1.

Evaluate the use of magistrates in the English legal system (10m)

Often described as the backbone of the English legal system, magistrates are volunteers drawn
from all walks of life, they are also called Justices of Peace. They usually sit in panel of three. Lay
magistrates are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice in the name of the Crown on the advice of
the Local Advisory Committee. There are many strengths of the use of magistrates primarily
being it upholds the principle of trial by one’s peers. One of the greatest strengths is the
participation of ordinary people in the administration of justice. Furthermore, the presence of
local knowledge is a great strength as lay magistrates come from the local area and are middle
class folk. Gender balance as lay magistrates come from a wider cross section of society than
professional judges. It also saves money as lay magistrates are only paid expenses saving the
tax payers money. Lastly lay magistrates act as a filter meaning only the most serious cases are
heard in the crown court. One of the most unique strengths in lay magistrates is the strength in
numbers. But on the other hand, the use of lay magistrates has its own share of limitations.
Given the restricted social background as magistrates and their alleged bias towards the police
the true value of the use of lay magistrates can be very doubtful. As there are always two sides
to the same coin. Conviction rates in the magistrate’s court are much higher than in the crown
court. There is a degree of inconsistency as sentences vary between different magistrates’
courts and even between different lay magistrates in the same court. There are also
inconsistencies in the granting of bail. Further there is also inefficiency as professional judges
are speedier and are better at case management this is due to the lack of legal knowledge and
training. Professional court users had significantly greater levels of confidence in the district
judges in magistrates’ courts. Which leads to a waste of time. Lay magistrates also incur more
indirect costs than professional judges. As they take longer to make decisions.

2. Discuss arbitration, mediation and conciliation as alternatives to the usual

court system (10m)

ADR is the name given to the process where parties in a dispute come to a compromise or
settle their dispute without going to court. The court process is costly, lengthy and an
unrewarding experience. The view is that with ADR the parties own the process maximizing
their liberty. The primary reason for the use of ADR is to save the expense of using the courts
and lawyers. Arbitration is an effective method of civil dispute resolution. It is private,
confidential determination of a dispute by an independent third party. The arbitrator’s decision
which is known as an award is legally binding and can be enforced. The actual procedure of any
arbitration is left to the parties to decide. Yet there are limited rights to appeal and not al
arbitration hearings are cheap. It needs the agreement of both parties before it can be
embarked on.
Mediation this is one of the most popular methods of ADR processes in which a neutral third
party assists the disputing parties to reach a settlement. This process is voluntary and non-
binding, any binding agreement reached can be enforced in contract. Mediation is used in a
wide range od disputes. It is distinguished from litigation processes by virtue of problem
solving. Mediation is often said to be able or capable of producing a ‘win/win’ situation rather
than a ‘win/lose’ situation. It is cheaper and quicker; it is a flexible procedure it can achieve
settlements in a wide range of disputes also said to be capable of achieving creative solutions
and it can repair damaged relationships. Conciliation is a similar but in conciliation the neutral
third party takes an active role deliberately suggesting ways in which the parties might reach an
agreement. Yet conciliation has no legal foundation and a conciliator has no legal powers
making a conciliators decision a non-binding proposal to settle the disputes.

3. Explain how judges can be removed from their role (6m)

Under the Rule of Law judges are expected to deliver judgements in a completely impartial
manner, applying the law strictly without allowing any personal preferences to affect their
decision making. When removing a judge both the Houses of Parliament have the power to
petition the Queen for the removal of a judge of the High Court of the Court of Appeal. Circuit
judges and District judges can be removed by the Lord Chancellor. However, he can only do this
if the LCJ agrees. But the removal of superior and inferior judges is rarely down by both the
Crown and the Lord Chancellor