Even more interesting was the suggestion in the fairly recent past that certain legally qualified magistrates who have chosen to sit as lay JP's would be able to fast track to the DJ role.
On enquiring about the progress of this proposal with the Judicial Appointments Commission recently I was told effectively to 'bog off'. So much for trying to encourage people into the higher judiciary!!
We invited a DJ to our annual bench dinner, but his selection of music was lousy and too loud so we won't be asking him again.
The power of three magistrates, able to leap tall piles of 27B/6 forms in a single bound?
Do you see DJs as more like Super Magistrates, or Nerfed Judges? For extra credit, would they agree with your opinion?
Biggest problem with DJs' is that they get priority in the Biscuit selection stakes -- all the humble JPs' get, are plain boring non chocolate types!!
Biscuits...you get biscuits??? We used to but sadly they have gone the way of our legal advisers...
Quote - "District Judges backed up by a bench of JPs." It used to be the other way round!
We get 'free' biscuits in all our retiring rooms - wow! The selection varies from week to week and appears to depend on what is on special offer at the local Tesco's store. We have even been known to retire specially for a coffee break 'coz new good quality bikkies appeared in the tin overnight -- sad or what!
Bystander don't be too sure of the absence of a plan to replace JP's. As well as DJ's there are numerous Deputy DJ's and Legal Advisers are increasingly using "delegated powers" which allow them to sit with the powers of a single Magistrate! Many of my colleagues feel the writing is on the wall.
DJ's cost £94,000 per annum, Bystander does it for tea and biscuits. Simple economics.
>Biscuits...you get biscuits??? We used to but sadly they have gone the way of our legal advisers...
You dunked your legal advisers in your tea and then ate them? That's one way to keep costs down, I suppose.
@Rod: DJ's cost £94,000 per annum, Bystander does it for tea and biscuits.
Yes, but judges have extra costs to pay for.
In another subject entirely, I notice the Court of Appeal has put a nail in the coffin of Indeterminate sentences. Since an appeal is in the works, I wonder if the Huse of Lords is going to bury the body or re-animate Frankenstein?
1. Legal aid out the window (no income)
2. Second rate solicitors (no income) applying to be Deputy DJ's
3. Second rate solicitors (no income) accepted as Deputy DJ's
4. Deputy DJ's become DJ's
5. DJ's are usually failed singers
We're f....d
Hang in there, Bystander.
When I used to frequent the Magistrates' I used to pine for a DJ when in front of the sort of lay bench that would retire to consider whether they should retire during a long remand list.
I was once ranting outside Sutton Magistrates' Court that 'what they need here is a f***ing DJ or two to sort out the remand list and the lay benches can do the trials'.
Sutton is an example of a court without a DJ that routinely sits till 6pm and often still hasn't finished its list.
biscuits - we had a clerk who went off touring and gave to the retiring room a biscuit tin to remember her input to the court, now filled only when one mag - usually me, takes the cost of a packet out of the daily lunch allowance. Maybe things will change if we get a DJ sitting with us....
Some of you know how to turn the knife, don't you? My court did away with biscuits years ago, a trauma that is aggravated when we go to a nearby courthouse for training or meetings and find tin after tin of Tesco's chocolate selection. My Bench Chairman tells me that HMCS London HQ sources sandwiches and suchlike from M & S.
Luxury!
Ooh, wig and gown - the reason that Sutton regularly sits until 6 pm (and yes I AM a Sutton magistrate)is because of the idiots who appear before us 'not being ready having only got the brief the night before' or with the excuse 'I need to take instructions from my client' (this being at 10 am when the trial is due to begin)
Perhaps when baby barristers actually are properly trained without the attitude that surburban criminal work is beneath them, we will get proper advocacy on which proper decisions can then be made.
Wig and Gown. I resent your remarks about Sutton Magistrates Court. Does it occur to you that it might be a shortage of Court Clerks that could be the reason for some delays? I can assure you that DJs would not have the slightest effect. Next time try and get you facts right before attacking Magistrates serving the community for a lot less £94000.00 a year.
Axman.
Wig & Gown - I support the remarks from Axman. Let it be stated, I am not in favour of capital punishment but your ill informed remarks about Sutton Magistrates' Court (SMC) suggest it should be brought back for ill-informed twits like you.
Has it occurred to you that apart from a shortage of legal advisers another reason SMC cannot clear the work in hand is because the CPS cannot provide sufficient prosecutors to allow us to hold additional courts. SMC has the court room capacity and JP's willing to sit for additionally scheduled courts but without the CPS resources to be in court this is not going to happen.
In any event I also agree with southlondonjp that if defendants legal reps were better prepared for their cases to go ahead on time sitting until after 6pm would become an experience for anecdotal reminiscence.
So Wig & Gown, make sure of your facts before you point fingers at the bench of JP's.
