Lord Falconer said this morning that the magistrates' courts are absolutely fundamental to our justice system. You deal with a vast volume of work including the disposal of 95% of those charged with criminal offences. That statistic is trotted out again and again and it is mind blowing. There is talk of getting rid of Magistrates Courts. Those who discuss that can have no idea of the amount of work the courts do. As far as I am aware there is no intention to replace magistrates with District Judges. Your role dates back to 1195, although it has changed a lot since that time and it is continuing to change. The fundamental principle that the magistracy reflects is that lay people should be involved at the heart of our justice system.
Under the reforms, which were confirmed in the Constitutional Reform Act in March of this year, and which are now being implemented, I shall, as of April next year, be the head of the judiciary. And that judiciary will include, as it rightly should, the magistracy. It is important that the magistrates should be recognised by all as part of the judicial family. And I shall be proud to be at the head of a family which includes you.
Your Association has been closely involved in the ongoing work of implementing the reforms, and I am grateful for that involvement. Last year at this event Lord Woolf explained to you the changes that are being brought about, and how they will affect the magistracy. I shall not repeat what he said but I would like to assure you that the history and the traditions of the magistracy will be retained and respected within the new constitutional settlement.
On Monday, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) White Paper on supporting magistrates' courts to provide justice was published. I've had a very busy week and I have not yet had a chance to consider it in the detail it deserves – but it is plainly an important document. There are proposals for removing from your courts some of the least serious offences with which you deal. Well, that's probably a good idea, although a controversial one. It should not be the thin end of a bigger wedge though. It is important that your courts should be trying all crimes. I'm also aware of criticism that has been made in some quarters of delays in the current judicial process. I think some of these criticisms have force. Yet, I think it is important that the magistrates respond to these criticisms and show that they are able to deal with offences that come before them efficiently and in a timely manner. Delay in getting cases on for trial, adjournments, cracked and ineffective trials all bring the system into disrepute. I have only been in my present post for just over a month but I am hearing encouraging reports of the way that magistrates are responding to these problems. I suspect that you all share a general determination to speed up the system. I hear of some benches that are taking a strong stand and getting a reputation for toughness to which those involved in prosecutions respond. Some courts make it plain that they will only permit one hearing before trial. That certainly concentrates the mind and helps to make sure that everyone gets their house in order. Some courts are not quite so tough. If matters are not in order at the pre-trial review they will grant an adjournment but insist that the matter is brought back within a day or two.
It is not acceptable that trials should be postponed because police officers who are involved do not turn up. I understand that in many areas, if police officers who have been notified of a hearing do not attend without good reason, they are disciplined. It seems to me that this is the right approach.
Most cases are ultimately disposed of by a guilty plea. It is of critical importance that those who are guilty are encouraged to plead guilty at the outset. Encouragement comes by way of an appropriate reduction in sentence. There is a tendency on the part of many defendants to say that they cannot decide whether to plead guilty until after disclosure and after they've seen (Closed Circuit Television) CCTV evidence. Such a stance is not attractive. The defendant doesn't generally need to see the CCTV evidence if it is not immediately available in order to decide whether or not he is guilty. The Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) guideline on guilty pleas makes it clear that you do not deserve full credit for pleading guilty if you do not do so at the first reasonable opportunity. Please make this clear when sentencing. Equally make it plain that those who have deferred their guilty plea until later on in the process would have got a much better discount for their guilty plea if they had given it at the first reasonable opportunity.
We need I think to monitor how long it takes to dispose of a case from the time of charge until conclusion of the trial. For the normal run of the mill case, I suggest that the target should be six weeks. To achieve that target there must be a real drive to ensure that pre-trial reviews take place swiftly and that when they do take place they are effective.
What is needed, and what I am convinced is taking place, is a change in culture throughout England and Wales under which delay in criminal process is simply unacceptable. The Criminal Procedure Rules should assist in bringing about this change of culture. They may have been a little difficult to get to grips with in the first instance, but they are designed to make the system work more efficiently. The introduction of dedicated case progression officers, with no other task, should make a significant difference too overall case management. We need to keep case files for summary cases as simple as possible.
I am confident that the response of the magistrates to current criticism will demonstrate that they are able to deliver swift and effective summary justice.
May I say a word about sentencing? We all know that the prisons are bursting at the seams. The Home Secretary has emphasised that prison is the place for offenders who are violent or dangerous but that for those who are not and whose offending is not so serious that prison is the only possible punishment, punishment in the community is to be preferred. I suspect that in some cases prison sentences are imposed because the magistrates do not believe that a community sentence will be implemented in such a way as to involve meaningful punishment. I also believe that in the past there may have been good reason for that. Fines have gone out of fashion because there is no believe that they will be enforced. Steps are being taken to enforce fines and encourage those who can not afford them to earn money to pay them. Steps are being taken to make non-custodial alternatives more effective. The White Paper proposes the appointment of Fines Officers in every area and the prioritising of the use of Compensation Orders. I would urge you all to keep well informed of the efficacy of community sentencing in your own areas and to give careful consideration before deciding that there is no alternative to a prison sentence.
In the past year community justice has taken a major step forward. I am delighted that after many years of planning and hard work the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre was officially launched by Harriett Harman MP on the 20th October of this year. I also understand that the community justice initiative in Salford is well under way. I welcome and support these initiatives. The White Paper states that the government intends to extend the concept of community justice, learning from these pilot schemes. It is important to stress that these schemes involve magistrates' courts delivering justice. Delivering justice locally in the community.
The government vision of community justice, as set out in the White Paper, concentrates on solving anti-social behaviour and crime at the local level. It aims to make the court and other criminal justice agencies more responsive to the concerns of the local community so that public confidence in the criminal justice system is increased. I am a firm believer in local justice. Our courts are and must remain locally based. Those sitting in court should be members of the local community sharing local concerns. They are members of the public with a particular stake in increasing confidence in the criminal justice system.
That said all courts work within the law. They must approach all defendants impartially. It is within that framework that local concerns have to be taken on board. Justice will not be seen to be done unless there is a reasonable consistency in sentencing approach throughout England and Wales. The way ahead is to have local people with local knowledge applying the law having regard to national guidelines.
Reparation is one of the five purposes of sentencing; reform and rehabilitation another. These can and should be considered by every court in the course of every sentencing exercise. --
I read with interest, as I expect you did, last month of the proposals for community offender panels to administer non-custodial options to deal with anti-social behaviour. I am all for working with offenders within the community and, where appropriate, restorative justice. I am, however, concerned that these panels are being described as “street courts”. They are not courts, and referring to them as such could actually damage public confidence in and understanding of our criminal justice system. It seems to me that there is real danger that the public will confuse magistrates' courts with these bodies.
Local justice has always been of central importance to the magistracy, and vice versa. The White Paper underlines this importance, magistrates' courts and the fact that the magistracy are at the heart of delivering community justice. The magistracy, drawn from local communities, is the lynch pin of delivering justice locally. The government has strived to engage the public in active citizenship recently, but the lay magistracy has been quietly demonstrating that active citizenship for very many years. That will undoubtedly continue.
And finally, although I paid tribute to Rachel Lipscomb at the reception last night, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my comments. Rachel has, since her appointment as Chair in 2002, steered your Association and its members through a period of immense change and uncertainty. She has done so with admirable and unfailing commitment, relying on her natural resilience and good humour at all times. I wish her all the very best for the future, and wish Cindy Barnett the very best for her new role as incoming Chairman.
Please note: speeches published on this website reflect the individual judicial office-holder's personal views, unless otherwise stated. If you have any queries please contact the Judicial Communications Office.
