My Court Visits - Assignment Example

My Report of Court Visits The most important aspect of the English criminal justice process is the trial that takes place in the court. Evidence, from prosecution or defence is admissible only if the witness is cross-examined by the other side and confronted in open court with omissions in previous statements including statements before police reduced to writing. Contradictions are also used. All the information and testimony that counts is that which is orally presented in court. Any written information such as witness statements to police has to be repeated in court and the speaker can be challenged and cross examined. This right to confront your accuser in open court is regarded as the core of the English trial system (and of course that of other jurisdictions based on it).  Criminal courts in English legal system are of two types. They are known respectively as Magistrates’ Courts and Crown Courts. Trials are conducted in these two Courts. All criminal cases start in the Magistrates’ courts. Petty offences, or offences not serious in nature are dealt with by Magistrates’ court. They are called summary offences. All cases regarding these offences are decided entirely in the Magistrates’ Court. Apart from summary offences, there can be two other types of offences. One is known as either-way offence. In either-way offences, the suspect has a choice. His case can either be heard by the Magistrates’ court or if so desired, he can insist on trial by judge and jury in the Crown Court. Magistrates’ Court can impose fines up to £ 5000, and punishments up to 12 months1. However, the Magistrates’ Court has power to impose more sentence if the defendant is charged with two or more offences, and at least two offences are either way offences. Over 95% of all criminal cases are dealt with by Magistrates’ Courts.2 Magistrates’ Courts may refer some cases to Crown Court if it reaches a conclusion that the defendant deserves more severe punishment than they can. However, all the three types of cases must be first heard by the Magistrates’ Court. This hearing is known as committal. Offences of the other type are known as indictable offences. Indictable offences are to be tried only by Crown Court. Indictable offences are more serious criminal cases such as murder, manslaughter, assault, rape or robbery. The Crown Courts can hear appeals from orders of Magistrates Courts. These cases in Magistrates’ Courts are heard by three lay magistrates (who are known as justices of peace) or by a District Judge. The magistrates are volunteers from the locality. District Judge is a trained lawyer. He is a government servant. The prosecution is usually carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service. A representative of the Crown prosecution service is usually present in the Court. The Magistrates’ Courts also act as Youth Court. Acting as such, they can a sentence of Youth detention of up to two years. Prosecution in Magistrates’ Court is done by solicitors or by Crown Prosecutors. In Crown Courts, prosecution is done by Crown prosecutors, barristers instructed by Crown Prosecution Service or by higher Court Advocate. Defendant is usually represented by solicitors. In some cases, defendants are also represented by barristers. In certain cases, defendants are also given free legal aid. This happens when the defendant can not afford to pay for his representation by a solicitor. Trials in Crown Courts are heard by a Judge and a 12 person jury. The jury is selected from among general public, and it is a civic duty to act as jury if a person is selected as a juror by a well established system. Furthermore, a person chosen as a juror is legally required to attend court.3 The Crown Court is based at 77 centres across England and Wales. It deals with case transferred from the Magistrates Courts. It also hears appeals against decisions of Magistrates Courts, and deals with cases sent for sentence from Magistrates Courts. The English system uses adversarial form of trial. This means that the two sides, in criminal cases the defence and the prosecution, are against each other. The prosecution side always has to provide oral evidence i.e. witnesses have to state on oath the contents of their earlier statements (before the police). The defence has a right to examine witnesses or give other evidence as per its requirements. The judge acts as the umpire.4 In Crown Courts the judge and the jury act together. The judge guides the jury on points of law. The jury determines on the basis of facts of the case as per the evidence produced before the court. The judge guides them as to law points and what should be considered of the facts. He is also required to tell them the material that is to be excluded from evidence. The judge then sums up the matter for the jury. Members of the jury then sit together in a separate room and discuss amongst themselves. They decide by a majority of votes whether the defendant is guilty or not. Sometimes the discussions are carried over to the next day. Then the jurors are accommodated in a Hotel. The trial before judge and jury in the Crown Court is regarded as the pinnacle of the English system of criminal justice.5 It is the office of the judge to instruct the jury in points of law-that of the jury to decide on matters of fact.6 The jury system is the best judicial system in terms of its fairness. In this system, the defendants are judged by their own peers. However, there are some disadvantages of Crown Courts because of which there is criticism. Former Home Secretary Jack Straw had gone on record to say that the jury system is abused by defendants, “for no good reason other than to delay proceedings.”7 Because of these and defects, the Government felt compelled to appoint Lord Justice Auld to prepare a report on the working of criminal courts. The recommendations of this report8 include the following regarding trial by Crown Courts. 1. The defendant should no longer have an elective right to trial by judge and jury in either-way cases. Matters too serious for the Magistrates Division should go directly to the District or Crown Division. Either-way cases for the Crown Court should be "sent" there in the same way as indictable-only. 2. Defendants in the Crown Court and District Divisions, should be entitled with the courts consent to opt for trial by judge alone. 3. In serious and complex frauds the defendant should be tried by nominated trial members drawn from a panel established by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose or by himself alone. 