Standard Practices of the Magistrate Court - Outline Example

Standard Practices of the Magistrate Court Number April 25, May 13, Magistrate Court Stratford, London ContentsAbstract Chapter 1: Aims & Purpose of the Research Conducted Chapter 2: Literature Review Chapter 3: Methodology Chapter 4: Results Chapter 5: Analysis & Discussion Chapter 6: Summary & Conclusions Bibliography Appendix Abstract The purpose of the research conducted was to evaluate the proceedings of the Magistrate Court in Stratford, London over a 3-week time period and observe any and all trends in age and gender with regards to frequency and category of crime committed. The methodology used was Ethnographic Observation as this allowed the researcher to quietly observe the proceedings without altering those proceedings with their presence. Multiple cases were observed in several different courtrooms to allow for maximum opportunity of fully comprehensive data. At the end of the 3-week placement, the data was analyzed and evaluated for patterns of consistency. Aims & Purpose of the Research Conducted At the end of the 3-week placement period, the data gathered was to be analyzed for patterns of consistency in what age and gender groups are most frequently brought before the Magistrate Court, and on what charges they are brought forth. There has been some negative media attention brought upon the Magistrate Court, indicating that the courts play the role of a “conveyor belt” due to the high percentage of convictions via guilty pleas. As stated by Doreen McBarnet in the opening line of her article, “Magistrates’ courts have frequently attracted comment for their role as a conveyor belt for the guilty pleas which constitute 95% of their caseload” (181). There have even been those who have accused Magistrate Courts of sinking to despicable depths to achieve such high percentages of convictions. Such accusations have been summarized in this way: “Plea negotiations are frequently criticized on the basis that they may arise from deception, coercion, and unethical practices” (Mulcahy, 411). With such accusations being made against the Magistrate Court, it is believed that research in to the standard procedures and practices within the courtrooms is necessary. The main aim of this research was to determine if there is a specific combination of factors that leads to a ruling of guilty, or to a guilty plea. If there is such a combination, research should show what the factors are that make it up. Should there not be an identifiable pattern to guilty pleas, the data provided by this research should be able to point future researchers in the right direction. Literature Review Before beginning any observation or gathering of data, it was vital to gain a firm understanding of who the “players” of the courtroom are, and what the general expectations are of observers. As outlined by Morgan and Russel, there are two kinds of Magistrates: lay and stipended. Lay Magistrates are unpaid for their services, only sit part-time on the bench, and are largely untrained in the legal sense. Stipended Magistrates are full-time service-providers who a legally trained and are more likely to be called to handle lengthy or complicated cases (8). Since the research conducted in this placement was done in the lower courts, it is generally assumed that the Magistrates in the cases observed would be lay magistrates. As such, they would most likely rely on the uses of a court clerk to provide legal advice prior to making a ruling. The court clerks would be fully trained in legal matters, and would only offer advice in open court, in the presence of all observers. This is in agreement with Practice Direction 2000, which states that clerks are to advise Magistrates in legal matters, and are to only do so in open court. As a general rule, observers in the Magistrate Court are not expected to dress professionally. Most individuals who are present in court do dress semi-formally out of respect for the Magistrates and the proceedings of the cases, however. Researchers in this placement chose to conduct themselves in a professional manner, wearing business suits at all times when attending court. This satisfied two objectives for the researcher: 1) To show respect for the Magistrate Court, and 2) to allow the researcher to blend in with the court workers in such a way that did not arouse suspicion or discomfort in the offenders who were being observed. Methodology Though the original intent for methodology in this placement was to conduct semi-structured interviews, the ultimate choice for methodology was ethnographic observation. Keen attention was paid to the so-called “half-baked” aspect of raw ethnographic material discussed by Sandra Kouritzin (119). This concept states that when taking ethnographic notes, field researchers often skew their “raw” data with their own world views and opinions. Since researchers often write using short hand during their time of observation, what starts as a slight skew during note-taking can turn in to a significant variance in the final conclusions. To conduct ethnographic observations, while keeping a close eye on the accuracy of all notes taken, the researcher did their best to maintain a similar professional appearance to all court workers. That is, the researcher dressed in a professional manner that did not cause them to stand out in either a positive or a negative way. The intent of this was to make the researcher all but invisible to the offenders who were being observed. Without