Revise Lay personnel for Cambridge 9084 (1.3.3)

Magistrates, also known as Justices of the Peace (JPs), are volunteer members of the public who hear cases in Magistrates' Courts. They do not need formal legal qualifications. Instead, candidates are sought based on six key qualities identified by the Lord Chancellor: good character, understanding and communication, social awareness, maturity and sound temperament, sound judgement, and commitment and reliability. Applicants must be aged between 18 and 70. The selection process is managed by Local Advisory Committees, involving a formal application and two interviews to assess the candidate's suitability and judicial aptitude. Certain individuals, such as police officers or those with serious criminal convictions, are disqualified to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain public confidence.

Once appointed, magistrates undergo structured training. This includes initial core training on the basics of the role, mentored court sittings with an experienced magistrate, and a formal appraisal within the first 12-18 months. They also receive ongoing training and development throughout their service to keep up-to-date with legal changes.

Magistrates handle over 95% of all criminal cases in England and Wales. They sit in a bench of three (or sometimes two) and are assisted by a legally qualified legal adviser (formerly known as the justices' clerk). Their primary criminal role involves trying all summary offences and most triable-either-way offences where the defendant consents to their case being heard in the Magistrates' Court. They also conduct preliminary hearings for indictable offences, deal with bail applications, and issue search and arrest warrants. Their sentencing powers are limited: up to 6 months' imprisonment for a single offence (or 12 months for consecutive sentences) and the ability to impose unlimited fines. If they feel their sentencing powers are insufficient for a particular case, they can commit the offender to the Crown Court for sentencing. The legal adviser's role is strictly to provide advice on law and procedure; they must not influence the magistrates' decision on guilt or innocence, as established in cases like R v Eccles Justices, ex parte Farrelly (1992).

Juries are used in the Crown Court for trials of indictable and some triable-either-way offences, embodying the principle of trial by one's peers. The Juries Act 1974 governs their selection. Potential jurors are randomly selected by computer from the electoral register for the court's catchment area. To qualify, a person must be aged 18-75, on the electoral register, and have been a resident of the UK for at least five years since their 13th birthday. Certain individuals are disqualified, such as those with serious criminal convictions or those suffering from a specified mental disorder. While excusal 'as of right' has been abolished, individuals may apply for discretionary excusal if they have a compelling reason, such as a pre-booked holiday or medical appointment.

To ensure an impartial jury, both the prosecution and defence have rights to challenge the selection. Jury vetting is the process of checking jurors' suitability. This can be a routine police check for criminal records to identify disqualified individuals. In rare cases involving national security or terrorism, a more detailed, authorised check on a juror's background may be permitted with the Attorney-General's express permission.

Once in court, there are two types of challenge:

1. Challenge to the array: The whole jury panel can be challenged on the basis it was chosen in a biased or unrepresentative way (R v Fraser (1987)).
2. Challenge for cause: An individual juror can be challenged for a valid reason, such as being disqualified or knowing someone involved in the case. The judge decides if the reason is valid.

The judge also has the power to discharge a juror (or the entire jury) if something happens during the trial that might compromise a fair verdict, such as a juror becoming ill or being exposed to prejudicial information.

The jury's fundamental role is to be the decider of fact, while the judge is the decider of law. In a criminal trial, the 12 jurors listen to the evidence and the judge's summing-up on the relevant law. The jury then retires to deliberate in secret and reach a verdict of 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. Their deliberations are secret, a principle protected by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Initially, a unanimous verdict is required. However, under the Juries Act 1974, if a jury cannot reach unanimity after a reasonable time (at least two hours), the judge can accept a majority verdict, such as 11-1 or 10-2.

This independence can sometimes lead to perverse verdicts, where a jury acquits a defendant against the evidence, perhaps as a protest or exercise of conscience (e.g., R v Ponting). A modern challenge is the use of the internet by jurors. Cases like AG v Dallas (2012) show that jurors conducting their own research can lead to convictions for contempt of court and collapsed trials.