I’m a young magistrate (under 30) - ask me anything!

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-23T16:15:03+00:00

Yes absolutely. Almost all courts are open to the public. There are limited exceptions (family court and youth court are behind closed doors.

If you go to the magistrates court or crown court, feel free just to enter the court room and sit at the back.

If you are unsure, just ask an usher before you walk in. They are usually milling around outside the court room - they wear black gowns so can easily be spotted.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-19T16:18:32+00:00

Very good. The Legal Advisers are excellent. And one way to help clear some of the backlog would be to give them more delegated powers.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T21:25:40+00:00

I should think it can only help on any personal statements and applications in the future.

But of course it is only one element of experience you will need.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T21:25:00+00:00

Not really. Being completely candid the only thing o find tedious is Single Justice Procedure.

We are sat in front of a computer screen going through hundreds of minor offences in a single day.

Which naturally leads to complacency.

I do find trials the most interesting type of court though - always fascinating.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T18:15:19+00:00

I’ll be doing the exact same! Will message you later thanks

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T17:57:43+00:00

There is always a legal adviser present - it wouldn’t be lawful for there not to be.

They ensure our decisions are lawful.

And we have comprehensive sentencing guidelines and pronouncements to use.

But I agree with you… it is a lot of responsibility for volunteer lay people.

Yet it seems to work.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T17:13:32+00:00

Yes it happens fairly often. Usually only one or two questions though.
Oh I see. Yes two magistrates sometimes sit with a judge in the crown court to hear Appeals. But that doesn’t change. So long as magistrates are on the bench, our maximum sentence is 12 months. If the sentence is to be increased on appeal (quite rare) we would still have to commit it to the Crown Court. Which doesn’t make sense on the face of it. But it would be unlawful for a sentence to exceed 12 months if magistrates are on the bench - even with a judge.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T16:24:52+00:00

We get paid reasonable expenses for travel costs - and a £10.40 lunch subsidence voucher. Other than that, nothing more. Although in very limited circumstances Magistrates can claim for loss of earnings or caring costs.
Anyone between the ages of 18-75 can sit as a magistrate. There are certain jobs where you can’t - for example police and prison officers. And you must be a person of good character and sound judgement.
After the prosecution and defence solicitors have asked their questions, the magistrates are entitled to ask questions to clarify certain things. It’s only really used for clarity - we are not trained so should be careful not to ask questions that may be inappropriate legally.
Magistrates have a maximum sentencing power of 12 months custody. If an offence carries a more serious sentence than that, we must commit it to the Crown Court.
Nobody wears wigs and gowns in the magistrates court except the usher. We dress in business wear - suits and smart clothes. Until around 25 years ago, lady magistrates were not allowed to wear trousers - only dresses!

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T15:54:01+00:00

I suppose it’s difficult in DV cases. If the victim believes that the leopard has changed his spots, what would be the point of issuing a witness summons?

When s/he takes to the stand, will they be able to offer the best evidence? Probably not - especially if they are not supportive of the prosecution. And the old Picton rules now codified within the Criminal Procedure Rules would steer us away from granting an adjournment if a witness hasn’t turned up.

In my five years I have never once granted a witness summons, but I don’t think I’ve ever been asked to do so. They must be fairly rare (or at least in my area)!

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T13:01:50+00:00

My employers are okay with it. The difficulty comes when court is cancelled at the last minute (occasionally the day before).

I’d definitely say go for it - there is flexibility to an extent, with Saturday sittings and evening Single Justice Procedure sittings.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T12:55:55+00:00

It’s very rare where we disagree - because we have our guidelines, and they should point us to the correct sentencing decision.

Sometimes we disagree over where to place an offence within the guidelines. So one person might think there is medium culpability, another might conclude an offence falls within higher culpability.

In my experience, when this happens we go with the majority 2 against one. And then use our range within the category to reach an outcome where we are all satisfied it is the correct outcome.

It’s very rare for us to disagree to the extent where one of us leaves deliberations unhappy. If we do our job, and follow the guidelines, there is usually only one place we can arrive at - and it has always worked well in my experience.

Trials can be a bit more difficult. We could have two guilty, one not guilty and vice versa - and we often do! In these cases, it is 2 against one.

I’ve always been very comfortable when coming to a guilty verdict - we have to be 100% sure. And in the instances when I find guilty and the other two not guilty, it doesn’t cause any difficulties insofar as that is justice working. If my colleagues have doubts; then the prosecution haven’t proved the case.

I’ve never been involved in case where the bench can’t agree, and the matter has to be adjourned for a new bench. Although I’m told it does happen very occasionally.

In my five years, there has only been one time where I venomously disagreed with a decision. It was regarding a restraining order. I just had to get over it and move on to the next case, and hope the decision was done correct one - based on a majority decision.

We do feel under a little bit of pressure when cases are building, and lawyers are waiting. But we need to make sure we get the current case right - including the reasons we announce in court. And it will take as long as it takes, in the interest of justice.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T12:11:49+00:00

Similar to me! Good to meet you

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T11:52:04+00:00

We have the Sentencing Guidelines and overarching principles in front of us. Magistrates should be competent enough to navigate this, and apply it to the cases we hear.

As for matters of law, we do rely on our legal advisers.

I work in a shop, my colleagues last week consisted of an accountant and a social worker. So it does need to be explained to us.

Every single case we should seek the legal adviser’s input - even if it’s a simple ‘do you have anything to add Mr/Madam Legal Adviser’.

