Skip to main content

Search

“A justice factory”: over-efficiency in the magistrates’ courts

Fionnuala Ratcliffe
15 Oct 2024

Defendant: [Interrupts] Can I say something please? 

Defence solicitor: No. 

District judge: If you interrupt again, I will send you to the cells. This is not a public forum shouting match. Am I clear? 

Defendant: [Pauses] I just wanted … 

District judge: [Interrupts] Am I clear? 

Defendant: Yes.

When it comes to justice, is quicker always better? The new government’s message is that there is no money and so we all need to do more with less. In the courts, the spotlight is on the Crown Court where the backlog is huge. But the magistrates’ courts have been under pressure for years to do more, faster. 

Finding ways to hurry things up might be a sensible strategy if you run a supermarket checkout, say. But given the stakes involved, might we need a bit more time and consideration in our criminal justice process? 

A new book by Dr Shaun S Yates of London Met University is the latest to raise the alarm about the impact a drive for efficiency is having on the quality of justice. Dr Yates sat in a courtroom in the magistrates’ courts observing hours of hearings for nine months. His approach – using stenography to capture every word, pause and gesture in the courtroom – captures the myriad of ways this drive for efficiency is damaging our justice system.  

Dr Yates concludes that the court prioritises speed over everything else, including defendant comprehension, verdict accuracy, and fairness. Defendants often didn’t understand the questions they were asked or what was happening:

Legal advisor: Please stand Mr Defendant … would you like your trial in this court or in the Crown Court? 

Defendant: Sorry I never understood that.   [The legal advisor reiterates the previous question, speaking very fast] 

Defence solicitor: [Interrupts] He wishes it to be dealt with here.

One defendant asked to be provided details of their next court hearing in writing, to which the legal advisor responded: No, we won’t do that, you are here in court so now the onus is on you.”

Defendants were prevented from interrupting, as courts sought to speed through proceedings:

Defendant: Well, I am guilty but … 

District judge: [Interrupts] Please sit down Mr Defendant, I’m sure Ms Solicitor can explain for us. [shouts] I said sit down Mr Defendant, this is what Ms Solicitor is here for! 

Defendant: Arhhh! [Sits down]

Silencing defendants was even easier by video link. Dr Yates observed legal advisors regularly muting defendants during their hearing without forewarning or consent. 

We saw how defendant participation was sacrificed to keep the wheels of justice turning in our CourtWatch London project last year which brought members of the public into magistrates’ courts to observe what happened and report it back. In one hearing the defendant was told to “shut up” by one of the magistrates when he disagreed with something the prosecution said, even though it turned out the defendant was correct. Another courtwatcher observed a hearing where the defendant “had his hand up on the video link on two occasions for approx. 5 mins but nobody in the courtroom noticed or acknowledged this.”

Both Dr Yates and our courtwatchers also observed an almost willful ignoring of defendants who were ill or in severe distress. As Dr Yates put it: “when a defendant presented behavioural evidence that they were living with a mental health issue(s) during proceedings, staff would refrain from investigating these issues. Instead, staff would commit to proceedings as normal.”

Some judges did not believe that defendants were mentally ill, instead becoming annoyed that mental health had been raised as a mitigating factor:

District judge: Time and again I hear that ‘he has mental health issues’, he only has mental health issues [if] he has been diagnosed. 

Defence solicitor: Well, I have a letter here from his doctor here saying that he has ongoing mental struggles.

 District judge: What does that mean? Has he been to see a psychiatrist? Has he a condition? 

Defence solicitor: Erm, well … [Gestures to papers/ shows document] 

District judge: I’ll read it! Pass it here! [The district judge is almost shouting. Usher passes document from the solicitor to the judge]

The decisions made in a magistrates’ courts are pivotal for people’s lives – they need to be made carefully or risk miscarriages of justice or a decision that makes matters worse. Our courtwatchers did think the courts were inefficient – mostly that there was a lot of waiting around between hearings and delays getting the right people (defendants and professionals) in one place – but they also wanted the court to take the time to get decisions right. 

Courtwatchers liked seeing magistrates and judges who asked for more information and appeared to give decisions thoughtful consideration – and they reported on many hearings where they felt the magistrates and judges were productive, pragmatic and thorough. But they also observed judges appearing to show a “disheartening lack of curiosity”: “I felt the judge could have made a better effort to understand the defendant’s behaviour to then consider rehabilitation opportunities”. A speedy, standardised response will not help people who find themselves before the courts to live a crime-free life or address underlying issues.

There is a silver-ish bullet in criminal justice to the challenge of how to deliver without getting more funding – to reduce demand. More cases can be resolved without going to court, by the police referring to local services who can support people to address underlying drivers of crime. 

Reducing demand on the magistrates’ courts would give the courts the time they need to understand the person in front of them and to sentence in a way that supports rehabilitation. Reducing demand has worked well in the youth justice system – youth justice services’ caseloads have shrunk and now they are the best performing part of the criminal justice system. 

Dr Yates concludes that “the lower criminal courts [resembles] a justice factory more than it does a place where delicate social problems are carefully considered and resolved.” The magistrates’ courts need more time for each case – resolving more cases without going to court will allow them to deal with these delicate social problems more effectively.

Transform Justice is hosting a free webinar on Wednesday 13 November on how the police can identify missed opportunities to resolve cases without going to court. If you’d like to join, sign up here.