Written evidence from the Magistrates Association (MAG0001)
About the Magistrates Association
The Magistrates Association (MA) is the independent membership body for the magistracy. We work to promote the sound administration of the law, including by supporting our members, informing the public about the courts and the role of magistrates, producing and publishing research on key topics relevant to the magistracy, and contributing to the development and delivery of reforms to the magistracy, the courts and the broader justice system. With 15,000 members across England and Wales, we are a unique source of independent insight and information on the magistracy.
MA evidence
The MA was grateful for the opportunity given to our National Chair, John Bache JP, to give oral evidence to the Justice Select Committee in November 2018 as part of the follow-up to the Role of the Magistracy inquiry. The Committee then offered the MA the chance to submit written evidence, expanding on the points made during oral evidence and raising issues not discussed. The MA therefore wanted to draw to the Committee’s attention our current priority issues.
In 2016, we highlighted low morale among the magistracy as a particular concern. Morale is still a problem, with a significant proportion of magistrates still reporting that they feel undervalued.[1]
The MA believes that there are a number of steps that could be taken to improve morale (some of which are examined in more detail elsewhere in this submission). They include:
a) Increasing the number of magistrates: There are currently too few magistrates to do the necessary work (particularly in the family jurisdiction) and this puts a real strain on the existing magistracy, with magistrates contacted regularly in many areas and asked to take on additional sittings. This leaves magistrates feeling guilty if they cannot sit when requested at the last minute, rather than being appreciated for what they can do.
b) Provide sufficient training, properly funded and professionally delivered. Magistrates need and want to be given the skills to do their job. Comprehensive training is central to this, but magistrates routinely tell us that they want more training than they current receive. There needs to be investment in consistently providing high-quality training for magistrates, to ensure that they have the knowledge and skills to perform the role to the highest standard.
c) Consult and listen to magistrates on changes that affect them: There have been improved efforts to engage with magistrates on relevant matters over the last couple of years. However, more should be done to explain how magistrates’ feedback has been taken into account and what has changed as a result. Otherwise there is a danger that consultation is seen as a ‘tick box’ exercise that does not actually influence decisions. One example would be the recent Judicial Ways of Working consultation documents, which included numerous, detailed questions for individual members of the judiciary. As well as magistrates feeding into the MA’s national response and to their MA branch and local bench responses, many also replied as individuals. This was a significant undertaking. However, it took six months for the official response to be published and when it was magistrates were disappointed with the lack of detail provided. There was no detailed summary of different responses or analysis of general themes raised. This meant there was no clear idea of how the consultation process had (or had not) influenced the Reform Programme.
d) Continue to improve the system and environment that magistrates work in: The MA welcomes the commitment underpinning the current court Reform Programme to improve the justice system, but we have some concerns about how the changes are being managed in practice. For more detail, see below (Section 5). In addition, the current court estate is frequently not in a satisfactory state. Efforts are being made to address this within the available budget, which is welcome, but it is widely recognised, including by the Lord Chief Justice in evidence to the Justice Committee, that courthouses are frequently not in an acceptable state.
e) Give magistrates the discretion and powers to do their job effectively: Magistrates want to be able to provide fair, efficient and effective justice for all. To do this, they need to be given the tools to enable them to sentence appropriately. Giving sentencers greater discretion to order rehabilitative options for certain groups instead of repeated fines, allowing them to judicially monitor some community sentences, and ensuring there are adequate alternatives to custody (which provide suitable health interventions) are all important changes that we think are required (see below for more detail). Magistrates also need to be enabled to make sure victim participation is facilitated.
Over the last decade, the number of sitting magistrates has decreased very substantially, from just under 30,000 ten years ago to 15,003 as of April 2018 (with the number actually sitting thought to be substantially lower). While this is partly due to greater efficiency and other changes leading to a need for fewer magistrates, there are nonetheless now simply too few magistrates. During 2017-18, there were benches of two in nearly 40,000 court sessions, 15% of the total. While this affects all jurisdictions, shortages are recognised to be particularly acute in the family jurisdiction, while in the criminal jurisdiction benches of two are now even sitting in trials, which is particularly unsatisfactory. In addition, rota teams are experiencing great difficulty in finding magistrates to cover the necessary sittings. Magistrates are consequently contacted regularly and asked to take on additional sittings, often at short notice. Moreover, more than 8,000 magistrates will reach the age of 70 in the next decade and under current legislation will therefore need to retire.
