Introduction to Criminal Justice – Magistrate’s Court Report
Student Number
17013234
Introduction
This report will analyse and evaluate a visit to a Magistrate’s Court, relating the cases heard back to the theory of criminal justice. The cases themselves will be outlined, stating the types of proceedings and their outcomes, as well as the key actors within the courtroom and its general atmosphere. Models of the criminal justice system will be used within the report to categorise the nature of the system observed through the viewing of different criminal cases.
Court Visited
The Magistrate’s Court in Bristol city centre was visited on Monday 20th November 2017 at 2 ‘o’clock in the afternoon. The procedures within the court were relatively informal when compared with the higher courts, but the magistrates still demanded and were shown respect. For example, each time they entered or exited, everyone within the courtroom was required to stand. The court actors did seem to take the defendants’ rights into account during the sentencing – for example in one of the cases, in which the defendant had pleaded not guilty to an either-way offence, their lawyer insisted on their right to trial in the Crown Court, and this was recognised and accepted by the magistrates.
Brief description of the cases
Three different cases were heard during this visit to the court – all of which dealt with different types of offences. In the first case heard, the defendant pleaded not guilty when charged with the offence of wounding with intended grievous bodily harm, so the magistrates had to consider the appropriate venue for the case to continue. Her lawyer insisted upon her right to a trial in the Crown Court, and since the victim had no serious injuries the defendant was granted bail on the condition that she would have no further contact with the victim.
In the second case heard, the defendant pleaded guilty to two offences – dangerous driving and criminal damage. He had followed his ex-girlfriend’s car in his own, attempting to swerve into her, and once she pulled over he proceeded to put his foot through her car’s windscreen and grab her throat. The defendant accepted full culpability and pleaded guilty, showing remorse and offering to pay for the damage he caused. The magistrates acknowledged this in their decided outcome – they stated that his offences were serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence, however, they would not issue one. They sentenced him to a 24-month long community order, 25 days of rehabilitation activities, a 16-month driving disqualification, and would fit him with an electronic tag with the guidelines that he must be at his home during the hours of 7pm-7am. The victim’s request for a restraining order to be put in place against the defendant was also approved, and he was required to pay for all damages caused.
The third case was the only one which resulted in a prison sentence. A man had breached a Domestic Violence Protection Order, put in place by the Magistrate’s Court after he was violent towards his partner, by being at the address he was prohibited to go to. There was some questioning by his lawyer over whether the information that he was at the address was obtained lawfully, since it was suggested that the police entered the property without authorisation from the victim. The magistrates decided that there was not enough evidence to confirm this, and the fact remained that he was found at the forbidden address. The outcome of the proceedings was that the defendant was sentenced to 18 weeks imprisonment. The fact that he was imprisoned would be unsurprising to many people since the defendant had already once been caught at the property and fined for this, so this was his second offence of the type, calling for a harsher punishment due to the fact that he seemed to need more deterrence. However, the magistrates stated that since the defendant had pleaded guilty to the offence, the sentence that he received of 18 weeks was a reduction from the 27 weeks that would usually have been given. Considering this was not the first time he has breached the order, this could be considered to be surprising. The defendant’s behaviour within the courtroom would add to this opinion since he showed no remorse and frequently answered back to the court actors, showing little respect.
Description of key actors
As briefly mentioned above, one of the defendants in the courtroom stood out from the rest due to the way in which he conducted himself throughout the hearing of his case. He failed to turn off his mobile phone and was visibly using it throughout his time in court, and even seemed to be taking photos with it, despite being told multiple times that it must be switched off. He simply replied each time by saying that it was in fact switched off since it was on ‘aeroplane mode’. This white male appeared to be in his thirties and of a lower social class in the way that he spoke, dressed and presented himself. People of a lower social class are often socially stigmatised and are economically marginalised, becoming many people’s stereotypical idea of a criminal. This particular defendant whose case was heard in the court on this day appeared to live up to this stereotype, although this is not always the case.
Other key actors within the courtroom were the magistrates, who heard the evidence and decided whether the defendants were guilty or not guilty to the offences. They imposed a penalty on those who pleaded guilty to their offences. The role of the magistrates in court is to ensure that justice is administered fairly and impartially. At this particular time and date that the court was visited, all three of the magistrates were white females, appearing to be aged between 55 and 65. Historically, magistrates have been regarded as too old, white and middle class. In 2002 the Lord Chancellor’s Department stated that its aim was to have a balanced bench; magistrates’ courts’ benches should broadly reflect the community which it serves in relation to ethnicity, occupation, geographical spread, political affiliation and gender. However, although the dominance of middle class creates an unbalanced bench and people of a lower social class may feel this is unfair, a person’s class does not actually inhibit their ability to uphold the law or make magisterial decisions. The three magistrates in this court room acted professionally, and took their time with deciding the outcomes of each case, ensuring all facts had been taken into consideration.
Relation to Packer’s models
Packer’s model of Due Process states that the most important function of the criminal justice system should be to provide fundamental fairness under the law, concentrating on the defendants’ rights. Another key argument within this model is that a person should only be found guilty if the government has followed legal procedures in its fact-finding. An issue surrounding this argument was directly discussed in the third case heard – the defence lawyer argued that the location of the defendant within the forbidden property had been discovered by the police unlawfully entering the property since they were not given consent. However, within the third case heard on this visit, some element of Packer’s Crime Control model was seen. The Crime Control model focuses on the fact that the repression of crime should be the most important function of criminal justice, since order is a necessary condition for a free society. It suggests that criminal justice should concentrate on vindicating victims’ rights rather than protecting those of the defendant, since its main objective should be to discover the truth or the factual guilt of the defendants. This relates to the third case heard because the sentencing put in place by the magistrates was an attempt to repress the criminal activity of the defendant. Since he had already offended once, then breached the Order put in place against him, a harsher punishment was required to deter him from re-offending. This decision is seemingly focused on the victim, since they will be safer if the defendant is successfully deterred. Both of Packer’s models can therefore be seen within the court proceedings witnessed on this day.
Reflection on the court visit
Visiting a Magistrate’s Court and watching the proceedings gave a real insight into how the courts are run and the exact roles of each actor. One aspect found to be surprising was the way in which the defendant in the third case behaved – it would be thought that when somebody is deciding your sentence in the formal setting of a courtroom, you would act appropriately and show them respect. Overall, the court proceedings seemed fair and just, with both the defendants’ and victims’ rights being taken into account. The level of smoothness that the courtroom operated under met expectations, even though proceedings were slightly less formal than previously thought.
Two research questions
How do the courts determine the way in which a guilty plea being presented affects the reduction of a defendant’s sentence?
Is the selection process for magistrates’ benches biased towards particular genders, political affiliations, geographical spreads, ethnicities, occupations or ages?
Conclusion
In conclusion, Magistrate’s Courts hear a variety of cases resulting in a large range of outcomes reached, within their sentencing powers. Each of the actors in the courtroom have a key role to play in ensuring that proceedings run smoothly and are completely lawful, taking into consideration both the defendants’ and victims’ rights. This report has also discussed the fact that arguments from Packer’s models on both Crime Control and Due Process are reflected in the modern criminal justice system, showing that there is a kind of balance between the two sides.