always been to trust the evidence of the police officer"
- Acquittal rate is only 20%
- Not representatve
- Middle aged, middle class
- 40% are retired
- Only 4% are below the age of 40
- Mostly from manegerial or proffessional backgrounds
- Sentence variation
- Dweeling Burglary = community sentence
- 20% in Teeside
- 66% in Leicester
- Dweeling Burglary = community sentence
- Too relient on legal advisor
- Ahmed
- Legal adviser had been inviting himself to retite with the magistrates
- Ahmed
- Prosecution Bias
- Role
- Procedure
- Appeal Courts
- From the Magistrates Court
- Crown Court (Defense only)
- Queens Bench Division (case-stated)
- Supreme Court (case-stated)
- Queens Bench Division (case-stated)
- Queens Bench Division (case-stated)
- Supreme Court (case-stated)
- Crown Court (Defense only)
- From the Crown Court
- Court of Appeal (leave granted)
- Supreme Court (leave granted)
- Court of Appeal (leave granted)
- From the Magistrates Court
- First Hearing
- Plea before venue
- Guilty
- Can reduce sentence by a 1/3
- Not Guilty
- Case continues
- Guilty
- Bail
- Bail Act 1967
- Legal Aid
- Financial Support
- State funded?
- Representation
- Own Brief
- Duty Solicitor
- Lawyer provided by court
- Financial Support
- Plea before venue
- Mode of Trial
- Sentencing powers
- Magistrates
- Up to 6 months imprisonment
- Up to £5000 fine
- Crown
- Statutory Maximum
- Magistrates
- Triable-either-way
- D gets choice of which court trial is heard in.
- Unless Magistrates feel they do not have adequate sentencing powers.
- Can be heard in either court
- E.g. theft, ABH
- D gets choice of which court trial is heard in.
- Sentencing powers
- Appeal Courts
- Juries
- Role
- Used in less than 1% of Criminal Cases
- Split Function
- Independence of jury
- Bushells Case 1670
- Judge locked up the jury and refused to feed them until they came to a decision which agreed with his own
- Bushells Case 1670
- Independence of jury
- Verdict
- Unanimous verdict is prefered
- Majority verdicts of 11:1 or 10:2 can be accepted
- Must have been at least 2 hours and 10 minutes of discussion first
- Foreman must stand and give numbers
- Must have been at least 2 hours and 10 minutes of discussion first
- Jury Equity
- Ability to make decisions freely
- Based off of conscience rather than law
- R v Blythe
- D cultivated cannabis for his wife who was suffering from ms
- Pleaded "duress of circumstances"
- Jury aqcitted dispite the clear evidence that he had committed a crime
- R v Ponting
- Clive Ponting, a civil servant in the Ministry of Defense, leaked information about the sinking of the Belgrano in the Fawlklands
- Contrary to the Officials Secrets Act
- Aqcitted him as they felt it was of public improtance
- Clive Ponting, a civil servant in the Ministry of Defense, leaked information about the sinking of the Belgrano in the Fawlklands
- R v Blythe
- Judge may direct the jury to acquit if he feels there is "no case to answer"
- 10% of cases
- Secrecy
- Failure to do so will be in contempt of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
- May lead to any convictions being quashed
- R v Young
- Jurors used a Ouija bored to decide on D's guild - finding him guilty
- Conviction was quashed but when the case was reheard he was still found guiilty
- Failure to do so will be in contempt of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
- Selection & Appointment
- Selection Process
- Central Summoning Bureau
- Pool of 20 are selected
- Anyone illegible is removed
- Court clerk will randomly select 12
- Anyone illegible is removed
- Pool of 20 are selected
- Central Summoning Bureau
- Challenging and Vetting
- "To The Array"
- Challenge the whole jury
- For being bias or unrepresentative
- Romford Jury
- 9/12 jurors were from Romford
- 2 lived in the same street
- Challenge the whole jury
- "Stand By"
- Only Prosecution
- Put a juror to the bottom of the selection list
- Vetting
- Can see the list of potential jurors before court selection
- Check backgrounds and police records
- Check for political sympathies in sensitive cases
- Permission from Attorney General
- E.g. Fraud, Terrorism, ect
- "For Cause"
- R v Sprason & Wilson
- D's had been charged with robbery and were on remand at Exeter Prison
- A juror was the wife of a prison officer there and knew the D's
- Despite, her raising the issue before the case, her original concern was rejected until after the case when the case was quashed.
- Most likely because they are personally known
- R v Sprason & Wilson
- "To The Array"
- Selection Process
- Advantages
- Trial by peer
- Magna Carta 1215
- Allowed trial by jury and guarenteed the civil rights ofindividuals
- Magna Carta 1215
- Bastion of liberty against the state
- Lord Devlin: "the lamp that shows that freedom lives"
- Independance from judges and the executive
- Not case hardened
- Only sit for two weeks
- Makes them more lenient
- No individual responsibility
- Lord Devlin: "12 is better than 1"
- Jury Equity
- Ability to make decisions freely
- Based off of conscience rather than law
- R v Blythe
- D cultivated cannabis for his wife who was suffering from ms
- Pleaded "duress of circumstances"
- Jury aqcitted dispite the clear evidence that he had committed a crime
- R v Ponting
- Clive Ponting, a civil servant in the Ministry of Defense, leaked information about the sinking of the Belgrano in the Fawlklands
- Contrary to the Officials Secrets Act
- Aqcitted him as they felt it was of public improtance
- Clive Ponting, a civil servant in the Ministry of Defense, leaked information about the sinking of the Belgrano in the Fawlklands
- R v Blythe
- Judge may direct the jury to acquit if he feels there is "no case to answer"
- 10% of cases
- Secrecy
- Failure to do so will be in contempt of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
- May lead to any convictions being quashed
- R v Young
- Jurors used a Ouija bored to decide on D's guild - finding him guilty
- Conviction was quashed but when the case was reheard he was still found guiilty
- Failure to do so will be in contempt of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
- Trial by peer
- Disadvantages
- Slow and expensive
- A single judge would be much cheaper
- Media
- Can cause cases to be quashed
- Taylor Sisters
- Convictions were quashed when they appealed at the CA
- Would be impossible for them to get a fair trial because of the media coverage
- Jury nobbling
- A judge can hear a case without a jury under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
- R v Twomey
- Judge chose to hear the armed robbery trial without a jury
- Serious chances of the jury being influenced
- Lack of knowledge and understanding
- R v Price
- The case had to be reheard by a new juryafter the first one was deadlocked and failed to understand the most "basic concept" of trial
- Asked to define reasonable doubt and if they could speculate information not present in evidence
- R v Price
- Slow and expensive
- Role
- Magistrates
Comments
No comments have yet been made