being aware that they were being watched in this manner, the offenders were much more likely to act naturally than they would have been otherwise. Such a concept is, of course, known as the “observer effect” wherein the actions of the observed alter for the simple fact that they realize they are being observed. Results The results of the research conducted during this placement are as follows: 1) Men are more often brought to court on criminal charges than are women. In all of the cases observed, the offenders were men. 2) The general age of individuals brought to court on the charge of assault are between 19 and 21 years of age. 3) The general age of individuals brought to court on charges in general are between 19 and 30 years of age. 4) In cases involving drinking and driving, there was no noticeable pattern of age. 5) Individuals who were employed when brought to court were more likely to receive a lesser judgment than individuals who were unemployed. 6) Individuals who were smartly dressed and professional in demeanor were more likely to receive a lesser judgment than individuals who were poorly dressed or who had poor posture. Analysis & Discussion From that data that was gathered throughout this placement, a pattern emerges of Magistrate Judges seeming to take appearances in to consideration perhaps more than they should. Two individuals, both charged with the same crime, may receive very different judgments based on little more than the way they presented themselves when in front of the Magistrate. A man who is employed, dressed well, and stands at attention in the courtroom is likely to receive a fairly light sentence. In one of the cases observed, a 26-year-old defendant who was employed and smartly-dressed was allowed to pay a fee to a victim’s cause in order to receive a lesser sentence for drinking and driving. Conversely, a man who appears in court unemployed, in poor clothing, and slouches when being addressed by the Magistrate is more likely to receive a harsher sentence. When all other facts of the cases are similar, such varying degrees of judgment are uncalled for. When defendants were observed who were unemployed, the demeanor of the Magistrate seemed to change to reflect a harsher attitude. One may hypothesize that because lay magistrates are unpaid and lack legal training, they place higher value on visible attributes of the defendants than they do in the facts of the case. Without legal training, there is greater potential for some facts of the case to not make full sense to the Magistrate, or strike the judge as being as important as they are (this may very well be a chief cause of lay magistrates being given lower-priority cases, which challenging or lengthy cases are relegated to stipended magistrates). While there is a clerk in the courtroom with the Magistrate at all times, and the clerk is charged with the duty of advising the judge on legal matters, there are bound to be instances when a fact, or a defendant, slips through the cracks. When dealing with information that is unfamiliar or confusing, people are highly likely to put greater weight on the things they do understand. In the case of these Magistrates, rather than concentrating on the intricacies of the cases, they focus on what they can tangibly see and understand (i.e. employment, appearance, demeanor, etc). Though such rationalizing makes sense at a lay-person’s level, Magistrate Courts should certainly hold themselves to a much higher standard than that. This is especially true considering the negative media attention the courts have received regarding their methods in issuing judgments. Summary & Conclusions In general, courts are divided into layers depending on the level of severity of the cases primarily heard by those courts. Magistrate Courts are considered to be the lowest level of the court system, dealing with approximately 95% of cases brought to the court system. Within the Magistrate Courts there are two kinds of Magistrates: lay and stipended. Lay magistrates are unpaid, not legally trained, and are called to oversee cases that are fairly standard. In contrast, stipended magistrates are paid, legally trained, and are expected to deal with lengthy and difficult cases. During this placement, multiple cases were observed over which lay magistrates ruled. After the completion of the placement, the data revealed that the majority of defendants called before the courts are male, between the ages of 19 and 30. When dealing with cases of assault, the ages of the defendants tend to be between 19 and 21. However, with drunk driving cases there was no observable median age. The lay magistrates in this particular court showed a tendency to lay harsher judgments upon men who were unemployed and who did not present themselves professionally in court. Those individuals who came to court and had evidence of employment and/or presented themselves in semi-formal attire and addressed the court magistrate with respect were more likely to receive lighter judgments. The conclusion reached at the end of this research was that lay magistrates, unable to lean on the legal training they do not have, are essentially forced to rely on tangible evidence presented to them in the courtroom. Although the tangible evidence they rely on may or may not have anything to do with the actual case, there is clear evidence that the defendant’s appearance in court influences the judgments handed down. Bibliography Carlen, Pat. "The Staging of Magistrates Justice."British Journal of Criminology. 