Muhammed Awais
D1- Advantages and Disadvantages of Lay People
In this report, I will talk about lay people and the advantages and disadvantages of the lay people. There are two
types of lay people in our courts. There’s the three lay magistrates which sit and rule in the magistrate’s court
where 95% of criminal cases are tried. Then there are juries, these are 12 members of the public which are
randomly chosen to help decide a verdict of a case. They are chosen from the electoral register and they are
normally aged between 18 and 60. They will only sit in the crown court and decide if a defendant is guilty or not
guilty. They don’t decide the time he may face in prison. The 12 members of the jury must agree upon an
answer which is ambiguous, if they don’t all agree then the ratio 10/2 is applied. Anything less than this results
in a hung jury.
Advantages-
An advantage of using lay magistrates, is that it is a lot more cost effective. This is because they are volunteers
and they are unpaid, whereas judges are more expensive as they paid for their services. Magistrates in a year
will claim £500 from working at the magistrate’s court, these could be travelling costs and any other costs like
missing out in work. However, a district judge get a more than £100,000 in salary. There is a saving of £100m
by people using magistrates other than paid judges. So as the magistrates listen to 95% of all criminal cases, if it
was the other way around then they would cost a lot of money. In the magistrate’s court being found guilty
would cost the culprit £550, however in the crown court it would £2,600. In the magistrate’s court for an either
way trial it would cost £1,150 at the highest, whereas in the crown court it will cost £4,200. So, it is far cheaper
for a case to be heard at the magistrate’s court. (http:////wwwcppscov.cu///eeoae//atovtp//pvsos//a e_t_t-
tspaeestvftpvso//)
Another advantage of using lay magistrates is that they are local people and they will be more informed about
the local area. They will know if there are any issues, if any in their local area. They will be more informed
about any law crime patterns which occur in that area. For example, if there were a rise in robberies in their
area, they will be better informed as they live in that area. When the judges know the local area, they will know
who they can sentence so that they can reduce the amount of crime within their local area. When they know the
local area, this is an advantage for them as they will know how to deal with a defendant. To be a lay magistrate
you need to live in 15 miles of the court. This would mean leaving in the area which is in question. Also in the
crown court, it takes time to acknowledge where the location of the crime was. In the case of Paul V DPP
(1989) local knowledge helped the lay magistrate to decide on a verdict. In the case a prostitute was kerb
crawling in the local area. As the magistrates knew that there was a problem of kerb crawling in that area,
therefore the defendant was sentenced. When the defendant appealed Lord Justice Woolf said “this was the sort
of case that was particularly appropriate for trial by magistrates with local knowledge. This quote tells us that it
is good for the lay magistrates to have local knowledge.
(https://blackboard.lutonsfc.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-139949-dt-content-rid-382443_1/courses/LW.LS2/Cost
%20Effective%20and%20Local%20Knowledge.pdf)
An advantage of using the jury is that there is a group of people which sit on a bench and it isn’t like the lay
magistrates which only have 3. They are more likely to get a more balanced view if they are judged by their
peers. Also as there are 12 people any bias opinions will be wiped out by the other people in the jury. The jury
has the right to judge their peers in the crown court, therefore there would be a good thing as it shows that juries
are effective. Lord Devlin said, “trial by jury is more than an instrument of Justice and more than one wheel of
the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives” this quote shows that the public have their views
respected. As they can judge a person in a criminal case which is in the crown court. Being tried by peers means
that people are more likely to accept what 12 members of society has said, but they won’t accept what 3 lay
magistrates as they think that they don’t represent society. In the case of Rebekah Brook, she was convicted of
phone hacking and she had to attend court where she was judged by the jury on four occasions and they found
her off being not guilty. The victims of the mobile phone hackings were royals, celebrities and people who have
been involved with crime. Her ex-boyfriend was found guilty on conspiracy to hack phones, he was sent to
prison for 2 years. She had thanked the jury of finding her not guilty. As she said “…I am grateful to the Jury
for coming to their decision.” This shows that the jury had understood the situation of Rebekah and didn’t let
that in deciding the verdict. Juries will allow people to take part in sentencing criminals. So that the guilt can be
decided by the public and not by the court. 80% of people said that they would rather be judged by the jury.
