Is anyone on here a serving magistrate, or have any experience with it? Im a younger CFAV in the early twenties age bracket, so I presume my kind probably need to wait a decade or two before there’s any chance of being selected for that bench.
Not sure if I quite have the time for it right now even if I could, but it definitely sounds like an interesting, if a bit alternative, form of public service volunteering.
Nope you can volunteer now.
You could volunteer now whilst being a CFAV however like every volunteer role it would then be about managing multiple volunteer roles as well as job & life so that’s what would make it tricky.
It might be an idea for those studying law at uni to consider but whether that is sensible is probably best left for those in the profession.
Anyone can do it, regardless of education or background. (Which is just one aspect of why it’s so annoying it’s the least representative section of the judiciary!)
Younger magistrates would be ideal, look into it.
Ironically my location is one of those currently advertised. Not sure I’m going to fit two court visits in the next two days, given I have a full time job too!
Something to keep an eye on though for sure, I’ve always been a little interested in the judiciary.
I often have a few cadet each year go off to study law - is it something they should consider while at university?
Maybe? I think a friend did it?
It’s something I’ve got in my mind after I retire or if I leave the job before then.
If they are that short of magistrates then there are not many open positions on there.
I might had a stab when I retire from full time employment, people round here appear to get away with all sorts if the local news is anything to go by.
Other end of the scale, Serco - “Electronic Monitoring Field Officer” - tagging person! 
Evening shifts range from 5pm to 1am!! 
Who gets tagged at 0100 hrs??
Well if the system is working properly that’s because the Crown has failed to prove the case.
Had a colleague who did Jury service, she was the deciding vote for not-guilty because I. Her words “he definitely did it, but the Crown didn’t make that case beyond all reasonable doubt” which is the level of intellectual honesty that we need from Magistrates, Jurors and Judges.
Sounds like she was sure though, which is the test!
Is Lammy’s plan falling apart.
Is suppose it comes down to why she was sure? Coppers nose generally isn’t grounds for a conviction 
The whole thing was clearly a test the waters leak.
Did jury service yonks ago.
Very interesting case - charge of GBH (& another one, can’t remember the details) - we didn’t establish until a couple of days into the trial, that the accused was in prison, & the alleged offence (attacking another prisoner & blinding him in one eye) was also committed in prison.
To 10 of us in the jury, the accused was as guilty as hell. It was all pre-meditated, with suitable distractions organised to get the wardens away from the scene, & a couple of other prisoners on hand to mop up the evidence. Slam dunk for the prosecution, ready for a verdict in a couple of hrs….
However, the other 2 jurors (including the foreman, a teacher!) were adamant that he was innocent. There was a lot of extended discussion - but one wouldn’t sway - even when one of the other jurors set up a type of demonstration to show how hard someone (wearing trainers) would have to kick the other person to blind them (I think the eye socket bone was broken too).
The judge eventually instructed that an 11:1 verdict would be acceptable.
Guilty - & Prisoner 12345 got a hefty add-on to his existing sentence - which apparently, he only had a few months left to serve.
One of the funny aspects of the case; as most of those called as witnesses were serving prisoners, the language at times was somewhat fruity. When the prim & proper lady judge (twin set & pearls) summed up, she repeated, verbatim, important quotes from the witnesses, complete with the fruity language - very incongruous - & despite the seriousness, exceptionally funny. It was very, very hard not to laugh!
Jury trials scrapped for crimes with sentences of less than three years Jury trials scrapped for crimes with sentences of less than three years
A massive row back from last week’s ‘leak’.
But still concerning in both principle and practice.
It’s back in line with the recommendations from Levenson isn’t it?
My only real concern is that it won’t make a blind bit of difference.
Closer.
But, mainly that is the issue.
We don’t have a backlog of jury trials because of anything other than a lack of open court rooms in which to hear the damn things.
The government could IMMEDIATELY reduce the backlog and increase the pace of jury trials just by actually using the court rooms we currently have.
A big problem for instance locally is that we have three small court centres which are only operating 1,1/2 to 2 courtrooms. In those courtrooms they not only have to hear trials, they also have to hear case management hearings, please hearings, sentences and everything else the Crown Courts do. Some courts don’t even get to their trials until midday, at the earliest.
All three of those courts could shift that work into unused magistrates court rooms tomorrow, the trials would have clear courts and would pick up immediately. Why can’t they do that? Because the MoJ won’t fund the opening of them.
How many appeals against sentence will this generate?