Forget the Court Clerks, it looks like the biscuits are the lubricant of the English Legal System. I shall write to my MP at once suggesting how this simple course of action will improve the waiting time for justice almost immediately....
Our bench has the selection of chocolate biscuits I could only dream of as a child.
Trouble is, now I'm an adult, I'd rather a bowl of fruit.
And that isn't on offer
My comments were directed at the speed of a lay bench vs a DJ - a fact that none of you have chosen to address.
I fully accept that if there are only two courts running rather than four, it will take twice as long.
The point I am making is that a District Judge will almost always get through a list quicker than a lay bench, either because you have three people making a decision and/or they are general slower at making said decision than a professional Judge.
I am well aware of the shortage of Prosecutors, Clerks, Garabaldis etc but that is a different point entirely with which I have sympathy.
As for getting the brief the night before and meeting your client for the first time at 9.58 when they arrive at court - its rather an invidious position no?
Now, having read my point, feel free to call for my hanging, suggest that I am an idiot or suggest I don't know the facts - for it was a little premature before.
W&G
Wig and Gown - most of the time frankly it is the barristers who arrive at 9.55 having been too stupid or lazy to ask their clerks where the Court is actually situated.
Perhaps you should lay the blame at those instructing you for not getting instructions to you earlier (sadly trials are often now being set at least 6 weeks in advance - surely time for even the thickest barrister to be briefed) rather than laying your shortcomings at the feet of the magistrates
Next time you sit howling outside on the steps of the court, perhaps you might like to remember that magistates are no longer 'woodentops' who get to the bench merely because they know the local mayor or feudal lord, but instead they are highly trained individuals having gone through a selection and training process as onerous and thorough as any paid appointee. We do the job once or twice a month on top of all our other commitments and work requirements. Perhaps if (like DJ's) we did it day after day we too would be able to dispense justice faster - but fast justice is not always fair or good justice. Even if it might allow you to get back to chambers to do something more remunerative and worthy of your immense ego oops, I meant legal brain.
SouthLondonJP - Try as you might, I'm simply not going to rise to your level of personal abuse.
Why are pupils / the junior bar briefed the night before? Simple, the constant cost cutting means that Solicitors must try and keep as much as they can in house. This invariably means that a trial is sent out the night before if it can't be covered in house. Sometimes a brief is in chambers and has to be returned to someone else in chambers. It frankly doesn't matter how far in advance you set a trial date, the situation isn't going to change.
You say that "most of the time frankly it is the barristers who arrive at 9.55 having been too stupid or lazy to ask their clerks where the Court is actually situated."
How do you know that they are Barristers? How do you know what time they turned up at court? How do you know what time the client turned up at court?
Finally, you have addressed my point (and seemingly agree), that if you sat more often, you would be quicker. I have no problem with that, in fact, I fully support this.
My point has been and continues to be, that lay benches are slower than DJ's. They are not less intelligent, nor without proper training, nor appointed without a rigorous selection process.
W&G
PS: Do you have the same level of disdain for the local Solicitors who are just as exasperated, or is just the Bar?
I have to say that South London JP should not be sitting at all given his presumption that all barristers have large egos, are geographically challenged and inadequately prepared.
I would not dare to suggest that all lay magistrates are exactly the same. I have been in front of plenty of lay magistrates who have shown reasoned logic, compassion and performed their duties efficiently. I have also appeared in front of some who are slow and ill-equipped to do their job.
Surely it is about the individual in front of you? Perhaps you have a great deal of poor quality solicitors in your area who brief barristers at the last minute because they can't be bothered to attend themselves and don't bother to provide a proper brief. Often barristers are there picking up the pieces of a badly prepared case or dealing with the inadequacies of the CPS. If you are so quick to jump to conclusions without the full facts and display such prejudice, I fear for the poor defendants who appear in front of you.
Wig & Gown
"The point I am making is that a District Judge will almost always get through a list quicker than a lay bench, either because you have three people making a decision and/or they are general slower at making said decision than a professional Judge."
I don't want a quick decision. I want a right one. Not necessarily the forte of DJ.
Rod - why isn't the correct decision necessarily the forte of DJ's? Why are lay benches more likely to make the correct decision.
Not a criticism, just asking for clarification.
Re Tim Workman sitting with magistrates- he was only able to do so as he is a JP. (Unlike the Youth Panel where DJs can still sit with justices, but regretably, rarely do. However, since the BTDC has not approved his as a presider on our bench, he was 'voted' as the presiding justice by the other two justices!
Re Rod- you understate the cost of DJs substantially. What about NI and their virtually non-contributory pension?
Chairman of Westminster Bench
New boy on the bench
good to hear there are new people around - our bench static for last 2 years, why not do what I did and shake them up and create some new habits...
If you do not change them now - who will?
Fruit and Biscuits!
