Magistrate Court Vs Crown Court

Research shows that there are two types of courts in which sentencing takes place Magistrate’s court and the Crown court. Criminal cases are dealt with in either of these two courts (Newburn 2007). Firstly, this essay will look at the functions and roles of both Magistrates and Crown courts. Secondly it will describe what cases are expected to be handled at each court and their jurisdictions. it will then go on to discuss various strengths and weaknesses of these courts. Furthermore it will examine the roles of relevant persons within the courts. Finally, conclusions will be drawn on the relative aims and purposes of the two systems.
Virtually all criminal cases start at the Magistrate’s court (Newburn 2007). These cases are frequently less
These are called Lay magistrates and are not usually professionally educated other than what they have been trained as to carry out their role efficiently. Lay Magistrates do not receive a salary. They are only compensated their expenses and are reimbursed loss of earnings from their customary employment. They receive guidance and legal advice from professionally qualified lawyers within the court (The Ministry of Justice, 2011). Lay magistrates live within the community of where the court is situated, consequently enabling them to be a representative of the local area in which they sit (Davies et al, 1998). The Ministry of Justice (2011) perceives Magistrates as having enhanced relationships with the local public, giving them relevant knowledge and making them better placed to pass judgement and give out appropriate sentences. Magistrates can be more open minded and impartial due to there being three Magistrates at a bench. This would give a wider degree of democracy. They are also more cost effective, due to not being paid a salary (The ministry of justice 2011). Joyce (2006) states that the Magistrates court also have district judges who are salaried, skilled, professional lawyers. These district judges are permitted to make judgement alone, without any other Magistrates present. District judges deal with more complex cases that are more time
The defendant can request to have their case dealt with by the Crown and have a trial by a jury. If the accused pleads guilty the judge will make a decision on an appropriate sentence. If the defendant pleads not guilty then a trial will take place with a jury in attendance (Cavadino and Gibson, 1995). A jury is made up of 12 individuals who have been randomly picked from the electoral register. Their role is to weigh up all the evidence within the trial and then decide whether the accused is guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt (Newburn 2009). Research shows that there has been controversy over the strengths and weaknesses of the jury system. Newburn (2009) puts forward arguments in favour of juries. Some benefits he suggests are that the legal system is made more open due to the public being more involved, the jury is not persuaded from professional prejudice, and juries can decide cases on their ideas of fairness of trial. They are also protected from pressure and outside influences when having to decide on a verdict. However, Joyce (2006) puts forward some arguments against juries. These arguments are that there are twelve strangers who have no legal knowledge or training. Juries discuss in private so that there are no means of knowing what takes place in a jury room, whether or