16.1 (1976): 48. Print. Kouritzin, Sandra. "The "Half-Baked" Concept of "Raw" Data in Ethnographic Observation."Canadian Journal of Education. 27.1 (2002): 119-138. Print. McBarnet, Doreen. "Magistrates Courts and the Ideology of Justice." British Journal of Law & Society. 8.2 (1981): 181. Print. Morgan, Russel, Rod, Neil. "The Judiciary in the Magistrates Court." Lord Chancellors Department. 8. Print Mulcahy, Aogan. "The Justifications of "Justice"."British Journal of Criminology. 34.4 (1994): 411-430. Print. Appendix Originally, my placement was to be with the Greenwich Youth Offending Service. I chose this facility because I find Youth Offending Service to be very interesting, and they have various workers. They have social workers who work with young offenders and their families in the courts, and they have workers who work within the community, also those who work within prisons. After one day of working with the Greenwich Youth Offending Service it was made apparent to me that I would not be able to fulfill my entire placement at this facility, and therefore would have to choose another placement. My first diary entry reflects the work I performed at the Greenwich Youth Offending Service. After that first day, I chose another location to complete the assignment at, and the remainder of my diary entries reflect the work performed at the second placement site. Diary Entries April 18, 2011 (10 am-4 pm): I began my day at the Greenwich Youth Offending Service in Eltham. I was shown around the centre and I was introduced to the other staff members. After a brief introduction, I was given an ASSET, which is given by the Youth Justice Board. The ASSET is what the staff is supposed to go through when working with the youth offenders. I was asked to make photocopies of the ASSET I was given, and go through the reports for one hour. During that time, I waited for my supervisor to return from a brief meeting. At about 2:45 pm, I was given the privilege of attending a group meeting. What basically happens in a meeting is young offenders come together and discuss what they have been through and what they are dealing with as a group. In the meeting the youth play a ball game in which they talk about themselves when they are tossed the ball. I conducted an observation on a young girl during this meeting. The young woman is 5’4” tall, and has been placed in the centre because she has been suspended from school multiple offenses. My estimate places her at around 15 or 16 years old. When the young girl was asked by the staff why she is in the centre her reply was that she can’t be bothered with school, so she gets in to fights and bunks school whenever she feels like it. My first day at the centre was a long one, but at the end of my time there I was able to decide upon a method of research. After reviewing my notes for the day, in particular the group meeting I was allowed to sit in on, I concluded that the best form of research for this assignment would be observational. I will therefore conduct the remainder of my research using that method. April 19, 2011 (10 am-4 pm): On the second day of my placement, I went to the centre only to be informed that my supervisor “is around” and that she had gone to a training meeting. I had hoped that I could still continue my placement, although I was told that I couldn’t work that day since my supervisor was otherwise occupied. Her staff let me know that she would call me to notify me when to return to the centre to continue my placement. I did not, however, receive a phone call from her. I sent her several e-mails, but did not receive a reply. Once it became obvious to me that I would not be able to continue my placement with the Greenwich Youth Offending Service, I decided to go to court for a different placement. I chose the Magistrate Court because I really wasn’t looking for any case in particular to follow, and I didn’t want to try to listen in on serious cases. For example, I was not interested in following a murder case. Rather, I wanted lesser crimes to observe for my report. The Magistrates’ Court is the 1st stage that hears 99% of criminal cases, making it the lowest court level in the United Kingdom. With this knowledge in mind, I decided to perform my placement at the Magistrate Court. The process of applying for a placement with the court was not difficult. Firstly, I chose the Magistrate Court in Stratford, London, because it is the closest court to my home. I called the court to ask if it would be all right for me to undertake my placement with them. After giving some preliminary information on the assignment, I was invited to come in the next day and speak with the woman who is in charge of student workers. I was pleased to hear that the courts often work with students looking for work experience, because that gave me confidence that I should be able to work with them. I went in shortly after the phone call and spoke to a woman named Jamie Baker. Together, we went through the placement handbook I had with me so that she could gain a better understanding of the aim of my placement project. Our meeting was brief. Afterwards, I was given a placement which was to commence on the 25th of April. Each day’s placement was to last from 10:00 am until 3:00 pm. I was given permission to witness different cases every day until my placement timeframe was satisfied. April 25, 2011 (10 am-3 pm): My first day at the Magistrate Court began slowly. Upon arriving at the courthouse, I went in to one of the courtrooms, but