Well, I already know that in general magistrates are not viewed in a very good light by most on here.
If anyone hasn't read it, the book 'The Secret Barrister' has a great section on magistrates. Barristers, it seems, hold them in about as high a regard as the members of this forum...
There is one particular part where a barrister scoffs at a magistrate for their lack of knowledge of the law. One of their associates commented how the magistrate in question was a neurosurgeon, with the implication being that someone with such a job must be intelligent and therefore a great magistrate. The next paragraph really made me chuckle. Referring to the neurosurgeon, the writer says:
"No doubt the gentleman's next patient would find little comfort in looking up on the operating table to see me brandishing a scalpel and cooing 'Its fine, I'm a barrister. But I've done a weekend residential in Troon and there's a junior doctor in the corner who's advice I might listen to'
This made me wonder what people's experience with magistrates was? One particular thing I wanted to point out is that in my experience, only the final hearing in proceedings has been of any relevance at all. Nothing has been resolved in the earlier hearings. So the final hearing is the one of most importance.
In my most recent two proceedings the final hearings were both overseen by 3 lay magistrates. On both occasions, these were all female. On both occasions, all had the title "Mrs.". On both occasions, I would guess that all were aged 55+. I would add that the legal advisor and the court clerk were all female too.
I think we all have our internal biases, no matter how hard we may try not too. And I fail to see how I would ever get a "fair" hearing with the benches being as they were.
If anyone hasn't read it, the book 'The Secret Barrister' has a great section on magistrates. Barristers, it seems, hold them in about as high a regard as the members of this forum...
There is one particular part where a barrister scoffs at a magistrate for their lack of knowledge of the law. One of their associates commented how the magistrate in question was a neurosurgeon, with the implication being that someone with such a job must be intelligent and therefore a great magistrate. The next paragraph really made me chuckle. Referring to the neurosurgeon, the writer says:
"No doubt the gentleman's next patient would find little comfort in looking up on the operating table to see me brandishing a scalpel and cooing 'Its fine, I'm a barrister. But I've done a weekend residential in Troon and there's a junior doctor in the corner who's advice I might listen to'
This made me wonder what people's experience with magistrates was? One particular thing I wanted to point out is that in my experience, only the final hearing in proceedings has been of any relevance at all. Nothing has been resolved in the earlier hearings. So the final hearing is the one of most importance.
In my most recent two proceedings the final hearings were both overseen by 3 lay magistrates. On both occasions, these were all female. On both occasions, all had the title "Mrs.". On both occasions, I would guess that all were aged 55+. I would add that the legal advisor and the court clerk were all female too.
I think we all have our internal biases, no matter how hard we may try not too. And I fail to see how I would ever get a "fair" hearing with the benches being as they were.