The long-awaited consultation on changes to local justice areas and the administration of the magistracy launched on Monday 31 March and closed on Monday 23 June. Please read on to see what the consultation covered, and read both our position statement and our final response.
This page also has information on the Judicial Office’s consultation on the review of governance of the magistracy, launched on Thursday 8 May, and which closes on Thursday 31 July.
Please bookmark this page, as we will keep it updated, as the Ministry of Justice and Judicial Office’s response to the consultation evolves.
What was in the consultation?
The consultation document (read the PDF or HTML version) ran to 92 pages and had 32 questions for responders to consider.
It proposed a number of changes, including:
- The structure for grouping magistrates’ courts (pages 13 to 18 of the consultation document). The consultation proposed to group magistrates’ courts into 58 ‘benches’, a reduction from the current number of 75 ‘local justice areas’ (LJA). There were detailed suggestions on how these benches will be formed. The MA looked closely at the size of these, their feasibility for magistrates, and whether the proposals enhanced the principle of local justice.
- Changes to the deployment process (pages 21 to 30). The consultation suggested that there should be an ‘expectation’ that between 20-40% of a magistrate’s sittings should be not at their home court, within their bench. It also suggested that a ‘reasonable’ journey time should be up to ’90 minutes each way, by car or public transport’. We were concerned about the impact of this on individual magistrates and on magistrate diversity – including for magistrates who may not have the time to travel further, or would be out of pocket because of the expenses regime.
- The role of bench chairs (pages 31 to 35). As well as reducing the number of bench chairs from 75 to 58 (to match the number of new ‘benches’), the consultation explored options that could help divide the workload for a bench chair – by perhaps splitting the role into two, to focus on different work, or making more use of deputy bench chairs.
- How leadership roles are appointed (pages 36 and 37). The consultation asked if the roles of Bench Chair, Deputy Bench Chair, Family Panel Chair, Youth Panel Chair, and Family/Youth Panel Deputy, should 1) continue to be election, 2) selection, or 3) if some of these roles should be elected, and others selected. The MA has a long-standing policy that local magistrates should be able to choose all of their local leadership – as a key way that their voice is heard – rather than leaders being selected.
- Training (pages 38 to 41). The consultation proposed to reduce the number of TAAACs (Training, Approvals, Authorisations and Appraisal Committees) from 45 to 14, with one for crime/youth and one for family in each judicial circuit and London. The consultation also asked if magistrate members of the TAAACs should be elected or selected. The MA considered if the proposals went far enough in sorting out the structural problems in delivering magistrate training.
What the MA did to respond to the consultation
The MA consulted widely with our members – through our policy committees and branches, with bench and family panel chairs, and in member webinars. We also met the justice minister Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and the Senior Presiding Judge to share our members’ views with them.
In our conversations with these key stakeholders, we’ve repeatedly made the case that any changes need to preserve the many excellent attributes of the magistracy and that changes should only be implemented in partnership with magistrates.
Webinar slides
We held two webinars, on Thursday 8 May and Saturday 17 May, to discuss the key questions in the consultation. Click this link to see the presentation slide deck from the webinars.
Our position statement and final submission
Our position statement informed our final submission and we hope it informed yours’ too (some members emailed us to say that they’d drawn on it for their submissions). Both our position statement and final response documents are below, and both are well worth a read:
What happens next?
The consultation has now closed. The Ministry of Justice and Judicial Office, who are running the consultation, will now look at the responses they have received. The official response to the consultation is due to be published in Autumn 2025, and we will update this page – and members – when we know more about this.
Consultation on reform of magistracy governance
On Thursday 8 May, the Judicial Office published its consultation paper on the review of governance of the magistracy. It’s on the Judicial Intranet and Magistrate Matters. 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).
The MA supports reforming magistrates’ governance to improve transparency, accountability, and representation. In our response, we call for empowered national and regional bodies, advocate elected leadership rooted in magistrate values, and oppose an expansion of the current MLE. Recommendations stress inclusivity, clearer communication, structural coherence, and safeguarding the distinct voice of magistrates. Please click the links below to read our submission, more detailed thoughts:
