The Magistrates' Association has just published its plan to ensure that magistrates are valued, appreciated and recognised.
The thirty-page Magistrates Matter report, which you can view here, highlights the challenges faced by the Ministry of Justice as it tries to bolster magistrate numbers by around one-third.
To achieve such an increase, the Magistrates' Association contends that there needs to be a fundamental shift in the strategy for the recruitment and retention of magistrates.
It has proposed seven key reforms, which it hopes will ensure magistrates feel valued and supported in the role:
1. Establish a clear multi-year recruitment and retention strategy for the
magistracy, across all roles.
2. Develop means to capture the number of hours magistrates volunteer each
year, including for additional roles taken up.
3. Establish a magistrates' Volunteer Charter.
4. Introduce an annual Magistrates' Attitude Survey.
5. Create regular, structured feedback opportunities for magistrates.
6. Introduce a magistrates' long service medal, awarded at ten years' service.
7. Expand local recognition events.
You can read more detail on each of these reforms in the report and I am broadly in agreement with each of them. What I would say, certainly from a personal point of view, I do not perform the role of magistrate for any sort of recognition. I do it for the mental stimulation; the satisfaction of serving my community; to fulfil my own inquisitiveness; and for the camaraderie. I am sure the majority of colleagues would share that sentiment. Medals and recognition events really aren't my thing, but I am sure they will appeal to some.
Three additions I would make to the list:
- Improved communication;
- Improved magistrate training, development and succession planning;
- Fair recompense;
- Not being taken for granted.
Looking more closely now at each of these in turn:
Improved communication:
Magistrates need to be kept informed of the latest goings on in their own area. The Judicial Intranet Newsletter is shared every week via eJudiciary. It is very thorough, but not very relevant to magistrates. Changes in law and procedure are disseminated via the Sentencing Council or Judicial College as the need arises. Bench newsletters vary considerably in both quality and frequency, although I cannot be too critical about that as they are generally produced by the volunteer bench leadership team who already have considerable burdens on their time.
From my own point of view I need information relevant to the venues I sit at and the colleagues I sit with. If the car park barrier at Bontlins Magistrates' Court is broken, then that's something colleagues need to know. If courtroom 1 has a leaking roof, so all the work is being allocated to courtroom 5 - the dirtiest and dingiest in the building that is only fit for storage - then that's something colleagues need to know. If the cells at Chortley Magistrates' Court are closed due to heating problems, then that's something colleagues sitting at Bontlins, who find themselves dealing with twice as many remand cases, need to know.
I've previously written about the challenges facing the Rota Unit. They have a very difficult job to do and generally do it very well, but there are still occasions where a court is cancelled and the bench turns up oblivious to the fact. This can be a very inconvenient wasted journey for the magistrates concerned, who may have taken a day off work or travelled many miles. I am reminded of a situation in the not too distant past where four of us turned up to sit in the same court. As I lived the nearest, I gave up my sitting for the new colleague who had unexpectedly turned in
Improved magistrate training, development and succession planning:
Due to the age demographic of the bench it tends to be older, more experienced magistrates who do the bulk of the work and wear multiple different hats. They might sit on the youth or family panel, might be a presiding justice, an appraiser, a mentor, on the bench leadership team or a committee member.
Many of these roles require a significant time commitment in addition to a magistrates' normal sittings, which is another reason they tend to attract older, retired types. When these older, retired types leave the magistracy they leave behind big shoes and the process of filling those shoes often doesn't begin until after they have gone.
As an example, suppose a bench has five presiding justices due for retirement at the end of the year. It would be sensible to train five wingers in anticipation, so they can slot into a presiding justice role as and when the need arises. However, what tends to happen is that training is only organised when vacancies actually exist - e.g. after the outgoing presiding justices have retired. There is nothing more depressing than a young, enthusiastic magistrate enquiring about a training opportunity only to be told "we don't need anyone, apply when we do".
When one of the multiple-hatted, experienced magistrates leave then there will be a vacancy for a replacement. However, because they performed that many different roles, you'd probably need to recruit two or three new magistrates to get the same level of output. Recruiting and appointing new magistrates is a time consuming and convoluted process.
