The Crown Court - Essay Example

 The Crown Court The Magistrate Court and Crown Court are both courts of first instance and deal with criminal law offences. All criminal offences initially come to the magistrate Court, however the summary offences are dealt with here while offences that are classed as triable are sent up to the crown Court. Offences fall into two primary categories – summary offences where a defendant may not be entitled to a trial by jury and indictable offences which include serious charges such as murder and manslaughter1. The categories of offences which could fall into either category depending upon the procedures set out to decide whether defendant is entitled to a trial or not fall under the category of either-way offences. Summary offences dealt with at the Magistrate Court include less serious ones such as traffic offences or failure to pay taxes and will generally include all cases, including triable offences, where the defendant has opted for a summary trial. However, the Crown Court hears those cases involving indictable offences which include the category of serious offences such as rape or murder. In so far as triable offences are concerned, all offences start at the Magistrate Court but the Crown Court deals with all those offences which the Magistrate Court feels is so serious that only the Crown Court can with it, or where the defendant has requested for trial by jury. “Approximately ninety six percent of criminal cases are dealt with summarily at a magistrates Court.”2 A comparison of workloads of the two courts in terms of trials which was conducted in 1999 showed that “over four times as many trials took place in the magistrates courts as in the Crown Court.”3 The qualifications required to sit as a judge in a Crown Court is that the person in question must be a fully qualified solicitor or barrister and must have spent a minimum time of at least seven years in practice, after qualifying. In the case of magistrates no formal training is advocacy is required and magistrates are drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds. Lay Magistrates only undergo a short period of training and the exhaustive legal qualification and practice requirements required of judicial authorities in the crown courts are not expected of them. They are appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the local advisory committees. However the advantage with lay magistrates is that they are sensitive to local conditions prevailing in the area where they serve.4 While judicial officials receive a salary, magistrates are not paid and give their time on a voluntary basis to engage in the business of administration of justice. In a magistrates Court, a case will be tried by two or three lay magistrates or a District Judge – also known as a stipendiary magistrate - who is a salaried employee with the necessary legal qualifications to adjudicate cases5. In a Crown court, the judge sits with a jury of 12 lay persons in cases where guilt of a defendant is to be adjudged. While sentencing the judge sits on his own and during a re-hearing of a case that has come up from a magistrate’s court, the judge may sit with two or three lay magistrates. Description of trial: The trial I attended was held at the Kingston Crown Court on the second floor, where a Caribbean defendant was on trial for the alleged rape of a twenty year old woman. The trial was listed as part heard on the listing sheet and on this basis, I felt it would be a good case to observe to get an idea of the proceedings of a Court. I found the judge seated in the centre, he was wearing a violet robe with lilac facings and a girdle. There was a red tipper (sash) over his left shoulder, since he was dealing with a criminal case. The prosecution was seated on one side and the defendants barristers on the other. The members of the jury comprised seven men and five women of whom I noticed that there was only one minority person represented among the jury and most of these people were dressed in suits. The person in charge for the prosecution was the Crown prosecutor, who is generally appointed by the Crown prosecution service, and there were two junior barristers seated with him. The Crown prosecutor was himself robed in black with full sleeves, although he was wearing a suit below his gown. The collar of the shirt was stiff and had two linen strips of about 5 inches by 1 inch which hung down the front and additionally, he also wore a wig with curls down to the shoulders. The two junior barristers sitting on the prosecution side were similarly robed but their robes were open at the front with a gathered yoke at the neck and open sleeves coming halfway down their arms. On the defendant’s side, there were three advocates present, although it appeared that only one was a barrister since he similarly wore a wig. The other two appeared to be the solicitors of the defendant since they were dressed in silk robes with flap collars and long closed sleeves and wore no wigs6. The defendant himself was seated with his solicitors. There was a hushed air in the Court and the few other observers in the Court were watching the proceedings in silence. A witness was being interviewed by the Prosecution. He was an expert, a doctor who had been called in to testify to the nature and extend of the victim’s injuries that were the result of his examination of her. When I entered the Court, I nodded in the direction of the Judge and quietly took a seat neat the entrance. It appeared that the witness’ oath had already been taken because he was seated in the witness box and the Crown prosecutor was already in the position of questioning him, to which the doctor was providing his answers. I found the usher seated nearby, dressed in a black robe with a name band on her lapel, so I approached her and softly requested her for permission to take some notes on the proceedings. I made it clear to her that I did not want to jot down notes to maintain any kind of record of the proceedings, rather I just wanted to record my impressions about the process that was going on in the Court. She allowed me to take some notes provided I was very discreet about it and sat far behind in the Court, where I could not be easily observed by the parties to the suit and the witnesses, and where my note taking would not be a distraction to others. At the outset, I had observed how much time appeared to be taken up in procedural aspects, with the Prosecutor taking his own time to rifle through papers before asking his questions, appearing to ponder deeply before asking each one. The doctor’s responses appeared to suggest that there were only a few outward signs of actual physical injuries that had been caused to the victim. The Prosecutor appeared to be trying to get the doctor to think about more signs of injury, he was asking questions such as whether there were bruised or swollen areas of the body, whether the victim appeared to be under great stress, etc. There were also several objections that were voiced from the defendants’ side. Some of these were quelled by the judge as irrelevant and the prosecutor was encouraged to continue with his line of questioning, while at other times, the prosecutor was asked to revise his line of questioning. It was at such times in particular that I noted how much time the Crown Prosecutor took, as he conferred with his colleagues, before coming up with the next question. I noticed that the witness sat stiff backed through it all and appeared very anxious. The session which had commenced early that morning continued till the court was adjourned for lunch and I noted that the questioning of the witness by the prosecution had still not completed and the witness was informed that he was still under oath and was to report back after lunch. The Judge rose from his seat first and left the chamber followed by the members of the jury and it was only after that everyone else could leave. As I pondered on the case, it occurred to me that the sparse representation of minority jurors could prove to be a liability for the defendant in the case, since he was a Caribbean. The prosecution appeared to be building a case to show that great physical and psychological harm could have been done to the victim and a predominantly white jury could find it difficult to understand the difficulties associated with being a minority and such an understanding could be vital if the accused person was innocent of the crime, since miscarriage of justice can result from improper judicial procedure or prejudicial presentation of evidence7. Minority groups have a higher representation as clients of the criminal justice system and general findings in criminal justice indicate a higher incidence of crime among people whose ages range from 14 to 258 mostly caused by poverty, in neighbourhoods where effective means for economic sustenance and the availability of jobs is low, so that people often turn to violent crime out of frustration. Bibliography * Access to Justice Act 1999 * A guide to the criminal justice system in England and wales.” [online] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/cjs2000.pdf at pp 18 * Bankowski, Z.K, Hutton, N.R. and McNamus, J.J., 1987. “Lay Justice” Edinburgh: T& T Clark at pp 20 * Darbyshire, Penny, 1997. “An essay on the importance and neglect of the magistracy” Criminal law review, 627 at pp 628-9 * Martin, J, 2003. “The English Legal System” London” Hodder Arnold. * “Murder in the U.K.” [Online] Available at: http://www.murderuk.com/criminology/black.htm; accessed 1/8/07 * R v Fergus 98 Cr App R 313 * Woodcock, Thomas, 2003. “ Legal Habits: a brief sartorial history of wig, robe and gown”. London: Good books Publications Ltd Read More