Unveiling the Hierarchical Structure of Criminal Courts in England and Wales

Introduction

The research of Chamberlain et al (2019) has detailed the hierarchy of criminal courts within England and Wales. The Magisterial Courts comprise the lowest rung of the hierarchical structure. The Magisterial Courts manage up to 98% of the criminal cases per annum within both England and Wales. However, such courts also deal with a limited number of civil cases and are, thus, dual performance courts as per the category of cases could be concerned. The civil legal responsibilities currently executed through such courts are comprised of family cases (including domestic violence and default in remittance of divorce based indemnities) and the dereliction in time bound payment of Council Taxes. In such civil cases, further appeals could be progressed to the Crown Court or to the High Court through the ‘case stated’ manners. This process has been compared to that of the Judicial Review by Henderson and Duncanson (2018). The bench consisting of three lay magistrates, involving the concept of justice of the peace generally hear the cases or a qualified District Judge is appointed for the purpose of hearing and then announcing the verdicts of the presented cases.

Next, the Crown Courts comprises of the next segment of the hierarchical systems of criminal justice system at England and Wales. The Crown Court, as has been identified by Machura (2018), are situated at in excess of 70 of centres throughout Wales and England. The functionalities of the Crown Court is to deal with serious cases of criminality including, robbery, murder, arson and rape. Enescu and Scheffer (2017) have specified that the Crown Court receives and hears the appeals forwarded from the Magisterial Courts and also announces verdicts and sentences pertaining to the appellation process based cases from the Magisterial Courts.

According to Newman (2017), the third segment in the hierarchy of criminal justice system across England and Wales is comprised of the Court of Appeal. This court hears the appeals forwarded to it against the sentences and convictions provided by the Crown Court. At the initial rung of the hierarchy, the appeals from the magisterial courts are forwarded to, as has been outlined by the research of Jacobson and Hunter (2016), the High court on the basis of ‘case stated’ which could be effectively compared to that of the process of judicial reviewing. Furthermore, the judgement promulgated by the High Court then could be reviewed at the Court of Appeal after such judgements could be appealed against in the due process of law.

The final segment of the criminal justice system jurisdiction at Wales and England could be identified to be the Supreme Court which acts as the final appellate court within these two territories. Downes (2016) has drawn attention to the fact that the House of Lords had been executing the responsibilities associated with the Supreme Court, as the apex institution of the criminal justice system, till 31st July, 2009.

Wall (2019) has stated that the court based legal system of justice within Wales and England is inherently a complicated one. In spite of the structural longevity of the system, it is often a matter of confusion pertaining to the hearing of the cases since the appropriate court of appeal could be difficult to determine as per the existing jurisdictional measures. Farrall (2017) has delineated that the Magisterial Court occupies the place at the nadir of the scale and the next place is allocated to the Crown Court and as has been discussed earlier, the next positions in the form of the structural hierarchy of the criminal court based justice system currently in existence at the two territories of the UK are occupied by the High Court, the Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court. In this context, the differences between the Magisterial Court and the Crown Court could be contextualised from definitive, empirical perspectives.

Magistrates Court

According to Field (2018), within the territories of England and Wales, in excess to 300 magisterial courts are currently operating and the legal prerogatives of such courts extend to the handling of minor offences so as to resolve these cases in the most efficient and time conserving manner. Gray (2019) has focused on the nature of such prerogatives and jurisdictions of such courts to highlight the fact that certain limitations exist for the magisterial courts regarding promulgation of sentences and verdicts since the sort of offences which are dealt with are secondary in terms of criminal implications. Furthermore, Murray (2016) has outlined that all of the criminal cases would be presented and initiated at the magisterial court and only a minor percentage of such cases with the most serious and grievous nature of the crime generally get referred to the higher courts, especially to the Crown Court. Simmonds (2019) has further elaborated such observations through listing the summary offences which are dealt with at the Magisterial Court as petty theft, disorderly conduct, public nuisance creation, vandalism as well as driving in an inebriated manner and so on. Furthermore, the Magisterial Court also deals with the crimes which are categorised as ‘either way’ crimes. Porter (2019) specified such crimes to be literally on the cusp of severity/seriousness and thus, could have the dual option of getting tried in the Magisterial Court or at the Crown Court.

Mawby (2016) has clarified that awarding prison sentences to the accused is within the legal jurisdiction of the Magisterial Courts, however, the delivered punishments by the Magisterial Court could only be non-custodial in nature in majority of the cases. Hall (2018) identified such punishments to be mostly formulated through bans or financial penalties such as fines of an optimum measure of £5,000. Such punishment sentencing primarily is awarded in crimes of secondary nature such as driving in inebriated manner and community sentences could be awarded for crimes of slightly greater significance and seriousness such as petty theft.

According to Shapland (2017), concerning offences of greater magnitude, it is the responsibility of the magistrate to determine whether the offenders are liable to be committed to the Crown Court and if provisioning of bail orders could be considered as definite possibilities. The longest of the custodial sentences which could be awarded by the magistrates could be no greater than 6 months involving singular offences and no greater than one year for multiplicity of committed offences. Manikis, (2019) stated that the magistrates could be selected from the local communities and a particular panel of two to three magistrates could be formulated to preside over the cases involving minor criminal offences. Furthermore, professional lawyers are appointed as district judges to as to preside over cases which are substantially of greater severity in terms of the perpetrated crimes. The Magisterial Court does not involve the jury system.

The Crown Court

Hall (2017) has delineated that the cases of critical severity in terms of the committed offences get referred to the Crown Court, as opposed to the Magisterial Court. Such offences could be identified to be armed robbery, murder, attempt to murder, manslaughter and so on. The previously outlined either way cases could be also referred to the Crown Court, especially in cases where the Magisterial Court could not have been properly equipped to manage the outcomes of such cases. The appeals from the Magisterial Court also are forwarded to the next hierarchical level of the judiciary, to the Crown Court. Furthermore, the convicts who have committed grievous offences or crimes and have been convicted by the Magisterial Court, could be sent to the Crown Court on occasions to receive their sentences. Miers (2019) has attempted to visualise the trials held at the Crown Court as proceedings which are mostly overseen by the Judge to rule on the various aspects of existing legal terminologies and perspectives and to guide the jury members in their professional responsibilities. The Judge also passes the judgement whenever the accused could be determined to be guilty of the accusations levelled against him/her. Hall (2017) has suggested that the arguments which could be considered to be relevant ones concerning the case proceedings, could be presented to the court by the defence council of the accused and the prosecution advocates could as well bring forth relevant arguments. The decision pertaining the measure of guilt determination as well as the selection of the sentence could be determined by a jury of 12 personnel who could be selected from the general populace in a random manner. According to Fairclough and Jones (2017), 92 different offices of the Crown Court are currently operating throughout Wales and England within predominantly in the local cities and towns. Most of the serious and severe cases of criminal offense are trialled at the Old Baily within London since this location is perceived to be the traditional centre of the justice and court systems within London.

Victims and witnesses

Bullock (2017) has opined that the problems associated with the unwillingness of victims and witnesses to be forthcoming to report the suffered crime to the law enforcement agencies have particular significance from the perspective of possibility of witness intimidation. The implications are extensive and involve the police department of the UK as well. Rogers (2018) has supported such a perspective through stating that witness and victim intimidation is primarily related to the various other problems which the police could encounter while the investigation could be in progress. This has to be differentiated form that of repeat intimidation. The fundamental difference is associated with the motives of the offenders. Regarding witness intimidation, the motives imply the intent of discouraging the victims/witnesses or both from reporting such crimes to the law enforcement services and from cooperating with the office of prosecution. However, Crawford and Lister (2017) have outlined that in case of repeat victimisation, the motive is firmly that of acquisitive in nature. This has been the rationale forming the basis on which the prevalent perceptions of repeat victimisation are developed as the subsequent victimisation has been the retaliation of their reporting of the initial crime. Intimidation plays a pivotal role in terms of determining the extent and severity of incidents.

Such realisations could bring into focus, as per the research of Hunter, May and Hough (2019), the factors which influence the apparent reluctance of victims and witnesses to report the incidents of criminal offences perpetrated against them(in case of the victims) or in their knowledge (in cases of the witnesses). This reluctance generally gets extended to the process of assisting prosecutors against the offenders in the courts of law as well. Murphy, Eckersley and Ferry (2017) have argued that one of such factors is the perceived or actual possibility of an emanating threat from the offenders or from their associates in crime for the victims and witnesses. Another of such factors has been identified by Loveday (2017) to be the generalised norms of particular communities which actively dissuade the victims and witnesses of criminal offences, such as residents of the area where the occurrences take place, from reporting such incidents to the police and from cooperating with the prosecutors. Such an observation could be further elaborated through the assertions that in various communities within the UK, close ties in between the offenders, the witnesses and their families could as well become the instruments of deterrence for the victims/witnesses from effectively cooperating with the legal prosecutors. Thus, Paterson and Williams (2018) have emphasised on the vital significance of such relationships and the corresponding influence such the same could exert upon the context of intimidation of the victims and witnesses.

Furthermore, one often overlooked aspect related to the evaluation of the reasoning of such reluctance exhibited by the victims and witnesses has been brought into focus by the research of Charman (2020) as the fact that specifically in the gang related violent crimes, the same individual could become, at different occasions, a victim, an offender and a witness. This factor has also established the historically observed close association between organised crime, domestic violence and witness intimidation. This mutual effect structure has been the primary reason that most of the efforts of investigation and prosecution of gang, narcotic, organised criminal and other forms of antisocial activities have been consecutively thwarted. Apart from all of the reasons which have been discussed so far, the refusal of witnesses to properly cooperate with the police services could as well be prompted by reasons which could be unrelated to that of intimidation or coercion. One of such reasons has been outlined by Rogers (2018) to be the general element of trust deficit in between the common populace and the police which could deter some personnel from engaging in active cooperation with the police. Other such reasons have been identified by the research conducted by Loveday (2018) to be the desire to retain privacy, the inclination towards having to protect the offender from any criminal prosecution service on the basis of emotional attachment with or economic dependence on such offence perpetrators and even the intention to protect children from the rigors of an uncertain future in terms of having their fathers indicted or subjected to criminal prosecution for committing domestic abuse.

From a definitive perspective, the practices and mechanisms of the police services as well as the criminal justice systems have been developed to effectively mitigate the adverse perceptions amongst the general populace regarding these law enforcement services. According to Heap and Paterson (2019), the police services are entitled to improve the security and safety of the people through promotion of the preventive measures through which crime, harm to the victims and witnesses to such crime and general disorder emanating from such crime could be controlled, if not completely averted. To this effect, the police services have been provided multiplicity of administrative stimuli to proactively engage with the victims and witnesses while further developing the capabilities of effective responding in a reactive manner to any impending or identified emergency. To this effect, the police services have been further entrusted with the expectation, at the community based operational levels, to contribute efficaciously and productively to the social cohesion through maintaining public order and focus consecutively on the local and regional problems so as to properly safeguard the general public. Abramovaite et al (2019) have condensed such responsibilities in the dual forms of detection of crime and prevention of the same.

The existing mechanisms are oriented towards undertaking of the primary measures of responsibilities and missions of the law enforcement agencies through gaining approvals form the pubic and through engaging in active collaboration with the populace along with other agencies. The mitigation of the reasons of non-collaboration by the victims and witnesses with those of the law enforcement agencies has been focused on through the fundamental concerns of the police services. According to Simmonds (2016), these concerns could be outlined as establishment and maintenance of order, security and civil protection as well as peace. The key constituent of the role of both police services and the legal justice architecture of the UK comprises of the acumen of proper handling of instances of crime in which the police services are entitled to investigate such incidents so as to identify and apprehend the offenders. Apart from this, both the legal justice system and the police have their particular contribution to make as two amongst a range of different social institutions to prevent crime within the existing social order.

In terms of the greater mandate of the police forces, the control and prevention of crime could only be considered to be partial constituents. The emphasis is on the regulation of conflict and social disturbance so that social order could be managed. To this effect, the unique resource available to the police services could be highlighted as the capacity of application of non-negotiable and coercive force to achieve such fundamental objectives. However, Farrall (2017) has averred that utilisation of such coercive and profuse measure of force could be only applicable in cases where the application of persuasive tactics, advices and issuance of formal warning could be considered to be absolutely insufficient. Thus, witness and victim protection could be considered to be incumbent upon the judiciousness and professionalism exhibited by the police and criminal justice mechanisms of England and Wales through effectively addressing the challenges which exist in terms of the executions of the civic roles which have been entitled to the police services as well as to the courts of law. According to Newman (2017), the application of such force is also conditional on the factor that the law enforcement personnel would have to sustain the circumstances through which the common populace could be enabled to effectively pursue their social projects and uncontested measure of social order could be sustained efficaciously.

Conclusion

At the conclusive stage, it could be observed that that preceding research study has brought forth multiplicity of realisations from differential perspectives related to the role of the police and criminal justice mechanism at England and Wales in providing witness and victim protection services and in absolving the adverse perceptions prevalent amongst a large sections of witnesses and victims who decide to the contrary of engaging with the law enforcement services in terms of reporting the instances of criminal occurrences. It is thus, of paramount significance, to ensure that the police and criminal justice services could proactively execute witness and victim protection programmes as essential components of the comprehensive response from the criminal justice mechanisms since the witnesses and victims are fundamental in terms of dismantling the organised criminal groups. In this context, legal and institutional assistance would be vital to be provided to the victims/witnesses so as to dispel the existing mistrust or apprehension regarding the police services in the perceptions of such victims/witnesses. Furthermore, the actual or perceived intimidation against the victims and witnesses could be exacerbated when such personnel, coming to the contact with the system of criminal justice, could be particularly vulnerable such as children who, by virtue of their underdeveloped levels of maturity and inexperience due to the age factor, could be especially at risk of getting subjected to threat of physical or psychological harm from the crime perpetrators. Thus, the criminal justice systems are required to apply special measures to ensure impartation of appropriate measure of assistance and protection to such vulnerable witnesses/victims.

Programmes of awareness enhancement would be required to be conducted at regular intervals so as to assist the criminal justice authorities in the form of judges, prosecutors, prison officials and the police especially. Such programmes would also have to be oriented towards imparting proper information sharing and training mechanisms to the judges, police officers, prosecutors and the authorities responsible for witness and victim protection procedures. Such training programmes would have to be efficient in terms of providing specialised support and advices to the witness protection units so as to establish the professional competency regime through which the different complications which, currently dissuade the witnesses or victims from coming forward with their complaints and information, could be managed. Such assistance could be comprehended in the form of development of procedures of operations, staffing arrangements and appropriate structures of functioning hierarchy.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Unraveling the Bloody Sunday Inquiries.

Reference List

Chamberlain, P., Keppel-Palmer, M., Reardon, S. and Smith, T., 2019. It is criminal: The state of magistrates’ court reporting in England and Wales. Journalism, p.1464.

Henderson, E. and Duncanson, K., 2018. Design and ideology: innovation and the magistrates’ court. Griffith Law Review, 27(2), pp.207-232.

Machura, S., 2018. Observations in Magistrates’ Courts: Space and Interaction.

Enescu, R. and Scheffer, T., 2017. Sentencing Hearings in English Crown Courts: Moralization in Criminal Trials. Revista Forumul Judecatorilor, p.112.

Newman, W.J., 2017. Some Observation on the Queen, the Crown, the Constitution, and the Courts. Rev. Const. Stud., 22, p.55.

Jacobson, J. and Hunter, G., 2016. Inside Crown Court: Personal experiences and questions of legitimacy. Policy Press.

Downes, D. ed., 2016. Unravelling criminal justice: eleven British studies. Springer.

Wall, D.S., 2019. The Chief Constables of England and Wales: The socio-legal history of a criminal justice elite. Routledge.

