Only one of those cases was in a magistrates' court.
Anyone a magistrate?
- Thread starter Russinating
- Start date
Only one of those cases was in a magistrates' court.
True. But they all went through them.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
So have you joined as a magistrate? In the process?
People with good judgement who listen to court clerks and actually care about procedure and technicalities of law are important and we don't have enough of them.
Magistrates had no say in the disposation of two of the three cases you gave as examples to mock them.
They did but chose to pass it on as they deemed it beyond their ability to deal with. And the third? The repeat drink driver. Who was driving yet again while banned with multiple other convictions.
Would you like more?
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/elswick-man-avoids-jail-after-19671783
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/benwell-motor-menace-avoids-jail-18751084
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/west-moor-teen-avoids-jail-19753081
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/man-avoids-jail-after-being-18529889
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/mark-brown-north-shields-snapchat-19513786
Theyre just some of the more recent ones. I personally like the first. He was just chasing his mate with a baseball bat that he happened to find. Over 100 offences. Yet they overrode the automatic jail sentence he should have.
Last edited:
If you're going to comment on the sentencing ability of magistrates then it's appropriate to refer to cases in which they made the sentencing decision. I pointed out that wasn't the case in two if your three examples.
The cases are passed on because they're either-way offences so serious they should be heard at a Crown Court (where higher sentences can be given) or indictable offences which must be heard at a Crown Court. In some cases a defendant elects for a trial in a Crown Court. In some cases, where they consider that their sentencing powers are insufficient, magistrates can commit the defendant to the Crown Court for sentence. The end result of a Crown Court trial or sentencing has no bearing on the ability of magistrates.
Ignoring all the other examples?
And clearly those crimes weren't too serious or sentencing powers insufficient as...they weren't jailed. They got away with it.
I'm not ignoring any examples, I'm pointing out that two of the three in the post I quoted aren't relevant. You seem to be blaming magistrates because some people "got away with it" when their sentences were given in the Crown Court.
Right. But how did the cases get to Crown Court?
And you clearly are ignoring the other examples as how many times have I prompted you now?
It's your choice if you want to keep prompting, I haven't commented on the sentencing in specific cases and I have no intention of doing so.
It's a bit ridiculous to attribute the blame for what you see as inadequate sentencing in the Crown Court on the magistrates who sent the case there.
Were the magistrates capable of delivering sentences that exceeded those given out at the Crown Court?
They referred the cases (if they were referred) because they considered them so serious the appropriate sentence might exceed their sentencing powers. It's not their fault (if there was fault) that wasn't the end result.
But seemingly the cases didn't warrant a more appropriate sentence so they were wrong to refer them...
Quelle surprise that after a trial in the Crown Court the outcome isn't always what might have been anticipated when the magistrates sent it there. Are the magistrates also jokes if they send a case to the Crown Court and the verdict is not guilty?
No. Because they're not sending it to the court because they are unable to ascertain guilt. The cases were referred because the magistrate, seemingly incorrectly failed to understand the seriousness of the crimes. Or rather apparent lack of seriousness.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I thought you were arguing that the crown court should've given a longer sentence?
It's also worth noting that the Crown Court had to consider mitigating factors and guilty pleas etc before sentencing which the magistrates were not privvy to. The whole point of the referral is that the magistrates felt that the case could reasonably fall outside of their sentencing powers, not that it definitely would, because they can't possibly know that.
Thank you. You've explained it better than I was trying to though some explanations fall on deaf ears.
Isn't it the case that most charges go through the magistrates first, except for those that can only ever be dealt with by the crown court.
I seem to remember reading that there are things that are too "trivial" for the crown court and will pretty much always be seen by the magistrates in the first instance and only ever see a higher court upon appeal (things like most motoring offences).
There are "either way" cases where the magistrates may be able to hear them, or if they decide (as in the instances that Dis is getting upset about) that they may exceed their sentencing powers they'll get referred up.
And those that are only ever seen in the crown court (although iirc magistrates may be involved in deciding if someone should be held in custody for more than the normal time).
A case being referred up is as Burnsy says completely normal and how the system is meant to work, it ensures that if the case is serious enough and the person is conviced the sentence is done correctly - but it's done before any assessment of built is made.
IIRC the maximum a magistrate can sentence anyone to is 6 months, so any case where there is the likely hood (or even chance?) of a sentence exceeding that upon a guilty verdict is referred up, and for many offences the sentence can be over quite a wide spread so you end up with "either way" cases where the offence potentially falls under either court.
There used to be a blog run by anonymous magistrates that was great for explaining this sort of thing, as they'd go into how the court worked, give generic example cases of what happened and why.