the trial had not yet begun. As the trial was not scheduled to start within a short time of my arrival, I left that courtroom in search of another. The next room that I entered was a youth court, which I was not aware of. The Magistrate in that court asked me who I was, to which I explained that I am a criminology student on a placement. She informed me that I was not allowed to be in the youth court, which confused me at first. I had thought that my placement with the Magistrate Court granted me the freedom to enter in to any courtroom. To resolve my confusion, I asked the court usher why people were not allowed in to that courtroom. She explained to me that the youth court deals specifically with cases involving younger people. In this case, “younger people” means youths who are underaged—18 years of age or younger. Any persons above the age of 18 are considered to be adults. The youth court is a section of the Magistrate Court that is served by a youth panel magistrate. The youth panel is a group of people who are given the power to order detention and training orders of up to 24 months. They are also given the power to order sentences within the community. The clerk also explained to me that Youth Courts are less official in comparison to the Magistrate Court. As such, they tend to be more open, in order to interact well with the young offenders and their families. The Youth Court was created as an effectively private place, meaning that members of the public are not allowed to attend. The only members outside of the case who are allowed to attend are the victims of the crime committed. Victims of the crime are given the opportunity to attend the hearing if they wish to, but they do have to first contact the court and make an official request. The victims are given this option by the Youth Court because they are the victim of the crime, and it is only fair that they have the opportunity to see their offender be tried and, potentially, sentenced. April 26, 2011 (10 am-3 pm): In the Magistrate Court, I observed that the Magistrate Judges are always assisted by a professional legal advisor. These advisors are referred to as the court clerk. The role of the clerk is to ensure that all court procedures are carried out in the correct manner. In my opinion, a clerk’s role is far more important than that of the Magistrate Judge. After all, from what I understand, the Magistrates are not really in control of the proceedings because they are not legally trained. Without legal training, the Magistrates require a great deal of legal advice, which is the role of the court clerks. Knowing this information, it becomes apparent that there could be some potential problems with court clerks advising above their positions in court, and truly taking power and authority away from the Magistrate Judges. “Practice Direction 2000” attempts to resolve the issue concerning the influence of clerks on Magistrate Judges. The Direction states that clerks should only advise on specific points of law, and that all advice given should be stated in open court. I can see how this Direction would resolve the issue of court clerks potentially taking authority away from Magistrate Judges. If the court clerks were allowed to give general advice, and to do so behind closed doors, there would be great potential for clerks to persuade judges to give the rulings and sentences that the clerks themselves felt was most appropriate. I think the Direction does a good job of ensuring that can’t happen. April 27, 2011 (10 am-3 pm): Now that I have begun my placement with the Magistrate Court, my plan is to conduct my research on how Magistrate Judges reach their final judgments, and the various circumstances that play in to those decisions. The research conducted would center around how differing circumstances result in different judgments for different individuals, even if the crimes are themselves quite similar. A final aspect of my research would be to attempt to discover what gender and/or age group is most often called to court for contributing for or committing the most crimes. Through the nature of my research, I should be given the opportunity to discover and understand the difference between the Crown Court and the Magistrate Court. April 28, 2011 (10 am-3 pm): The original method of conducting research that I had decided on, via my short placement at the Greenwich Youth Offending Services centre, was observational. When my placement changed to the Magistrate Court, I had wanted to also change my research conduction method to that of ethnography. I chose ethnography because, as a method, it seeks to answer central anthropological questions. These are questions that are concerned with the ways of life for living human beings. Ethnographic questions are usually interested primarily in the link between culture and behavior, as well as how cultural processes develop over time. I officially decided to continue with the ethnography method after briefly attempting to use a different research method, namely the semi-structured interview. I tried semi-structured interviews because I wanted to perform a person-to-person interview. This would be a two-way method of communication which would make it easier for me to get information from offenders. However, it turned out to be quite difficult to get access to any information because my questions needed to be directed at the offenders. I was not allowed to approach any offenders inside a courtroom, or to ask them questions from afar, and it was rather