Is it time to leave Magistrates' Courts in the behind?

By Darcie Dudding

The UK’s Magistrate’s Courts operate in a manner that should raise significant concern. This argument will be substantiated through an examination of three key areas: the lack of training and expectation of magistrates, the demographic composition of the magistracy, and the extent of judicial power vested in lay adjudicators by the legal system.

One of the most common criticisms levied against magistrates is their lack of legal qualification, beyond the 10 days of training they receive over the course of two years. Rather than being legal professionals themselves, magistrates are individuals drawn from the local community, and try cases in cooperation with a qualified legal adviser. The idea underpinning this approach is that justice should reflect ordinary people’s values and should not just be left to legal specialists.

However, in a modern and increasingly complex legal system, this approach is not without problems. Unlike a jury of twelve, three people are unlikely to represent the beliefs of the entire nation. In addition, the lack of solid legal background means that magistrates may often find it difficult to apply the law consistently, when compared with professional judges. For example, in 2010 Bristol magistrates handed down custodial sentences to 11.1% of offenders and community sentences to 32.2%. In contrast, Coventry saw only 6.8% of offenders receive custodial sentences; community sentences where likewise at a lower 14.4%. 

In spite of this, the varied professional background of magistrate is sometimes seen as positive instead; an accountant may have a better understanding of financial matters. In addition, their limited volunteer days (13 days) ensures that they are less likely to become desensitised to crimes, or lose empathy for those they convict.

Another major issue is the level of power magistrates actually have. Despite being lay people, they make decisions that can have a lasting and permanent impact on people’s lives. Magistrates deal with all summary offences and many either-way offences, meaning they can impose fines, community orders, and even prison sentences of up to twelve months for two offences. They also make key decisions before a trial, such as whether to grant bail or to send a case to the Crown Court. In 2018, Magistrates’ Courts received 1.469 million cases and disposed of 1.473 million. Of the cases received, 79% were for summary offences or breaches, meaning that they could be resolved in the Magistrates’ Court without the need for a trial. However, of the 103,000 cases brought to Crown Courts in England and Wales in 2018, 8% were cases of appeals against decisions in the Magistrates’ Court.

In addition while it may appear a positive that only 640 magistrate cases were re-appealed, it should be considered that a magistrate can only give a sentence of 12 months; a crown court, on the other hand, has no such restriction. In addition, further legal battles must be submitted within 21 days of the trial verdict which may be difficult for those who lack a detailed knowledge of the legal system. This ultimately means that the sheer amount of power they hold means that any shortcomings in knowledge or understanding can have serious consequences for those appearing before them.

A third problem with the magistracy is the lack of diversity among those who serve the court. Ideally, magistrates should reflect the communities they represent, especially given that, beyond cost, one of their few advantages of the magistrates system is that they represent the view of the ‘lay’ person. Most magistrates are white, middle-aged and middle-class. Whilst, logically, this makes sense, one must account for the fact that magistrate requires a considerable time commitment. It means that younger people, those from lower-income backgrounds, and individuals from minority communities are underrepresented. For example, just under half 49% of magistrates are White women; whereas White men account for about 38%; ethnic minority women and men are only about 8% and 5% repetitively. This trend appears to be waning, as of all the magistrate appointments in 2023-24, 16% were people of ethnic minority background – an increase from the aforementioned 8% and 5%. Nonetheless, the most egregious disparity is that of age: approximately 81% of magistrates are aged 50 or over, and more than half (53%)  are aged 60 or over, despite the role requesting a minimum age of merely 18 years old. However, it could be argued that other more vague characteristics like maturity, or sound judgement may be viewed as being less common amongst the younger population. 

In conclusion, while magistrates are an essential part of the English and Welsh legal system, they system nonetheless retains significant flaws.  Lack of legal qualification raises concerns about consistency and understanding of the law, in spite of other knowledge they may possess. The great power they hold makes these concerns even more significant, as their decisions can deeply affect people’s lives. Finally, the lack of diversity in age and financial background means the magistracy does not always represent the communities it serves which guarantees failure in fulfilling its likeness to juries.

Bibliography:

• Lawteacher (2019). The Term Lay People. [online] Lawteacher.net. Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/common-law/the-term-lay-people.php [Accessed Oct. 2025].

• Justice, M. of (2025). Diversity of the judiciary: 2025 Statistics. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2025-statistics [Accessed Oct. 2025].

• Lindup, H. (2025). Judicial Diversity Statistics 2025 - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. [online] Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/judicial-diversity-statistics-2025/ [Accessed Oct. 2025].

Edited by Artyom Timofeev

Image Source: https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/magistrates-courts/