I seem to remember reading that there are things that are too "trivial" for the crown court and will pretty much always be seen by the magistrates in the first instance and only ever see a higher court upon appeal (things like most motoring offences).
There are "either way" cases where the magistrates may be able to hear them, or if they decide (as in the instances that Dis is getting upset about) that they may exceed their sentencing powers they'll get referred up.
And those that are only ever seen in the crown court (although iirc magistrates may be involved in deciding if someone should be held in custody for more than the normal time).
A case being referred up is as Burnsy says completely normal and how the system is meant to work, it ensures that if the case is serious enough and the person is conviced the sentence is done correctly - but it's done before any assessment of built is made.
IIRC the maximum a magistrate can sentence anyone to is 6 months, so any case where there is the likely hood (or even chance?) of a sentence exceeding that upon a guilty verdict is referred up, and for many offences the sentence can be over quite a wide spread so you end up with "either way" cases where the offence potentially falls under either court.
There used to be a blog run by anonymous magistrates that was great for explaining this sort of thing, as they'd go into how the court worked, give generic example cases of what happened and why.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at linking to these cases. Every single case you linked to involved someone being given a custodial sentence. I don't think you quite understand that a suspended prison sentence IS a prison sentence in the legal system. When sentencing a Judge or Magistrate (and some of those cases were heard by District Judges, not by Magistrates) decides if a case has crossed the Custody Threshold ("So Serious" in legal terms), and what custodial sentence is appropriate. Having decided that, and only at that point, will they decide if they believe a sentence can be suspended. A Magistrates's sentencing remarks when handing down a suspended sentence even start
(you can read the pronouncement cards that Magistrates have to use here)
A threat of immediate recall to jail is a massive deterrent to any person to commit further crimes during their suspended period, coupled with the ability to impose further community-based punishments and rehabilitation that lets be honest just aren't available during a short-prison stay.
You seem to believe that sentencing in all of these cases is inappropriate - what do you believe the appropriate sentence should have been in each case, and more importantly why? How can you justify any sentence you believe should have been handed down, and how would you have ensured that it sat within the sentencing guidelines for that type of offense or if outside of the guidelines would you justify going outside to ensure that any appeal for too harsh a sentence wasn't granted/won?
One of the first cases you linked to originally (https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/gateshead-thug-who-broke-girlfriends-19844978) had a hefty prison sentence handed down by a Crown Court judge, way outside of Magistrate sentencing powers, but it was both suspended and the prisoner released as they'd already served time on remand. What was wrong with that sentence?
Yes 99.9999999% of all Criminal cases start in the Magistrates courts. There are some exceptions around Murders, but in most cases even if a Magistrate or District Judge can't hear the case they will still decide bail and relevant bail conditions.
Yes, you have 3 types of case; Summary Only, Either-Way, and Indictable Only.
- Summary Only can only be heard/sentenced in a Magistrates court (there are some rules around Summary only crimes that can be sentenced/heard in a Crown Court when heard together with a relevant more serious crime)
- Either-Way where it can be heard in either a Magistrates Court (as a Summary Trial) or a Crown Court (as a Jury trial). And even if it is heard and the defendant found guilty in a Magistrate court it can still be sent to the Crown Court for sentence. In general, unless there are very complex legal matters involved if its believed a sentence wouldn't exceed around 12-18 months custodial it will be kept in the Magistrates court; however the defendant can always elect for trial by Jury as well so even if the Magistrates say its suitable for summary trial it may still be sent to the Crown Court.
- Indictable - Always heard in the Crown Court
Maximum a Magistrate or District Judge can sentence for a custodial sentence is 6-months for a single offence, or up to 12-months for 2 or more either-way offences. Outside of that it's at most 300-hours community service, and the power to hand down unlimited fines. I should also say that activating an existing suspended sentence doesn't count towards the above limits, however, only a crown court can activate a crown court suspended sentence.
As mentioned above an either-way case is still suitable for Summary trial even if we believe our sentencing powers as Magistrates won't be "strong" enough if the defendant were found guilty, provided we feel any sentence would fall within the 12-18 month custody range as we can always commit for sentence to the Crown Court. The reasoning behind this is that typically the legal issues are still suitable for summary trial, its just the sentencing powers that may be inadequate, and a trial can be heard a lot quicker in a Magistrates court than a Crown court.
I think you're talking about http://magistratesblog.blogspot.com/ - the guy that ran it passed away a few years ago unfortunately as it was a great blog explaining what happens in the court.
One thing I should probably also highlight is that all Magistrate Court appeals are always heard in a Crown Court by a bench of 3 consisting of a Crown Court judge and two lay-Magistrates. In the same manner as a Magistrate Bench all 3 have an equal vote and an equal footing, the Crown Court judge is there to guide on points of law.
Last edited: