Tag: crown court

Magistrates’ Court vs Crown Court: What’s the Difference?

March 13, 2024, By

If you have been charged with an offence and plead not guilty, the next step will be going to trial. At trial, the prosecution and defence will present evidence and a decision will be made whether to convict or acquit you. But at which court will your trial take place, and what does that mean to you? Our latest piece explores this…

Where will my trial take place?

Your trial can happen at either a Magistrates’ Court or a Crown Court. Trials in a Magistrates’ Court are known as summary trials, whereas in a Crown Court they are known as trials on indictment. For adults, all criminal cases begin in a Magistrates’ Court, but some offences can only be tried in Crown Court, some only in a Magistrates’ Court and others in either court. Where a trial takes place is determined on the seriousness of the offence.

Summary offences – Magistrates’ Court only

These are less serious cases such as disorderly behaviour, TV licence payment evasion, low level vehicle offences and minor assaults. Either-way offences – can be heard in a Magistrates’ Court or a Crown Court. These cases can include theft, burglary and drug offences that can vary vastly in seriousness. Magistrates will decide whether a case is serious enough to be heard in the Crown Court. If they decide whether the case should stay in the Magistrates’ Court, the defendant can choose whether they want their trial to take place in Crown Court instead.

Indictable only offences – Crown Court only

These are for the most serious cases such as murder, rape, and robbery. These cases start with an appearance in a magistrates’ court where the magistrates will decide whether the defendant should be granted bail.

What are the main differences?

Sentences: The Magistrates’ senetencing powers are limited to imposing maximum custodial sentences of 6-12 months, whereas the Crown Court can hand down the sentencing guidelines’ maximum sentences.

Decision-making: Most cases are dealt with by the Magistrates court. Cases in this lower court will be determine by Magistrates who are volunteers and not legally trained. They receive legal advice from a legal advisor on the matters of law. They have local knowledge and help deliver justice to communities local to them. Alternatively your case may be dealt with by a legally qualified District Judge.

In the Crown Court, matters of fact are determined by jurors selected at random from the local community. Juries are composed of twelve individuals from all walks of life of different ages, life experience and contrasting ethnic, social and cultural backgrounds. Matters of law are determined by a Judge in the Crown Court. They have legal training and qualifications.

Rates of acquittal: Conviction rates in the Crown Court are consistently lower than the conviction rates in the Magistrates Court

Delays: In the Magistrates’ Court, hearings and trials are generally listed sooner, whereas in the Crown Court there is significant delay. This is due to various factors including the amount of witnesses involved, the duration of the trial and the complexity or seriousness of the cases.

At Slater Heelis, we believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and robust defence, regardless of the accusations levelled against them.
If you’d like to speak to a member of the team, you can contact us on 0330 111 3131 or by using our contact form.

 

Are Crown Court Broadcasts a Good Idea?

January 30, 2020, By Slater Heelis
Discussing Crown Court Broadcasts

With mixed reviews in the media about Crown Court broadcasts, we have taken a look at the positives and negatives surrounding the new legislation allowing TV cameras to record and broadcast judges’ sentencing remarks.

Reasons for Change

On the 16th January 2020, the legislation was put into action. In approximately three months, we will start to see the first Crown Court broadcasts.

This change comes almost 100 years after it became a criminal offence to film or sketch in court, in 1925. So, why has the televising of Crown Court trials come into action? It is intended to give insight into the judicial system in action. The people behind this movement insist that only the judge will be seen. Victims, judges, lawyers, jurors and defendants will not be filmed.

The Issues with Crown Court Broadcasts

Several issues have arisen that could become bigger problems down the line.

For example, think of the ‘court’ style reality programmes that dominate daytime TV. While these are only ever comparatively tiny issues, they are made to be entertaining. The critics state that this style of ‘spectator sport’ could become attached to the real-life judgements on serious crimes.

A Bigger Picture

Without contextual understanding, the outcome of a trial may not appear to correlate with the extent of a crime.

Public backlash, albeit uninformed, could compromise the safety of the judges. Although an extreme comment, with high profile cases and judges in the public eye, they could become an easier target if injustice is perceived.

While many of the public viewers may seek genuine information instead of entertainment, there is no denying that cases such as murder, sexual offences and terrorism could gain a lot of interest. With interest comes intrigue, personal opinions and different perceptions of justice as well as media outlets seeking headlines.

The Government Perspective

This legislation ensures that the courts remain transparent and allow people to see justice being delivered to the most serious of offenders. It is hoped to give an extra dimension for the public to understand why and how the law is interpreted in each case.

While this may seem a viable way to showcase openness in the courts, not all of those in the legal profession can agree that it is worthwhile.

A Solicitor’s Perspective

We asked our Head of Crime and Regulatory, Rachel Fletcher, what she thought.

She believes the government should be prioritising the failings of the justice system instead. These hearings tell you little about a case, and she’s not sure the public would really be that interested. Unless, of course, it is a high profile case that the public is following.

Generally speaking, the purpose of this legislation is unclear – it would be more beneficial for them to spend time fixing the actual justice system than the streaming of it to serve people’s curiosity.

Time Will Tell

With conflicting perspectives, we shall have to wait and see the impact of this change in legislation.

Perhaps the news outlets will just cover the most high profile cases that will be of public interest. Maybe the majority of the public won’t take up the option to watch these cases, and stick to the entertainment of the daytime TV instead.