Compare And Contrast Magistrates And The Crown Court

In this essay I am going to discuss the magistrates and the crown court, and their function within the court hierarchy. The crown court is seen to deal with more serious offences referred to as indictable offences, which carry a higher sentence. Whereas the magistrates court deals with summary offences, carrying a lesser sentence than other courts in its division. Both courts are part of the criminal justice system, and deal with disputes between individuals and the state.

In the old bailey court the atmosphere of the court was very serious and formal, and vastly tense. This was similar to the atmosphere of the magistrate’s court. The layout of the old bailey was different to those of other crown courts, where the public gallery was separate

from the court itself, making the public less visible to those performing the trial. As opposed to the Woodgreen crown court where the public was able to sit close within the courtroom. Thus making it more visible and easier to understand. In contrary to this the Magistrates court was much different where the court rooms are set out dividing the public from the court room via glass windows, although this made a division between the public, and the court the tension still remained the same as in the crown court. This demonstrated the importance and seriousness of crimes reaching any division of the court hierarchy, where the magistrate’s court is the lowest court in the hierarchy it still performed with great professionalism and cases were heard formally.

In the crown court the judge plays an important part in the hearing of the trial, outlining the legal elements of the offence to the jury, and ensuring they understand the law before delivering their verdict.

As was present when visiting the crown court in Woodgreen, the case where an individual was accused of the supply of drugs and theft, where the jury was dismissed. The judge gave legal reasoning for why. In this trial it was due to new information, which had arisen which, could manipulate the verdict given for the first count heard. This is a different approach to of the magistrates court where 3 lay individuals, or a district judge hears the trial the magistrate/s play a big part in the magistrates court, however only after hearing all evidence, and witness statements This was visible in the trial watched at Westminster magistrates court, where there was an individual popular in the public eye accused of 2 accounts of sexual assault, and eight incident assaults. In the trial the representatives of the claimant and defendant, and witnesses played an important part in the trial. There were no outcomes of the crown and magistrate’s court when visited, and both cases were timetabled for another hearing. This system was introduced by the Woolf reforms, after great delays in trials. The timetable enables individuals to have their case in a reasonable time

frame.

As the case viewed in the magistrate’s court was in the public eye, the witness in the case was hidden behind a curtain delivering their statement. Whereas in the crown court the witness was visible to the court. In the Magistrates court the evidence was presented via photographs similarly in the crown court, also where text message evidence was shown. It is visible that in criminal trials the system is consistent where evidence is brought before the courtroom. Lawyers have to be organised and have the ability to argue their client’s case ensuring all evidence is present. In the crown court during the hearing the lawyer had not obtained a witness statement from the Scottish police, the judge in response to this questioned him. When the lawyer proposed to get it for the next trial date , the judge embarrassed the barrister by telling him to not get too excited. This showed that the relationship between the judge and the lawyers is not relaxed.

The way in which the lawyers are dressed demonstrated the great traditional values in the court system still present today. In the crown court the judge, lawyers and court clerk are all dressed in traditional clothing robes and wigs. Whereas in the magistrate’s court individuals are dressed in smart formal wear. This showed a difference between the courts and could also question how far the tradition of the robes and wigs are still present. It has been questioned of whether wigs should be kept or discarded, as they’re a very old tradition, and recent surveys made demonstrated that an overall majority responded that they wish to keep them .

Overall it is visible that the criminal justice system is quite consistent in the way in which it works, where cases are dealt with similarly with the use of evidence and witnesses. Although it can be argued that besides this the tradition of the English courts is fading in terms of traditional wear and the way courts run. It could be recommended that the English court system continues to ensure that its system is reliable yet unique to others ensuring it works well. Its consistency is a merit to the system enabling fair justice for all individuals. The reform acts have helped the English court system better its way of running, and has enabled a reliable and efficient court system.