To address this current and future shortage, a very significant recruitment and training programme is needed. This must be a priority and should be taken forward without delay. More professionalised processes are required, and budgets must be made available for advertising and promotion in communities that are not necessarily already connected to the magistracy (particularly Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities). This should build on and include the MA’s Magistrates in the Community programme, which sees magistrates visit schools and community groups to demystify and promote the magistracy.
To complement this, steps need to be taken to promote the magistracy to employers and to society as a whole. As volunteers, magistrates give a huge amount back to their local communities – this should be recognised. We also need to recognise the skills that they develop and the value that they can bring to current and potential employers. Employers should be targeted to explain the value of employing magistrates and releasing staff to sit, with a focus on explaining the transferable skills magistrates can bring to the workplace as well as the fact that encouraging staff to volunteer as magistrates can be an important part of an organisation’s corporate social responsibility programme. We welcomed the Committee’s recommendations around encouraging employers to support people taking time to volunteer as magistrates, especially the proposal for a kite mark scheme for employers that are already doing this. We would still support this initiative being taken forward.
The MA welcomes all the positive work undertaken by the senior judiciary and HMCTS to update and improve the existing recruitment process, with the aim of increasing efficiency and consistency and providing more support (in the form of materials) to Advisory Committees. We have been part of the different working groups all looking at different parts of this project, and believe the changes will have a positive impact. We also believe, however, that the recruitment of magistrates must continue to be a priority in the coming years, with more funding provided for recruitment, if the current shortages are to be addressed.
Under provisions contained in the Courts Act 2003, all magistrates must currently retire at 70. As stated above, there is, however, currently a severe shortage of magistrates (particularly in the family jurisdiction). There is also a shortage of presiding justices. The role of the presiding justice is vitally important as they command the court and speak on behalf of the bench. In addition, they play a crucial role in case management and therefore ensuring efficiency. A shortage of presiding justices therefore causes specific problems.
Recruitment will be the long-term solution to current shortages, as well as allowing an increase in diversity. However, increased recruitment, while an important part of resolving this problem, will not in itself be sufficient. Despite forthcoming improvements to the process, it will still take time for new magistrates to go through the rigorous selection process, for all the necessary checks to take place, and then for the appropriate training to be provided. Moreover there is only so many new magistrates that can be recruited into a bench each year, with the need for mentoring and support, and at the moment that is not enough to keep pace with retirements, let alone increase capacity.
Recruitment is therefore unable to provide an immediate solution to the current lack of magistrates. In addition, magistrates must have either sat as a magistrate for over two years or been appraised twice before being approved to preside, so even with more recruitment of new magistrates it will take time to increase the number of presiding justices.
Moreover, the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary but, while judges currently retire at 70, they can sit in retirement up to the age of 75 where there is a clear business need for them to do so. At present, however, the same principles do not apply to the magistracy, despite the fact that magistrates are judicial office holders and should be treated equally to their paid counterparts.
Additionally, it is universally accepted that 70 year olds are generally more active now than they were in the past, with societal changes meaning that people now work longer (in 2016, Office for National Statistics data showed that 11.3% of women and 15.5% of men were still in employment at the age of 70, compared to 5.6% and 10% respectively in 2012), retire later (the legal Default Retirement Age of 65 was abolished in 2011 and the State Pension Age is going up, particularly for women – it was 60 in 2010 but will be 66 by 2020 and will continue to rise for men and women to 67 between 2026 and 2028) and live longer (the current retirement age of 70 was set in 1968, when life expectancy was just under 72; it is now nearly 81).
Finally, although the role of a magistrate is not comparable to that of a member of a jury – jurors are not judicial office holders and do not need the same skills – it is useful to reflect that members of the community are now allowed to sit as jurors up to the age of 75. In bringing in this change, the then Justice Minister Sir Oliver Heald QC MP said ‘People are living longer, healthier lives, so it is right that our courts are able to benefit from the wisdom and experience that older people can offer.’ This reiterated a similar message from Damian Green MP, the minister at the time the change was initially proposed, who said ‘Our society is changing and it is vital that the criminal justice system moves with the times. The law as it currently stands does not take into account the increases to life expectancy that have taken place over the past 25 years. This is about harnessing the knowledge and life experiences of a group of people who can offer significant benefits to the court process.’ These arguments could equally apply to the magistracy.
