What the magistrates’ governance consultation means for you
On Thursday 8 May, the Senior Presiding Judge launched a consultation paper on the review of governance of the magistracy. This follows the 2022 Judicial Review and Courts Act, which abolished previous structures without putting anything in their place.
Now, a new model is being proposed – and, while it may feel a bit remote, it has real implications for how magistrates are represented and how decisions affecting them are made.
It’s on the Judicial Intranet and Magistrate Matters, but you can also download PDFs of the four consultation documents here:
Review of Magistrates Governance (25 pages)
Annex A: Management of the judicial business of the magistrates courts (8 pages)
Annex B: Magistrates sitting in the Family Court (6 pages)
Annex C: MLE Terms of Reference (4 pages).
We encourage all members to respond before the deadline (31 July).
The proposals set out a three-tier structure:
- National: A new Magistrates’ Courts Oversight Group (MCOG) would replace existing bodies. It would cover all jurisdictions and include MA representation. While we welcome this consolidation, we’re seeking clarity on whether MCOG is truly a decision-making body or just advisory. We’ve recommended creating subgroups (e.g. on youth justice, recruitment, and inclusion) and strengthening family magistrate representation with voices who understand the lay perspective.
- Regional: New Regional Judicial Business and Leadership Groups (RJBLGs) would merge existing judicial business and leadership groups. These would bring together Bench Chairs and other stakeholders, including the MA. We support this reform in principle, but emphasise that:
- Careful thought needs to be given on how these bodies effectively deal with business, as their membership will be large.
- RJBLGs must be chaired by Lead Presiders with protected time.
- Bench Chairs must be elected by their peers, not appointed.
- Local issues – like sitting cancellations – must not be lost in large, strategic groups.
- Local: Bench Business and Leadership Groups (BBLGs) would be created for each bench area. We support this, but we think that bench chairs need to be involved in the details for how they will work. These groups should offer a space for local feedback, coordination, and input into changes. We recommend that MA Branch Chairs are formally included and that BBLGs are the first port of call for discussions about operational changes.
Reforming the MLE
One of the most impactful element of the consultation covers the future of the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive (MLE). We believe the MLE should be a meaningful national voice for magistrates; right now, it isn’t. We propose that the National and Regional Leadership Magistrates that make up the MLE should be elected by Bench Chairs, rather than appointed by the senior judiciary, otherwise they are not representative. We believe strongly that elections, not selections, will ensure stronger legitimacy and accountability.
Our view
This is a real opportunity to shape how magistrates are led, supported, and represented, and it is important that the right decisions are taken.
We support the overarching aim of simplifying governance structures . But for this to work, magistrates must have a stronger, more democratic voice at every level. We believe representation should be earned through election, not appointment, ensuring that those who speak for magistrates are grounded in the day-to-day realities of the bench.
Governance must be practical, not just strategic. It must reflect the diversity of magistrates, particularly those in family and youth jurisdictions, and it must actively include those who have historically felt underrepresented or disconnected from leadership.
We have seen the response submitted by the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive (MLE), which includes proposals to remove MA representation at regional level and completely ignores the MA at local level. It also proposes to significantly expand the size of the MLE. We believe that their suggestions are a step in the wrong direction and risk weakening the independent voice of magistrates within the system. At a national level, the MLE are proposing to increase their representation without any change to that for the MA.
Responding to the consultation
The consultation contains 40 questions. If you do not have time to answer all of those questions, we suggest the most important ones are:
National arrangements – Question 3: Should there be a single national decision-making body that encompasses both crime and family magistrates?
Circuit/regional arrangements – Question 10: Should there be a single regional decision-making body that combines the current functions of the Judicial Business Group and the Regional Magistrates Leadership Group?
Local arrangements – Question 22: Should there be a single local decision-making body that combines the current functions of the Judicial Delivery Group and the Bench Leadership Group?
Magistrates Leadership Executive – Question 32: Is there a continuing need for the Magistrates Leadership Executive, or a similar group, as a standalone national group under the new structure? and Question 37: How should membership of the MLE be determined? Should it continue to be through application and selection, or should some or all of the positions be elected?