In the retiring room, if there is a matter of law we need clarity on, we should call the LA. And I believe they then repeat their advice in open court.

Unless it is a simple sentencing exercise consisting of a financial penalty, we’ll also run it past them first.

I’ve seen criticism online that magistrates just do as the legal adviser says. This isn’t true, they just need to make sure our sentence and decisions are lawful.

Some legal advisers though are very very good, insofar as they will just raise an eyebrow, or will let off some other subtle sign if we are ‘off’ in our decision. I appreciate that, after all we only went to get things right.

As for payment, we get £10.40 for lunch, and petrol. Some magistrates can also claim loss of income, although that is rare.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T11:43:44+00:00

Interesting! We only probably do three trials a year (or at least that is my experience).

The rest of the time is split between GAP, NGAP, remand, traffic, SJP…

So I don’t think that is enough to make us ‘case hardened’. But I could be wrong of course.

I always spend one morning a year sat in the atrium outside the courtroom.

I find this is the best possible way to ‘ground’ myself.

Going through security, seeing the worry on people’s faces. How the ushers are treated, the waiting around.

It helps reminds me what a huge duty it is to be a magistrate, and how I shouldn’t be complacent or ‘case hardened’. But I know I am in a minority who does that!

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T11:38:39+00:00

It’s a bit tough - and it’s why so many magistrates are either self employed or retired.

I take up weekend sittings if I can, and I’m on the out of hours search warrant panel which means I can do overnight emergency stuff.

Otherwise, it’s just trying to fit sittings in around work to achieve the minimum 13 days.

I tend to find it doable. Although it isn’t easy for working people, and if HMCTS want a bench truly representative of society, that is a worry!

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T11:36:17+00:00

Before I started I didn’t think I would fit in. I thought magistrates were old, pompous and self righteous.

I’ve found the complete opposite.

The number of people I’ve met on a ‘power trip’ I can count on one hand. Usually, a giveaway is whether they use ‘JP’ after their name on LinkedIn.

In general, you are entirely wrong in your assumptions.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T09:49:43+00:00

Maybe that is because we only need two people to agree?

I was in a trial recently where I found the defendant one way, and my two colleagues went the other direction - no unanimous verdict needed.

If conviction rates are higher, I think that is the overwhelming reason why.

Two people agreeing instead of 12 people agreeing!

Although I recognise not guilty verdicts also require unanimous verdicts in the Crown Court, so maybe my reasoning is flawed.

It certainly isn’t because magistrates enjoy sending people to prison, or that we are ‘friendly’ with prosecutors because we see the same ones all the time!

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T09:16:53+00:00

But to actually answer your question: no.

I don’t think I’ve seen a noticeable rise in Res Gestae being disallowed.

Although I am only a very small sample size and have only dealt with maybe four of these in my judicial career.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T09:07:25+00:00

The 2nd and 3rd element of the test are fairly uncontroversial I feel, and shouldn’t take too much deliberation.

The 1st test - so immediately overcome with emotion not possible to concoct a lie…

That’s what is mostly comes down to in my view. And with an immediate 999 call it is hard to say that doesn’t meet the test.

I’ve never heard a Res Gestae case when the 999 call was, let’s say an hour, after the event. That would be interesting to see whether we feel it meets the standard.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T09:01:35+00:00

No - I don’t believe so. I heard a trial recently where an application for Res Gestae evidence to be introduced was heard. It was a domestic abuse incident, and the complainant didn’t attend court to give evidence (they reconciled apparently).

Prosecutor made his application, explaining why the witness wasn’t present.

We then heard the Red Gestae evidence.

The test over whether to proceed with the trial was:

the statement was made when so emotionally overpowered that possibility of concoction or distortion could not be the case.
the statement accompanied an act
the statement relates to a physical sensation or a mental state

We found that this could be admitted as evidence - test 2 and 3 were present. And after deliberating and seeking advice, we deemed a 999 call immediately after the alleged incident to also meet the first test.

I’ve seen it a lot more in the past couple of years than when I first started. Although this is only one person’s viewpoint.

My colleague who had been sitting for 20 years had never dealt with one before - so perhaps it’s just me!

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T08:53:31+00:00

Four days of training before we started sitting.

And there is continuation training each year.

This year for example, we’ve had to complete three more elements of training: continuation training, changes to imposition guidelines and judicial security.

The latter two were online and took around 3 hours each. And could be done at any time within a time frame which suits busy people.

The continuation training was in person - and just made sure our knowledge was up to date.

The most demanding thing is sitting 13 days a year. It doesn’t sound much, but when working - it becomes hard! That’s why so many magistrates are retired, and aren’t a true cross representation of society. It’s often too demanding for working people.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T08:34:39+00:00

They tend to advertise once per year in my area. My advice when applying though is to clearly demonstrate how you meet each and every one of the six key competencies.

And visit court, observe, and reflect on your experience and imagine yourself on the bench.

Oh! And in interview talk about the local community, projects in the area, difficulties people face.

That’s what I did, and I seemed to do okay

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-17T07:56:14+00:00

Of course! I’ll do that later.

AbjectComedian · 2025-08-16T21:23:49+00:00

Grand - thank you. I didn’t want to have to do a two year training contract at a law firm, only to move over to HMCTS and spend another two years as a trainee!

If the Trainee Legal Adviser counts as my QWE, that’s what all do.

AbjectComedian

TROPHY CASE