Farrall, S., 2017. Explaining the Crime Drop II: Responding to Crime in England and Wales. In Re-Examining The Crime Drop (pp. 51-79). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Field, R., 2018. The Elderly and Crime in England and Wales. In Perspectives on Elderly Crime and Victimization (pp. 61-77). Springer, Cham.

Gray, P., 2019. ‘Rights-Based’and ‘Children and Young People First’Approaches to Youth Justice. In The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice.. : Routledge..

Murray, E., 2016. The ‘Veteran Off ender’: A governmental project in England and Wales. In The Palgrave handbook of criminology and war (pp. 313-330). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Simmonds, L., 2019. The impact of local commissioning on victim services in England and Wales: An empirical study. International Review of Victimology, 25(2), pp.181-199.

Porter, A., 2019. Prosecuting Domestic Abuse in England and Wales: Crown Prosecution Service ‘Working Practice’and New Public Managerialism. Social & Legal Studies, 28(4), pp.493-516.

Mawby, R.I., 2016. Victim support in England and Wales: the end of an era?. International Review of Victimology, 22(3), pp.203-221.

Hall, M., 2018. Supporting victims of crime in England and Wales: Local commissioning meeting local needs?. International Review of Victimology, 24(2), pp.219-237.

Shapland, J., 2017. Interventions and services for victims of crime. Handbook of Victims and Victimology, pp.195-210.

Manikis, M., 2019. Contrasting the Emergence of the Victims’ Movements in the United States and England and Wales. Societies, 9(2), p.35.

Hall, M., 2017. Support Services for Victims in England & Wales. In Victims of Crime (pp. 99-140). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Miers, D., 2019. Victims, Criminal Justice and State Compensation. Societies, 9(2), p.29.

Hall, M., 2017. Victims of crime: constructions, governance and policy. In Victims of Crime (pp. 283-301). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Fairclough, S. and Jones, I., 2017. The victim in court. Handbook of Victims and Victimology, pp.211-228.

Bullock, K., 2017. Shoring up the ‘home guard’? Reflections on the development and deployment of police support volunteer programmes in England and Wales. Policing and society, 27(4), pp.341-357.

Rogers, C., 2018. Plural policing in england and wales: thoughts and discussion. Forensic Res Criminol Int J, 6(5), pp.397-401.

Crawford, A. and Lister, S., 2017. The patchwork shape of reassurance policing in England. Crime and Security, p.61.

Hunter, G., May, T. and Hough, M., 2019. Are the police embracing evidence-informed practice? A view from England and Wales. Policing and Society, 29(3), pp.251-265.

Murphy, P., Eckersley, P. and Ferry, L., 2017. Accountability and transparency: Police forces in England and Wales. Public policy and administration, 32(3), pp.197-213.

Loveday, B., 2017. The worrying state of policing in England and Wales after seven years of austerity. British Politics and Policy Blog.

Paterson, C. and Williams, A., 2018. Towards victim-oriented police? Some reflections on the concept and purpose of policing and their implications for victim-oriented police reform. Journal of Victimology and Victim Justice, 1(1), pp.85-101.

Charman, S., 2020. Making sense of policing identities: the ‘deserving’and the ‘undeserving’in policing accounts of victimisation. Policing and society, 30(1), pp.81-97.

Rogers, C., 2018. Researching sensitive topics for the police–insights from the UK. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice.

Loveday, B., 2018. Police and Crime Commissioners: Developing and sustaining a new model of police governance in England and Wales. International journal of police science & management, 20(1), pp.28-37.

Heap, V. and Paterson, C., 2019. Democratic localism and the implementation of the Community Remedy in England and Wales. Criminology & Criminal Justice, p.1748.

Abramovaite, J., Bandyopadhyay, S., Bhattacharya, S. and Cowen, N., 2019. Alternatives to custody: Evidence from police force areas in England and Wales. The British Journal of Criminology, 59(4), pp.800-822.

Simmonds, L., 2016. The potential impact of local commissioning on victim services in England and Wales. International review of victimology, 22(3), pp.223-237.