16]
“The Home office research concluded that the MC’s generally work well and provide a satisfactory quality of justice.” [17] JP’s are an addition to the courts and involve ordinary members of the public “collectively in reflecting the attitudes of non-professionals to the process of fact-finding and sentence determination.” [18] Pg. 183
Disadvantages of using JP’s
Whilst I have highlighted some advantages of having JP’s in the MC, there are also some disadvantages of having these unqualified persons determining the future of individuals and being involved in court legal actions.
Firstly, because JP’s hear and decide cases usually in ‘panels’ of three, they tend to take longer to arrive at decisions. [19] There is ‘inconsistency’ between JP’s from different areas in society because they each have their own personal views and experiences and their sentences vary between each other and other MC’s. [20] There are also inconsistencies in the granting of bail. “This manifest when two similar cases come before different benches dealing with similar offenders… bail decisions might vary greatly.” [21] Judges usually would not have this problem because of their experience and knowledge.
Furthermore, JP’s are unqualified legal persons who seek advice often from qualified professionals, legal clerks. ‘Over reliance’ on these clerks slows down the process and professional judges are best seen to handle cases. [22]
Thirdly, there may be a concern that JP’s would make decisions based on their feelings and emotions rather than with reason which can lead to biasness. [23] There lack of legal qualification and extensive training makes it difficult for them to distinguish the two. If JP’s disagree with a particular law they will be less likely to convict someone for going against it, “parking fees should operate in the library car park, they are less likely to find someone guilty of parking there illegally.” [24]
Also, JP’s are mindful of the crimes and criminals in their areas, they see reoccurring charges being made against persons “making it difficult for their decisions to be made without prejudice...” [25] It is argued that, Local Police become well acquainted with JP’s, and they automatically believe their evidence. In R v Bingham JJ, (1974), the chairman of the bench said, “He always believes the evidence of the Police officers when it conflicts with that of a member of the public.” [26]
Additionally, JP’s can be seen as a bad representation of their communities because they are predominantly “white, middle class, middle aged, retired businessmen and wives of rich husbands.” They are not paid and therefore attract people who can afford to give their free time which has an adverse affect on the representation of ethnic minorities. [27]
Moreover, Defendants who are not guilty are more likely to choose a jury trial because juries have a less conviction rate than JP’s. [28] It is a chance that being heard before a jury will bring them a non- guilty verdict or their punishment will be less.
Appointment of Magistrates’ (JP’s)
JP’s are appointed by the “Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Lord Chancellor” on the advice of approximately 109 Advisory Committees. [29] There are no official qualifications as “membership is widely spread throughout the area covered and drawn fro
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。