Learning objectives
- Explain the role of lay magistrates in civil and criminal cases
- Understand qualifications, selection, appointment and training of magistrates
- Explain the role of the jury in criminal courts
- Analyse jury qualifications, vetting and challenges
- Evaluate alternatives to the jury and exam-style debates
Lay personnel play a central role in the English legal system by ensuring that justice is not delivered solely by legal elites. As Lord Devlin famously stated: “Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.” This topic examines how ordinary citizens contribute to justice through lay magistrates and juries, and whether this system remains effective and fair.
Role of lay magistrates in civil and criminal cases
| Area | Role of lay magistrates | Exam relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal cases | Sit in benches of three in the :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}; hear summary offences and either-way offences (mode of trial); decide guilt and sentence (up to 6 months per offence / 12 months total). | AO1: role & jurisdiction AO3: advantages (local knowledge, cost-effective) |
| Civil cases | Hear family matters (e.g. non-molestation orders), licensing appeals and some council tax matters. | Often tested in short knowledge questions [2–5 marks] |
Watch: How magistrates decide cases in practice https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jp2vZ1tR2bM
Qualifications, selection and appointment of magistrates
Key principle: Magistrates are legally qualified citizens, not lawyers.
To qualify, candidates must be aged 18–74 and demonstrate six key qualities: good character, understanding and communication, social awareness, maturity and sound temperament, sound judgement, commitment and reliability.
Selection involves application → interview → background checks → recommendation by the Lord Chancellor → appointment by the King.
Training of lay magistrates
| Stage | Training content | Evaluation point |
|---|---|---|
| Initial training | Introductory legal training, courtroom procedure, sentencing guidelines | Criticism: limited legal depth |
| Mentoring | Sit with experienced magistrates | Strength: practical learning |
| Ongoing training | Updates on law and sentencing | AO3 balance point |
Scenario:
A defendant is charged with shoplifting goods worth £200. The case is heard by three lay magistrates.
Think: Why is this case suitable for magistrates rather than a jury?
Jury role in criminal courts
A jury consists of 12 members of the public who determine guilt in serious criminal trials in the :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}. They decide verdicts based on facts, while the judge directs the law and passes sentence.
Watch: What do juries actually do? https://www.youtube.com/embed/6vD1fP8X2gA
Qualifications, vetting and challenges of jurors
| Aspect | Explanation | Exam link |
|---|---|---|
| Qualifications | Aged 18–75, on electoral register, resident in UK for 5 years | AO1 factual recall |
| Disqualification | Recent criminal convictions or mental disorder | Often tested in 6–10 mark questions |
| Vetting | Limited background checks in exceptional cases (e.g. terrorism) | AO3 fairness debate |
| Challenges | Stand by for the Crown; challenge to the array (rare) | Past Paper favourite |
Case focus:R v Abdroikof (2007)
The House of Lords held that police officers serving as jurors could undermine the appearance of impartiality.
Use in exams: Supports arguments about jury bias and representativeness.
Alternatives to the use of the jury
| Alternative | Used when | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| Trial by judge alone | Complex fraud cases | More efficient but less democratic |
| Magistrates | Less serious offences | Cost-effective, but limited sentencing powers |
| Special tribunals | Specialist disputes | Expert decision-making |
Exam tip:
In 15-mark questions, always balance democratic legitimacy (jury/magistrates) against efficiency, expertise and consistency. Support points with cases such as R v Abdroikof and real-world examples.
Reflect: Should serious criminal cases still be decided by juries in an age of complex forensic evidence?