ABSTRACT

The previous chapters have discussed alterations occurring within the lower criminal courts in light of the streamlining and modernising processes being implemented. Courtroom observations illuminate the type of cases and general atmosphere of law adjudication in these courts. In this chapter empirical research with serving magistrates is drawn upon. Lay magistrates are at the centre of criminal court case processing in the English justice system and their experience in this role was a key focus of my research. This chapter first reports on the broad social and professional backgrounds of the magistrates interviewed before discussing their motivations for serving and the contributions they view they make to lay justice. There is little recent research on the way lay magistrates experience their court working role. This is despite their large number, the volume of cases they preside over and the important legal decision-making powers they preside over. Some research incorporates magistrates as interviewees in explorations of criminal court service delivery (Donoghue, 2014b; Dhami, 2013, 2004; Ipsos MORI, 2011; Morgan and Russell, 2000) and studies have been carried out from within magistrates’ courtrooms that analyse dynamics of power between judicial actors and the defendants appearing in them (McBarnet, 1981a, 1981b; Carlen, 1974). There is also a body of research focusing on the social composition of the magistracy. This typically draws attention to the mainly privileged, socioeconomic strata that magistrates come from, with issues of community representation raised (Gibbs and Kirby, 2014; Dignan and Wynne, 1997; Burney, 1979; Baldwin, 1976). There is some research on magistrates and ethnicity (Davis and Vennard, 2006). For example, King and May’s research (1985) on ‘black magistrates’ examined levels of involvement among black and Asian members and associated the research to race relations in the administration of justice. They found limitations with the recruitment approach, with it being considered that local black and Asian community groups could be mobilised more effectively to encourage their greater representation in the lay justice role. Grove’s (2002) textual account reports from courtroom observations and conversations with fellow magistrates across the country and brings to life the divergent nature of lower court work by region and social and economic history. Grove commented on the ethnic representation among magistrate benches and

remarked on the mixed ethnicity in the large city benches he visited in Birmingham and London. There are other studies that have been carried out with serving magistrates that deserve mentioning (Malsch, 2009; Brown, 1991; Parker et al., 1989, among others) but there is less analysis of magistrates’ working role from their perspective. Together with there being limited recent research with serving magistrates on court working experiences, scant evidence emerges to shift the emphasis from measuring magistrates in terms of blunt socio-economic variables. There is little that moves us beyond the narrative that largely portrays magistrates to be from conservative sections of society, whose lives and lifestyles are distinct from the general public’s and whose experiences do not reflect those they sit in judgement over. Periodically, there are recruitment drives to boost the number of serving magistrates and to shape a more diverse profile of magistrates than has historically, and to some extent consistently existed. The core definition of lay justice as performed by magistrates is that it is local justice dispensed by ordinary members of the community. It is therefore considered important that those who dispense courtroom justice are reflective of society’s diverse make-up (Thomas, 2010). Over the years efforts have been made to draw greater representation from ethnic minority communities and younger age groups. Indeed, the issue of ‘judicial diversity’ and, in part, lack of it is not limited to the lower criminal courts or to discussion of the UK. Similar calls to achieve greater diversity among jurors sitting on jury trials in the Crown Courts have been made (Thomas, 2010), and other jurisdictions centre attention on achieving a greater ethnic and gender mix among judicial members occupying this high-level legal role. Returning to the issue of the social composition of the magistracy, earlier research by Burney (1979) addressed the social backgrounds of serving magistrates. She studied the profile of magistrates in seven ‘bench areas’ and situated their high social status within the selection and nomination process of the time. She highlighted that nomination mainly came about through recommendations from other magistrates. In this way, Burney referred to the selection process as too easily turning into ‘self-perpetuating oligarchies’ of privilege (ibid.: 73). Similarly, Dignan and Wynne’s (1997) critique of the magistracy was generated from research carried out across a bench of magistrates in the north Midlands. They also made reference to the restricted social class background among the surveyed magistrates. They pointed to the limited number of local areas the magistrates resided in across the region and the higher property values of the areas when compared to the national average. They mentioned the predominance of professional backgrounds among magistrates, identifying a particular social elite. They asked, given the fact that magistrates come from mainly middle-class and professional career backgrounds, whether it is time to portray the magistracy more realistically. They go further with this argument to suggest questioning what is wanted from the magistracy in terms of its function. One offer they state is that it might be time to consider committing to a ‘quasi-professional panel of suitably qualified people’ (ibid.: 196). Dignan and Wynne cite other studies

conducted among magistrates back in the 1970s and make reference to magistrates’ membership within certain organisations such as the Freemasons and Rotary clubs. They similarly state that these revelations help to fuel notions of ‘a local self-selecting elite that is highly unrepresentative of the community from which it was drawn’ (ibid.: 189). Baldwin’s (1976) study of the social class backgrounds of magistrates in the 1970s used the Registrar General’s classification. This separates occupational status into ‘professional’ in the higher working class tier and unskilled occupations in the lower tier. Baldwin found an overrepresentation among the magistrates he surveyed to be from the professional and managerial class, with the absence of working-class magistrates emphasised within his findings. Gibbs and Kirby’s (2014) research focuses attention on the issue of diversity among magistrates in the current period. They stress that there is a need to strengthen efforts to achieve greater societal representation but assert widening out from the domains of age and ethnicity is needed to account for the varied religious affiliations, social class backgrounds and sexual orientations of community members’. They suggest that the viable future for the magistracy is at risk if it does not represent the make-up of society as a whole. This chapter picks up on the theme of diversity among the magistracy, but moves away from focusing on their middle-class status to comment on the varied personal and professional backgrounds that magistrates come from. Background information is provided on the magistrates interviewed before critically examining the way they experience this working role and the contributions they consider they make to the system of lay justice. From my research, I develop an argument that diverse and balanced benches are indeed paramount, but it is not the social class backgrounds of magistrates that matters. What matters is that a reasonable understanding of the social ills and disadvantage inherent in society, which overlaps for some into offending pathways, is appreciated and that the administration of justice is executed with confidence in effecting the fair application of justice process and procedure.