D1- Advantages and Disadvantages of Lay People
In this report, I will talk about lay people and the advantages and disadvantages of the lay people. There are two
types of lay people in our courts. There’s the three lay magistrates which sit and rule in the magistrate’s court
where 95% of criminal cases are tried. Then there are juries, these are 12 members of the public which are
randomly chosen to help decide a verdict of a case. They are chosen from the electoral register and they are
normally aged between 18 and 60. They will only sit in the crown court and decide if a defendant is guilty or not
guilty. They don’t decide the time he may face in prison. The 12 members of the jury must agree upon an
answer which is ambiguous, if they don’t all agree then the ratio 10/2 is applied. Anything less than this results
in a hung jury.
Advantages-
An advantage of using lay magistrates, is that it is a lot more cost effective. This is because they are volunteers
and they are unpaid, whereas judges are more expensive as they paid for their services. Magistrates in a year
will claim £500 from working at the magistrate’s court, these could be travelling costs and any other costs like
missing out in work. However, a district judge get a more than £100,000 in salary. There is a saving of £100m
by people using magistrates other than paid judges. So as the magistrates listen to 95% of all criminal cases, if it
was the other way around then they would cost a lot of money. In the magistrate’s court being found guilty
would cost the culprit £550, however in the crown court it would £2,600. In the magistrate’s court for an either
way trial it would cost £1,150 at the highest, whereas in the crown court it will cost £4,200. So, it is far cheaper
for a case to be heard at the magistrate’s court. (http:////wwwcppscov.cu///eeoae//atovtp//pvsos//a e_t_t-
tspaeestvftpvso//)
Another advantage of using lay magistrates is that they are local people and they will be more informed about
the local area. They will know if there are any issues, if any in their local area. They will be more informed
about any law crime patterns which occur in that area. For example, if there were a rise in robberies in their
area, they will be better informed as they live in that area. When the judges know the local area, they will know
who they can sentence so that they can reduce the amount of crime within their local area. When they know the
local area, this is an advantage for them as they will know how to deal with a defendant. To be a lay magistrate
you need to live in 15 miles of the court. This would mean leaving in the area which is in question. Also in the
crown court, it takes time to acknowledge where the location of the crime was. In the case of Paul V DPP
(1989) local knowledge helped the lay magistrate to decide on a verdict. In the case a prostitute was kerb
crawling in the local area. As the magistrates knew that there was a problem of kerb crawling in that area,
therefore the defendant was sentenced. When the defendant appealed Lord Justice Woolf said “this was the sort
of case that was particularly appropriate for trial by magistrates with local knowledge. This quote tells us that it
is good for the lay magistrates to have local knowledge.
(https://blackboard.lutonsfc.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-139949-dt-content-rid-382443_1/courses/LW.LS2/Cost
%20Effective%20and%20Local%20Knowledge.pdf)
An advantage of using the jury is that there is a group of people which sit on a bench and it isn’t like the lay
magistrates which only have 3. They are more likely to get a more balanced view if they are judged by their
peers. Also as there are 12 people any bias opinions will be wiped out by the other people in the jury. The jury
has the right to judge their peers in the crown court, therefore there would be a good thing as it shows that juries
are effective. Lord Devlin said, “trial by jury is more than an instrument of Justice and more than one wheel of
the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives” this quote shows that the public have their views
respected. As they can judge a person in a criminal case which is in the crown court. Being tried by peers means
that people are more likely to accept what 12 members of society has said, but they won’t accept what 3 lay
magistrates as they think that they don’t represent society. In the case of Rebekah Brook, she was convicted of
phone hacking and she had to attend court where she was judged by the jury on four occasions and they found
her off being not guilty. The victims of the mobile phone hackings were royals, celebrities and people who have
been involved with crime. Her ex-boyfriend was found guilty on conspiracy to hack phones, he was sent to
prison for 2 years. She had thanked the jury of finding her not guilty. As she said “…I am grateful to the Jury
for coming to their decision.” This shows that the jury had understood the situation of Rebekah and didn’t let
that in deciding the verdict. Juries will allow people to take part in sentencing criminals. So that the guilt can be
decided by the public and not by the court. 80% of people said that they would rather be judged by the jury.