Fair recompense:
Magistrates are volunteers who give their time freely and without expectation of financial reward. However, the system recognises - or at least, it once did - that magistrates should not be left out of pocket for performing their judicial duties. To that end there are a series of allowances and expenses that a magistrate is able to claim (see current rates). In my own case I will probably claim around £20 for a full day in court, which includes both subsistence and travel on public transport.
I have always been very fortunate in that my employer grants paid leave for my court sittings. However, many employed magistrates need to take unpaid leave and therefore rely on financial loss allowance to make up the shortfall. An employed magistrate can currently claim a maximum of £107.97 in financial loss allowance for every full day sitting. This equates to an hourly rate of £13.50, which I think most people would agree is a fairly modest sum. A significant proportion of employed magistrates earn more than £13.50 an hour, so by claiming financial loss allowance they would actually be left out of pocket. The rate of financial loss allowance has not changed in more than a decade, despite the cost of living having increased by 40 percent. It's about time these rates were updated.
I have never claimed motor vehicle allowance, because I tend to use public transport to travel to and from court. A few years ago the top rate of motor vehicle allowance was decreased from 58 pence per mile (for gas guzzling cars) to 45 pence per mile (for all cars - petrol, hybrid or electric). My bench has a wide geographic footprint, so a lot of colleagues live "out in the sticks" and have large, gas guzzling cars.
It would not be uncommon for a magistrate on my bench to have a hundred-mile round trip to and from court. For every hundred-mile round trip a magistrate driving a gas guzzler now receives £13 less in motor vehicle allowance. That is a significant hit and I understand their frustration. Of course had the rate always been 45 pence per mile then there wouldn't be a problem. The thing that sticks in their throats is the previous entitlement to 58 pence per mile, which has now been significantly reduced.
Subsistence can be claimed to cover any expenses necessarily incurred by a magistrate during their judicial duties. In simple terms this means food and drink during a day in court. Subsistence is paid at a flat rate depending on the length of a magistrate's judicial duty. The clock starts the moment they leave their home or place of work and stops when they return there, so it includes time travelling to and from court.
No subsistence is payable for less than 4 hours, so any magistrate living just around the corner from the courthouse might be out of luck if they only do a half day sitting. The current rate for a duty of between 4 and 8 hours is £7.45. The rate for a duty of between 8 and 12 hours is £10.38. The rate for a duty exceeding 12 hours is £19.60. These rates have not increased in more than a decade, despite the cost of living having increased by 40 percent. It's about time these rates were updated.
As mentioned earlier, there can be considerable additional workload associated with bench leadership roles and committee membership. The expectations of the bench chair can be particularly onerous, often with several meetings a week, attendance at training sessions, networking events, pastoral duties and reduced sittings in court. It is bloody hard work and certainly not the sinecure it might have been a few decades ago.
I was talking to the chair of a neighbouring bench (I often sit out of area remember), who had attended court that day to present long service certificates. I was astounded to learn that he had paid for the frames out of his own pocket and was unable to claim any reimbursement. I really do believe that the bench chair should receive a special allowance for all the additional work they do.
Advisory committee members are another group who work particularly hard, often spending several days a month interviewing prospective new magistrates and all the background administration that goes along with that. I would happily pay them a special allowance as well.
Not being taken for granted:
For all magistrates are volunteers who give their time freely, that does not make their time any less valuable. It is universally accepted that the court starts its business at 10 o'clock in the morning; 2 o'clock in the afternoon, yet those timings are regularly delayed - very rarely at the fault of the court. The bench should never be sat around twiddling their thumbs waiting for something to be done that should have been done already.
Every time I am in court I make a point of thanking the advocates, legal advisor and usher at the end of the day and wishing them a pleasant evening or weekend as appropriate. I do the same in the retiring room before the wingers leave. When was the last time a manager paid me the same courtesy? I really can't remember. Similarly, I have no trouble at all telling the legal advisor "that was really good" or "thanks for explaining it that way", but rarely are the roles reversed.
I do vaguely remember once when the legal advisor collared me and said "When you were out Mrs Green (prosecutor) said the way you explained that last bail decision was spot on". Little things like that really do make all the difference.