Given this, the MA believes that the law should be changed to enable magistrates to continue to sit beyond the age of 70, where there is an identified need for more magistrates in an area and jurisdiction that cannot be met through recruitment alone. This would help to address the current shortage of magistrates and would create consistency between the magistracy and other members of the judiciary, while not increasing the number of magistrates in areas or jurisdictions where this is not required. This approach is also in line with the recommendations of the Committee in the report of their initial Role of the Magistracy inquiry.
As of April 2018, 12% of magistrates were from BAME backgrounds. Progress is being made – in the last decade the proportion of magistrates who are from BAME backgrounds has increased from 7% to 12% – but there is still significant work to do. Moreover, 56% of magistrates are aged 60 or over and only 4% are under 40. There is a lack of robust data on disability and there is no data collected on sexual orientation or social background. Anecdotally, though, there is a growing lack of magistrates who are in full time employment and a lack of magistrates from working class backgrounds.
The magistracy should reflect the communities that it serves and it is therefore essential that more is done to increase diversity by ensuring that vacancies within the magistracy are promoted to underrepresented groups, including younger people and people from BAME backgrounds. This requires a proactive approach that ensures that the role of the magistracy and the benefits of becoming a magistrate are widely understood and that specific activity is undertaken to actively engage underrepresented groups. As part of this, we are keen to expand our existing Magistrates in the Community programme, and see it as a useful tool to be used in reaching under-represented communities. This work should be underpinned by the collection of more data on diversity within the magistracy, so further underrepresented groups can be identified.
In 2016, HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary launched the Reform Programme, a portfolio of change programmes intended to modernise the courts system and make it more efficient by introducing new technology and modern ways of working.
Magistrates are supportive of the aims behind the Reform Programme. For example, in a survey of our members in 2016, 20% identified inefficiencies in the system when asked to name the three most negative aspects of their work as a magistrate. Magistrates also welcome the use of technology to increase efficiency, if it works properly, and are clear that where possible time should be saved and straightforward decisions should be made more quickly. Magistrates have very real concerns, however, that efficiency should never come at the expense of a fair and effective system. The cases that magistrates deal with may be less serious than those sent to crown court, but they often involve individuals with complex and interrelating needs. In more complex cases – involving, for example, individuals with substance abuse, mental health, accommodation and employability problems – magistrates must be able to take the time to respond appropriately. This may involve adjourning a case to make sure they have sufficient information to make a fair decision.
The MA also has concerns about some of the specific proposed reforms, including an overreliance on video and on ‘virtual hearings’, the delegation of powers from judicial officer holders to legal advisers, and (if it re-emerges) the so-called automated tier (where cases are dealt with online without the involvement of a judicial office holder, as proposed in the Prison and Courts Bill). Magistrates are also concerned about an increasing reliance on technology, when at present it does not always work reliably.
Within this context, the MA would like to highlight the following concerns about the Reform Programme:
a) Practical implementation
The 2018 National Audit Office (NAO) report Early progress in transforming courts and tribunals concluded that the scale and complexity of the current changes present significant risks and that time must be taken to involve all those affected, including magistrates, in the process. It also identified the Common Platform programme as one of the most challenging to complete successfully, which is of particular concern because it underpins many other elements of the Reform Programme.
b) Digitisation
Digitisation of court processes is central to the Reform Programme. It is, however, essential that the digitisation of any process does not exclude parties who cannot or will not engage digitally, which can include individuals who are vulnerable or whose location means access to online services is impractical. Judicial discretion must be retained to ensure a fair process for all parties.
c) Video-link technology
The MA continues to be very concerned about the use of video technology for contested hearings, particularly before the potential impact on participation of parties and outcomes is fully understood.
Video-linking can be beneficial for victims and witnesses, but their views must always be taken into account. It must be remembered that some victims and witnesses may want to attend court and that support may be more readily available in a court setting (including waiting areas and the opportunity for family or friends to attend).
Video-linking for defendants or offenders may be appropriate in relation to certain uncontested hearings, when requiring them to travel to court is unnecessary and disproportionate. This could include certain straightforward bail decisions, where the defendant could possibly attend via video-link from a police station, or remand decisions, where an individual is already in custody and is going to be extended, and therefore transport to and from a court is not necessary. However it must be recognised that attending a hearing via video-link could negatively impact on participation, which does not just risk negatively impacting on the outcome of a hearing but also impacts on the perceptions about how fair the process is, which will impact on confidence in the outcome and therefore compliance with it.