W&G
Strange as it may seem to you, we do talk to our wonderful court ushers who often tell us the time that barristers turn up at court. Indeed ironically I have been waiting at the exit barrier of Sutton Station at 9.30 to be asked by a young barrister where the magistrates court was - it is in fact in Wallington (2 stops away) and the look of horror on this person's face was sadly typical.
I am myself a solicitor in private practice (though not in Sutton) and fully understand the pressure of legal aid on costs. However our local regular solicitors rarely ever do trial advocacy themeselves since it is indeed cheaper to get a barrister down from chambers. That being the case, there seems little need to delay the sending of briefs to chambers to the night before. If you have a problem with briefs being passed on in chanmbers, get a better clerk or change chambers. Just because something has been done in one way from time immemorial does not mean it is right and cannot be brought into the 21st century. E mail anyone?
As for the attitude of young barristers, (and yes, we can tell the difference between counsel and solicitors, not least because the name form you are asked to sign requests you to indicate!!) I have faced enough patronising young bloods (who of course do not know either my or my colleagues backgrounds) to know when someone is inadequately prepared or trained and tries to cover up for these inadequacies with bluster.
Do I treat the defendants fairly - absolutely - I take my judicial oath extremely seriously but often they are not well served by those who purport to represent them and to criticise a lay bench for the shortcomings of the advocates is not worthy of a member of the bar.
I certainly started something with the biscuits comment. It would appear that the best interests of Justice are currently NOT being served in biscuit free courts. Is this fair?
My suggestions that an ongoing supply of the best selection available, to Magistrates (particularly Bystander), be included in CJSSS as it would surely speed up the court process.
A chocolate biscuit filled JP must be more efficient!
But its perfectly worthy of the lay bench to suggest that all members of the Bar are lazy, inept and egomanical?
We seem to agree that lay benches *generally* slower than DJ for a number of reasons.
I don't intend to carry on with this discussion because frankly, I can do without the abuse that creeps into each of your posts.
W & G has a point. I shall remove any further yah-boo JPs/barristers are crap/brilliant/lazy/dedicated stuff.
Enough already!
W & G may have a point, but also misses the point. I cannot see the fairness in 1 person being Judge and Jury. I can think of no other tribunal where this happens. It also may be the case that a DJ takes less time because s/he does not need to consult. I'm sure there are many experienced Court Chairmen who could do the same with equal rapidity, but would it be fair and just?
Lo scarofaggio - you certainly raise an interesting issues as to whether it is fair and just having one person decide.
But is it any fairer to have 3 people sit as Judge and Jury?
Some would say it would be fairer to have a separation between Judge and Jury in ALL trials?
The bottom line is that we do have DJs and Lay Benches and both are deemed fair as things stand
As for experienced Chairs sitting alone, that sounds like an interesting concept that ought to be explored.
@wig and gown
I've seen a few DJ's in action with some good,some bad (as I'm sure you have). I can also think of one or two experienced chairs who would be superb, and more than capable of running a court single handed. And they wouldn't be a pushover for stroppy Barristers!!!!
W&G
"Rod - why isn't the correct decision necessarily the forte of DJ's? Why are lay benches more likely to make the correct decision.
Not a criticism, just asking for clarification."
Lay benches will not necessarily make the right decision. The Law is a wonderful thing and keeps the brain active. I sometimes get the impression that the 'professionals' believe it is a time to curtail such activity and dispense omnipotence. A couple of others, or a jury, sitting beside you might just help reign that in a bit.
Cases are stories and I don't see that a DJ can interpret them any faster or better than a lay bench. But the lay bench has the advantage of sowing reasonable doubt in each other, something not afforded to a single individual Judge.
Not for nothing is it it advisable to appear before a Jury rather than 3 Mags or, worse, a single Judge (unless you know him/her).
My criticism of the Court system in England is the barrier between client and Counsel and that certainly must account for slowing things down in an MC. Meeting your client 5 minutes before their case because you were up all night reading theirs and others' papers without clarification can only lead to poor advocacy, delay or disaster.
Sorry for delay answering your question. I wasn't following this thread.
Comparing numbers thus (150 DJs as against 30,000 JPs) misses the point - which is perhaps what the government wants. More relevant is a comparison of the number of courts taken by each type of magistrate.
DJs sit alone and are full time, so there are (roughly) 150 DJ courts a day. JPs sit in threes, and let's suppose once every ten days on average. This makes 1000 JP courts a day. So we have a total of 1150 courts a day, of which 150 are DJ courts - around 1 in 8; rather more significant, don't you think?
Suppose the number of DJs was increased by a modest 50; after all, 200 against 30,000 still sounds low. Assuming the same number of courts per day (1150), we would then have 200 DJ and 950 JP courts - a substantial increase to around 1 in 6. However, each JP would now sit (on average) once every 10.5 days, so would not notice a great difference.
I believe change like this (a tiny, almost imperceptible bit at a time but with substantial results) is known as "salami tactics".
Commenting by HaloScan
