Compare the trail process in the magistrates and crown courts, using a summary, either way and
indictable offence
First of all it is necessary to understand the difference in the offences, mainly summary being more
minor offences like theft or common assault and indictable offences being more serious offences like
rape or murder. Magistrate’s courts deal primarily with summary offences and crown courts
indictable offences. As either way offences can be held in either court it depends upon the
seriousness of the offence as to which court it is actually heard in, usually a magistrates but if they
believe it too serious then it will be sent up to crown court. As the offences are heard in different
courts it can be difficult to draw comparisons between them, however the trial process for both can
be seen and observations made.
The trail processes for magistrates court is designed primarily to deal with summary offences. These
form the majority of the offences heard overall (90%), As such the court needs to decide early on if
the case needs to be sent up to crown court especially if the offence is either way. The court of
course can at any point in the case send it up to crown. The magistrate’s court will have the
magistrates and they make the decisions, the prosecution and defence as well as the defendant is of
course present but there is no jury. A number of agencies and organisations maybe involved
depending upon the case, these can be to help the defence or enforce the punishment.
The trail process for the crown court is designed to be more serious and pay close attention to the
details of the case as indictable offences are serious. The court will rarely need to refer a case to
higher courts but a few may be sent down to a magistrate’s court on the basis it’s not serious enough
to be heard in a crown court. The crown court is much more complicated in its composition to a
magistrates court and has many more organisations and agencies involved. There is also a media
consideration that the magistrates rarely have to put up with. Reflecting the seriousness of the cases
that they hear the crown courts are expensive and the trials long and drawn out.
Comparing the two different styles of processes that exist shows the differences that are present.
The courts difference coming from the seriousness of the crimes they deal with and the number of
agencies and appropriate cost that is involved. With the court system as a general comparison the
different courts represent different levels of the justice system each level increasing in its seriousness
and power with factors like media consideration becoming real issues. As the majority of cases
however are dealt by magistrate’s court (90%) and then the majority of the remaining cases taken up
by crown court this view of the court system is bottom heavy and ignores a lot the increasing issues
that appear as you go up the justice system and enter higher courts.
indictable offence
First of all it is necessary to understand the difference in the offences, mainly summary being more
minor offences like theft or common assault and indictable offences being more serious offences like
rape or murder. Magistrate’s courts deal primarily with summary offences and crown courts
indictable offences. As either way offences can be held in either court it depends upon the
seriousness of the offence as to which court it is actually heard in, usually a magistrates but if they
believe it too serious then it will be sent up to crown court. As the offences are heard in different
courts it can be difficult to draw comparisons between them, however the trial process for both can
be seen and observations made.
The trail processes for magistrates court is designed primarily to deal with summary offences. These
form the majority of the offences heard overall (90%), As such the court needs to decide early on if
the case needs to be sent up to crown court especially if the offence is either way. The court of
course can at any point in the case send it up to crown. The magistrate’s court will have the
magistrates and they make the decisions, the prosecution and defence as well as the defendant is of
course present but there is no jury. A number of agencies and organisations maybe involved
depending upon the case, these can be to help the defence or enforce the punishment.
The trail process for the crown court is designed to be more serious and pay close attention to the
details of the case as indictable offences are serious. The court will rarely need to refer a case to
higher courts but a few may be sent down to a magistrate’s court on the basis it’s not serious enough
to be heard in a crown court. The crown court is much more complicated in its composition to a
magistrates court and has many more organisations and agencies involved. There is also a media
consideration that the magistrates rarely have to put up with. Reflecting the seriousness of the cases
that they hear the crown courts are expensive and the trials long and drawn out.
Comparing the two different styles of processes that exist shows the differences that are present.
The courts difference coming from the seriousness of the crimes they deal with and the number of
agencies and appropriate cost that is involved. With the court system as a general comparison the
different courts represent different levels of the justice system each level increasing in its seriousness
and power with factors like media consideration becoming real issues. As the majority of cases
however are dealt by magistrate’s court (90%) and then the majority of the remaining cases taken up
by crown court this view of the court system is bottom heavy and ignores a lot the increasing issues
that appear as you go up the justice system and enter higher courts.
