As many readers will already be aware, a Magistrates' Court is correctly constituted when it has a Bench consisting of either a (Deputy) District Judge or at least two (lay) Magistrates.
In the case of Magistrates, all have an equal say in any decisions taken by the Bench. Under normal circumstances one of the Magistrates is an approved Presiding Justice, but the rules permit another Magistrate to temporarily step up if an approved Presiding Justice is unavailable for whatever reason. The Presiding Justice, who sits in the middle, is effectively the voice of the Bench. They are the person who conveys the decisions of the Bench and the reasons behind them.
I was listening to most recent episode of The Transform Justice Podcast yesterday. The episode had the title "Lay Magistrates - great equaliser or arcane institution?"
I am not going to delve into the finer details of the half-hour podcast, which is well worth a listen. However, I was struck by the comments of former Magistrate Robin Fenwick, who said that Presiding Justice was almost an honorific status given to more senior Magistrates based on their length of service.
That does not accord with my own experience of the system. I sit in an area where a former Bench Chair, who was elected as Bench Chair after only 5 or 6 years on the Bench (of around 200 Magistrates), was not an approved Presiding Justice. I am aware of a Deputy Bench Chair, who again is not an approved Presiding Justice, who has only 4 years' service.
In my own case, I was approved as a Presiding Justice after around 4 years on the Bench. At the time I was in my mid-30s, which was (and still is) pretty young in terms of the Magistracy. I was also in full-time employment.
In today's article I outline the process and training needed for approval as a Presiding Justice in the (adult) Magistrates' Court. Whereas previously it was a bit of a local affair, the Judicial College is now responsible for the training of Magistrates across England and Wales. That being the case, the process described below should be pretty similar across the board.
1. A Magistrate needs to have completed the following to the required standand to be considered for training as a Presiding Justice:
- Initial training (3 days, prior to sitting for the first time);
- Consolidation training (2 days, usually completed 12 to 18 months after initial training);
- First continuation training (1 day, usually completed 12 to 18 months after consolidation training);
- First appraisal (prior to consolidation training);
- Threshold appraisal (prior to first continuation training);
- Certain prelearning exercises in the "Becoming a Presiding Justice" workbook, as required by the JTAAAC.
- Observation sessions, as required by the JTAAAC.
- An application form.
In an ideal world around half the Magistrates on a Bench would be approved Presiding Justices, but that can sometimes be difficult to achieve. In my own area I think we have around 30 percent Presiding Justices, which means virtually all of my sittings are in that role. I often travel further afield and sit in neighbouring areas for the same reason.
Presiding Justice is not a role for everyone. It requires someone who does not mind speaking to an audience, who will sometimes disagree with what they hear. It requires someone who does not mind being named in local newspapers as the "mastermind" behind contentious decisions, which invariably attract criticism from certain members of the public. For that reason many Magistrates are happy to sit in the relative anonymity and safety of the wing.
In my opinion one of the most important qualities of the Presiding Justice is the ability to clearly communicate the thoughts of the Bench. This means pitching your delivery in accordance with the needs of the audience - slow, steady, avoiding unnecessary repetition, jargon and keeping it as simple as possible.
I am a great one for saying things like "we're just going to nip out the back to have a chat about this" instead of "the Bench is going to retire to consider how we're going to sentence you for this matter".
In the retiring room the Presiding Justice leads the discussion and decision making process. What I usually do is bounce the conversation straight back to the less experienced of the wingers - "So John, what's your thoughts on this then?" I'd then turn to the more experience winger "Right Jane, so we've heard John's thoughts. What do you think about this?"
More often than not the wingers will be aligned with my train of thought. If not I will then put my two penneth in - "I think we can deal with this in a slightly different way. What do you think about X instead?" Often the wingers are in agreement with my suggestion, but if not I don't labour or argue the point. Even the closest of families or best of friends disagree sometimes. The wingers' opinions are just as valid as mine and if they both disagree then I accept, with good grace, that is the decision of the Bench. I do not mind disagreement at all - it leads for more analytical and informed decision making.
In all but the more straightforward of cases it is a good idea for the Presiding Justice to run the Bench's decision by the Legal Advisor. This allows the Legal Advisor to check the legality and appropriateness of the decision before it is announced in open court. What I must stress, again contrary to suggestions made in the podcast, is that decisions are entirely a matter for the Magistrates. Legal Advisors advise; Magistrates decide. As one of my regular Legal Advisors often remarks "It says Magistrates' Court above the door".
The Presiding Justice speaks for the whole Bench, irrespective of whether there has been divided opinion in reaching a decision. That occasionally means the Presiding Justice announces a decision that they personally do not agree with. If that's the case, they just suck it up and do it in good grace. What they never, ever do is say anything that gives the impression of a divided Bench.
No comments:
Post a Comment