4. Third, a youth court, constituted by a judge of an appropriate level and at least two experienced youth panel magistrates, should be given jurisdiction to hear all grave cases against young defendants. 5. Legislation should be introduced to require a judge, not a jury, to determine the issue of fitness to plead. My first visit was to a Crown Court. On 23/11/2009, I visited the Harrow Crown Court at Hailsham drive, off Headstone Drive, Harrow, London HA1 4TU. I found out the address from the internet.9 I was there for about three hours. I went there in the morning session. I reached the court at about 11 am. I had been advised to go to the information centre, and I was given detailed information about her Majesty’s Court Services. Special provisions are made for disabled people. Witnesses are provided many facilities. There is provision for refreshments to be given to the jury. The defendant appeared to be educated and aware of the court proceedings. Before the hearing began, he talked with his lawyer, and the lawyer nodded several times. It seemed that the defendant was intelligent and was giving important tips to his lawyer, a middle aged man. The judges were sitting on what was told to be the Bench. There were three judges, and they were wearing wigs. One of the judges was wearing a purple robe. The proceedings started with the prosecutor’s lawyer presenting brief facts of the case. The defendant was charged with assault. The victim was the girlfriend of the prosecutor. It was alleged that the defendant had assaulted the prosecutor’s girlfriend, and had thrown her to the ground. He deliberately did this so as to hurt her, and allegedly to cause a fatal injury.   It was very interesting to attend the proceeding. The general impression about court room drama as shown in films or on TV was wrong. There was not much drama. The defendant sat in the dock. There were two witnesses. I had taken with me a notebook, but I was told that I could not take any notes. The jury consisted of seven women, and I was surprised by their appearance. I had thought that the jury consisted mostly of men and that they would be old and vulnerable. But the majority of jurors were young. Firstly, a video tape was shown to the court, in which the main witness was shown to have answered some questions by prosecutor’s lawyer asked him some questions, and the first witness, who was the prosecutor, told that the defendant assaulted his girlfriend when they were buying tickets. After the tape was played out, the prosecutor was made to take oath. One of the judges asked him a few questions. The judge asked him why he did not report the incident to the police. The prosecutor said that he had taken the victim to the police station. But the police did not register any case because no injury was visible. After that, the witness was cross examined by the defence lawyer. The witness could not give any reason for the assault. The next witness was examined in the court itself. He told the court that the defendant had tried to bypass the queue. The prosecutor’s girlfriend shouted at him, and he hit her with fists on her chest. He did not know the prosecutor or his girlfriend. In his cross examination, he told the court that the prosecutor had pointed out to him the defendant. The defendant was asked whether he wanted to give any evidence. He declined. Then the lawyers argued the matter. The jury was told that they should disregard the identity evidence, and after about half an hour, the jury communicated that they found the defendant not guilty. The decision of the jury seemed reasonable. As argued by the defence lawyer, there was no relevant evidence against the defendant. I felt that the jury had done their work properly. However, the jury took much longer than was expected, when the evidence clearly showed that the defendant was not guilty. For my visit to a magistrate’s court, I went to the Magistrates Court House at the Hyde Hendon London England NW9 7BY. I visited it on 04/11/2009. I reached the Court at 10:50 am and was there till 2:55 pm. Two defendants appeared. One was charged for causing distress and bodily harm to his dog. The Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was prosecuting the case. The defendant pleaded guilty. The Magistrates fined him £180. He was told by the clerk of the Magistrates to pay the fine within a period of within 3 weeks. His pleading guilty had persuaded the magistrates to believe that he would try and become a better person. A magistrate asked him about his job, and the defendant said he worked as a labour for a construction firm. I was expecting the magistrates to behave much more in a severe manner, but the atmosphere in the courthouse was relaxed.   In the second case the defendant was charged with two counts of assault on a young married woman. He was her husband. The only witness was the victim herself. One of the magistrates asked whether only the victim could be examined as a witness. The clerk of the court rose from his seat in front of the bench, and addressed the court on relevant provision. The defendant herself cross examined the witness. He asked her when and where the alleged assault took place. She said that it was on a Friday and that the assault had taken place in a pub. The defendant then confronted her with her shift schedule for the relevant week. It showed that the alleged victim was on duty in her company. Defendant was found not guilty. In my visits I found that justice was administered adequately. The trial was fair. The magistrates and the judges appeared competent. The jury was well informed and instructe3d properly by the Judge. Bibliography 1. http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/how_it_works/magistrates_court/ 2. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/jury_service/index.htm 3. John Lea, Criminal Court Trial, 2006, internet article retrieved from http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cjs/26905.htm 4. http://www.hmcourts- service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/Ex104.do?court_id=685&language=English 5. Broom, Herbert Broom’s Legal Maxims, 10th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, p. 57 6. Interview of Home Secretary Jack Straw, May 19,1999 available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/347374.stm 7. Lord Justice Auld, A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales, 2001 Available at http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ Read More