difficult to approach an offender outside of the court room. Even if I was able to begin a conversation with an offender, that person might easily give me false information, which would decrease the quality of my research and negate my results. Thus the semi-structured interview method seemed too difficult and not effective enough for my research purposes. I therefore decided to carry on with the ethnography method, which involves only me and would allow me to simply observe the offender without that individual needing to even be aware of my presence. I changed my research question to reflect this change in methodology. April 29, 2011 (10 am-3 pm): Throughout my placement, I have been making use of a diary to take note of all of my daily activities. I have kept a record of every case that I observe, the attitude of the defendant and the attitude of the magistrate. Since I have continued to use the ethnography method during my research, offenders have not been aware of who I am or why I was in the courtroom. Because of this lack of awareness of who I am, the offenders seemed to feel that they could speak freely and comfortably. My daily apparel also helped in my observation efforts. When attending court, I was always sure to dress in a smart manner, meaning that I always wore a suit. Such dress code allowed me to blend in with other court workers, helping me to blend in. It is highly likely that the offenders I observed believed that I was just one of the regular court workers. If I had allowed myself to dress casually, I probably would have been seen as an outside by the offenders, making them uncomfortable and unwilling to speak freely in my presence. Had that happened, my research would have been unsuccessful. May 2, 2011 (10 am-3 pm): During my first week in court I experienced many different cases. The majority of cases I observed involved drinking and driving, theft, burglary, and assault. In the courtroom, I witnessed seven trials in one day with the procedures being the same with each one of them. At the beginning of the trial, the usher calls the offender in from outside the courtroom. The offender is ordered to approach the bench, and then confirm their name, address, and date of birth. Whenever an offender is being asked to provide this information, or to address the court in any way, the Magistrate Judge insists that they stand properly. For example, in one of the assault cases I observed, the offender was a man who was asked to take his hands out of his pockets and stand properly. After the offender verifies their information, the prosecutor gives a brief outline of the case in question. In one case, a drinking and driving offense, the arresting officer was called by the prosecutor to give evidence on the time and the place the officer arrested the offender. The officer was asked to provide all details of the arrest. Details asked for included the time and place the arrest was made, and all aspects of the arresting offense. The officer was first questioned by the prosecution solicitor, and then they were held over to give the offender a chance to cross-examine them. May 13, 2011 (10 am -3 pm): The most common offense in the Magistrate Court I observed was drinking and driving. By the end of my placement, I had observed a total of 8 drinking and driving cases. Two of those cases were moved to next month. In one of the trials I was able to observe the defenders talked about the case, and then the lawyer advised the Magistrate that they cannot continue the case. The offender in this instance was a 30-year-old man. The Magistrate agreed with the defense attorney that the case could not be continued, and told the offender that the case has been postponed until next month. At that point, the offender must return to court. If he fails to show up he will receive another allegation/charge. In still another drinking and driving case, a 26-year-old offender was being accused by someone who was dressed very professionally and smartly. In the case of the 26-year-old offender, the defense attorney pleaded for him explaining that, “the offender is aware that he can get a three-year ban. He pleads with the Magistrate not to put him on punishment, as being in this courtroom is a punishment for him.” The defense attorney also said that “Banning him will seriously affect him.” The magistrate deliberated for ten minutes before she returned to court. When she came back, she gave the offender a 1000 pound fine instead of a ban, and 32 months of disqualification from driving. The offender was also ordered to pay 200 pounds to go towards victim support. By paying towards victim’s support, the offender was able to slightly reduce his ban. After the judgment was issued, the offender looked pale and sad. His dress code was very smart, very professional, which aided his lawyer who described him as being a responsible person. The outcome of my placement was that I discovered that less judgment is passed on to young people. This is especially true of people who are young and who have children. People who are employed also receive lesser judgments than those who are unemployed. I presume that this is because the Magistrate sees an employed person as being more responsible than an unemployed person. The most common age group of offenders I saw come through the Magistrate Court was aged 19-30 years. In assault-specific cases, the age is most commonly between 19 and 21. With drunk driving cases, there did not seem to be a specific age group that was most common. Read More