We welcome confirmation that as well as the judiciary having oversight on the framework for using video links (including through Procedure Rules and Judicial Business Groups), that any decisions as to the appropriateness of using a video-link in a specific case must remain a judicial decision. The MA are keen to ensure that this decision is taken by the bench dealing with the case, and is not a delegated task. The bench must always be able to respond to individual situations in front of them, taking into account that circumstances may have changed since initial decisions were taken or since previous hearings. The bench must therefore be given full flexibility to make the appropriate decision, rather than be put in a position of ‘rubber-stamping’ a decision taken by others outside court. The primary factor behind making any decision about the appropriateness of video-linking must always be ensuring fair participation.
d) Access to legal advice
The MA is concerned that the move towards online pleas may reduce the proportion of defendants getting legal advice before making a plea. It is vitally important that defendants have access to legal advice, and access to duty solicitors may be limited for defendants who engage with criminal cases online. Similarly, the MA has concerns that the increased use of virtual hearings may have a negative impact on the opportunity for defendants to discuss their cases with their legal representative before their case is heard in court.
e) Transparency of court decisions
We welcomed the Committee highlighting concerns in its initial inquiry into the Role of the Magistracy that any extension of the Single Justice Procedure might impact on the principle of open justice, which requires that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done. The MA continues to query how transparency will be achieved in relation to cases dealt with by the Single Justice Procedure and is therefore concerned about its consequences for perceptions of the legitimacy of the justice system.
f) Automated conviction process
The MA has already raised grave concerns about proposals contained in the Prisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 to introduce an automated tier of convictions. We continue to argue that this would, if introduced, fundamentally undermine the fairness of the justice process as it removes independent decision-making, in the form of the judiciary from being able to deal with each case on its merits and respond to the individual circumstances of the offender, from the process.
g) Youth justice
The MA welcomes the work that has been done to successfully divert many children and young people from having to attend youth court via early intervention. As a result, however, the cases that now come before youth magistrates are generally more complex, and the defendants/ offenders are more likely to have complex needs. The youth justice system has a different structure and focus than adult criminal courts and therefore must be considered separately in relation to the reform proposals. For example, many of the proposals for online processes or use of video-link are not appropriate for under-18s. In relation to the use of video-link for youth proceedings, for example, the MA argues that video-link should only be used in exceptional circumstances, with the final decision resting with the judicial office holder(s). All parties, including the Youth Offending Team, should have had the opportunity to make representations.
h) Reducing the court estate
Resources must be used effectively and if court buildings are underused or outdated then it is necessary to consider whether they are still required. However, justice should be administered locally wherever possible and a significant programme of court closures in recent years has meant that many courts are already worryingly remote from the communities that they serve. Further court closures risk exacerbating this situation.
A more dispersed court estate will also affect the retention and recruitment of magistrates, as some will have to step down if their local court closes and people will be less likely to apply in the first place if the nearest court is not in their immediate area. Longer travel distances for magistrates will also increase the cost of meeting their travel expenses
In relation to using alternative venues for court hearings, we support the Committee’s concerns in relation to ensuring security for all at alternative venues. We also think consideration should be given as to whether alternative venues have the necessary infrastructure for all parties attending hearings, as well as the digital systems that are now required. As digital systems have been utilised more to increase efficiency, it has become even more important that the security of these systems is ensured to protect access to confidential information.
Video technology also has a role to play but it is important that courts remain genuinely accessible to victims, witnesses and defendants who may want to attend in person, as well as to magistrates themselves, who cannot be expected to travel unreasonable distances to court on a regular basis.
Overall, the MA welcomed the Committee’s recommendation that the Ministry of Justice should ensure that at least 90% of all court users could reach the nearest venue by public transport within one hour. We were therefore very worried by the proposal in the 2018 HM Courts and Tribunals Service and Ministry of Justice consultation Fit for the future: transforming the Court and Tribunal Estate that ‘nearly all users should be able to attend a hearing on time and return within a day, by public transport if necessary’. The MA believes that the Committee’s suggested measure should instead be the one used in considering any future court closures.
We welcomed the Committee’s support in 2016 for increasing sentencing powers in the magistrates’ court to 12 months custody for a single offence, so that more cases can be retained and dealt with in that jurisdiction. We continue to call on the government to commence Section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, in line with their current aim of increasing the efficiency of the justice system.
