ay people are the public citizens that participate in court. These would be the jurors and the magistrates. A study conducted in 2000-2001 saw that the public view magistrates as a great example of a citizen’s active involvement in the legal system. But what exactly do they do? Are they still a valid contribution in today’s law?
We might as well burn our money on the spot
We might as well burn our money on the spot
The magistrate’s bench
The magistrate’s bench
Lay magistrates are unpaid volunteers that sit in on the court proceedings at the top of the court, with one expert magistrate, they listen to the court proceeding. When the court proceedings are finished the jury come up with the
verdict, if the verdict is guilty then the magistrates come up with the punishment.
If we took the lay magistrates and replaced them with judges it would cost about £100 million, and where would this money come from? That’s right, you, the taxpayer. Do we seriously want any more of the taxpayers’ money be wasted unnecessarily?
It is cheaper to hold a magistrate’s court with lay magistrates is cheaper than crown court and more efficient as it gets though cases quicker. The magistrates are also more available then the judges.
The idea that people on trial will be judged by their peers is reassuring to the person(s) on trial and the public because the peer judging represents
them and knows what they want and how they feel.
As a magistrate is a member of the local public wouldn’t they know the problems? Based on this they would make a decision that is appeasing to the local public. A good example of why a good knowledge of the local area is important is the case of Paul v DPP 1989. Magistrates used a good knowledge of the local area when convicting a kerb crawler and Woolf LJ stated