This would help the magistracy keep more appropriate cases in the magistrates’ courts, ensuring the crown court (which is known to be overloaded) is freed up to deal with the most serious cases. There are also fewer inherent delays in cases being dealt with in magistrates’ courts, which means justice can be provided in a timely manner to the benefit of victims, witnesses and defendants. Over 90% of magistrates state that a wider jurisdiction would improve how efficiently they are used.
In addition, in 2012 the MA estimated that extending sentencing powers in the magistrates’ court to 12 months in custody could save £30-£40 million, on a conservative estimate.[2] Furthermore, there is no evidence that this change would increase the prison population or that magistrates would be inclined to sentence more punitively than the crown court. Indeed MA research has debunked claims to this effect. It is also worth noting that magistrates in the youth court already have the ability to sentence offenders for up to two years, and it has been established that they use these powers appropriately.
It is, of course, true that the magistrates’ courts can retain either-way cases and commit for sentence, but a large majority of defendants plead guilty and thus do not face a trial so this only helps matters in a minority of cases. The MA therefore believes that Section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 should now be brought into effect.
The MA would like magistrates to be provided with more flexibility in relation to sentencing options to enable them to respond appropriately to the cases in front of them, including early diversion work for repeat offenders who have committed low-level offending but could benefit from supportive rehabilitative services rather than solely a fine.
The MA would therefore support the enactment of Schedule 6 of the Courts Act 2003, which would empower the court to order unpaid work if fines payment is deemed impractical or inappropriate. Also currently in legislation (but not enacted) is Section 151 of the Criminal Justice Act 2002. This would allow for magistrates to hand down a community sentence in cases where an offender has been fined three times previously and where the sentence would otherwise be a further financial penalty. The MA is aware of concerns relating to this provision and believe that it should be amended before being brought in so that rehabilitative options could be either added to or replace a financial penalty in certain cases of summary, non-imprisonable offence. The focus should be on targeting the needs of an offender to reduce reoffending, where an additional fine is deemed inappropriate, without up-tariffing.
The MA acknowledges the political support for reducing the use of short-term prison sentences. If this is to be taken forward, though, it will be important to tackle a lack of sentencer confidence in community sentences. There are a number of reasons for this lack of confidence:
The MA therefore has a number of recommendations about where attention should be focused if these confidence issues are to be addressed and the use of short prison sentences reduced, without unduly hampering judicial discretion. These include:
a) Supporting the deferring or adjourning of sentencing decisions to allow NPS staff to discuss with offenders engagement with alternatives to custody.
b) Ensuring that good quality community provision that can meet the needs of offenders is available in every area of the country and that magistrates have a full understanding of what is available in their area. This should include ensuring the consistent availability of treatment options (see below).
c) Providing bespoke community options for specific cohorts, such as women and repeat offenders.
d) Giving sentencers the power to monitor offenders on community orders by enacting Section 178 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The focus should be on those cases where the sentence is an alternative to immediate custody.
e) Requiring sentencers to state why an immediate short custodial sentence was deemed inevitable in open court, with the reasons recorded and analysed.
In addition, improved data collection (including as proposed in (e) above) and analysis could help to reveal why short prison sentences are given and whether there is any commonality in terms of offences, offenders or availability of community options.
As part of work to improve the availability of high quality community sentences, particular consideration should be given to treatment requirements. Treatment requirements – Alcohol Treatment Requirements, Drug Rehabilitation Requirements and Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTRs) – can be effective in reducing reoffending and in ensuring that a community sentence offers a suitable alternative to custody. The demonstrator site in Milton Keynes has shown, furthermore, that where the MHTR is available, sentencers will use it.
We know, however, that they are not as widely used as they could be due to a lack of availability in many areas. In particular, the lack of MHTR availability is a significant problem. As part of work to address the underutilisation of treatment requirements, the MA was involved in the drafting of the protocol being used for the five pilots[3] to increase the use of treatment requirements. We welcome the focus on providing community options for those with complex needs and support the development and roll out of these pilots in due course and subject to their outcomes.
Alongside this, further key steps towards increasing the use of treatment requirements would be to:
i) Ensure bespoke services are available for those on a court order in every area of the country: Using existing mainstream services is not always appropriate, for reasons including timeliness (waiting times can prevent offenders getting the support within the duration of a court order) and difficulty where there is dual diagnosis (sometimes an individual cannot get treatment for mental health until they have dealt with an alcohol or drug problem and vice versa – there needs to be flexibility to deal with all problems either at the same time, or one after the other, depending on the needs of the individual).
ii) Ensure that courts get the right information about an offender’s needs: Liaison and Diversion services are key but where a Liaison and Diversion report was not ordered at the police station, or an offender’s needs have changed, sentencing may need to be adjourned to ensure the right information is collected to inform sentencing decisions.
iii) Provide clarification on how breach should be dealt with: Offenders can be breached for non-attendance but not non-engagement with treatment requirements. But it is unclear how attendance which does not involve engagement will be recorded and by whom.
Previously, the Committee was sympathetic to calls for problem-solving approaches to dealing with offenders sentenced to community penalties.
The MA agrees that judicial monitoring of sentences is crucial if the justice system is to take a more problem-solving approach. Section 178 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows magistrates to attach a review requirement to a community order. Similarly, Paragraph 35 of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 allows magistrates in the youth court to attach a review order to a youth rehabilitation order. Neither has been enacted.
This is a missed opportunity. The MA believes that empowering sentencers to supervise community orders is key to both encouraging engagement with community orders and increasing sentencer confidence (as stated above). It would also increase flexibility, as sentencers can amend community sentences as appropriate when reviewing them, and could be used where it would have the greatest impact. In our response to the government’s recent consultation on probation we recommended that judicial supervision could be used for certain cohorts where monitoring will be most effective.
The MA therefore supports the enactment of Section 178 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the equivalent powers for the youth court, to enable magistrates to adopt a problem-solving approach in suitable cases.
The MA was very concerned by the identification in the Lammy Review of both disproportionate outcomes for people from BAME backgrounds and the lack of confidence and trust that individuals from BAME backgrounds have in the criminal justice system. As a charity with the objective of promoting the sound administration of the law, the MA is keen to work with all stakeholders to reduce any disproportionality.
Although the Lammy Review suggested that the most disproportionate outcomes were focused in the crown court, the MA is aware that disproportionate outcomes that occur earlier in the criminal justice process may impact on the magistrates’ court. We are also very aware that there is a lack of data collected in relation to magistrates’ courts, and we support the recommendation in the Lammy Review that this should be addressed.
The MA also acknowledges that there may be unconscious bias in relation to certain decisions by magistrates, as with any judicial office holder, and is aware of research (especially in the US) showing the negative impact that unconscious bias can have on decision-making. Although magistrates all go through initial training, which looks at unbiased decision-making, we know that every individual will have unconscious bias. Identifying these biases is the first step to making sure they do not affect decisions. The MA aims to work with the Judicial College, and others, to ensure that all magistrates are supported to identify any biases they may have and follow fair decision-making processes, thus avoiding stereotypical thinking affecting decisions. We are, however, aware of research indicating that identification of bias does not always have a positive impact on decision-making, and it is important to ensure that any training has a real and defined benefit.
The MA also wants to ensure that all parties are treated fairly and respectfully in court. This has been shown to have positive impacts on reaching a fair and accurate outcome, as well as increasing positive perceptions about the process and the wider system. The latter impact is vital in improving the confidence and trust that people from a BAME background have in the criminal justice system. Multiple reviews and inquiries, culminating in the Lammy Review, have shown we are starting from a point where people from a BAME background may have negative views about the system, so these have to be resolved before positive perceptions can be built. The MA believe our Magistrates in the Community public education programme could be a factor in improving understanding and confidence in the system, especially if it focused on under-represented and minority cohorts.
The most alarming part of the Lammy Review related to the area of youth justice. While children and young people have been successfully diverted from the youth court, disproportionately has increased. This suggests that there is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently and the MA believes that this issue should be one of the main priorities for youth justice. It is clear that any disproportionate outcomes in relation to police activities, which can be due to geographical differences or linked to identification of gang crime, will continue to impact on individuals if they end up in youth court. It is therefore important that all parts of the youth justice system work together to resolve this problem.
[1] A survey was circulated to all sitting magistrates by the Judicial Office in December 2017. When asked what they found dissatisfying about the role, 54% of the 2,617 magistrates who responded to that question said that they felt undervalued.
[2] More information on how this figures was calculated is available on request.
[3] For more information on these pilots see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vulnerable-offenders-steered-towards-treatment