In the photo above, Sarah Sackman MP (left) stands alongside Magistrates’ Association National Chair David Ford (right)
Expenses review – listening to members
Members will recall that a review of magistrates’ expenses was announced at the MA Conference last year by Lord Ponsonby. The MA has been calling for a wholesale review of magistrates’ expenses for several years, as we believe that the current system is no longer fit for purpose. In a survey of nearly 1,400 members in 2022, three-quarters of the respondents said that they were left out of pocket as a result of being a magistrate. Not only is this unfair, but it also affects the diversity of the magistracy, as it particularly hits those who cannot afford to make up the difference.
The MA was asked by the MOJ team conducting the review to feed into their preparatory work. As such, in October we hosted a series of small-group roundtable discussions with members who have specific experiences that are particularly impacted by the expenses regime: employed and self-employed magistrates, those who live in rural areas, and those with caring responsibilities. Those discussions sought to get a more detailed understanding of how the expenses regime affects these groups, its shortfalls and impacts, and where there is room for improvement to compliment the findings of the survey report linked above.
We had many more members put themselves forward to participate in the roundtables than we had spaces, so thank you to all who expressed a willingness to get involved.
We have submitted our report from the roundtables to the MOJ team and will remain in dialogue with them as the review progresses. The MA will be surveying all members once we have more information about the review. Do look out for communications on that in the new year and make sure you respond: every voice counts.
Meeting the courts Minister
Just before he officially took office on 22 November, incoming national chair David Ford and chief executive Tom Franklin met the Courts Minister Sarah Sackman MP. It was a wide-ranging and very helpful discussion which covered Sir Brian Leveson’s Review of the Criminal Courts and its recommendations; the current review of the magistrates’ expenses regime; and improving the recognition of the public service that magistrates provide – including through a long service medal for magistrates.
There was a clear message at the meeting that the Government is committed to the magistracy, and we were heartened at the positive attitude that Minister Sackman has to helping tackle the above issues, but we made it clear that we wanted to see action to follow up the positive sentiment.
Safety and Security report published
In August, we published our report into safety and security in the magistrates’ court. This was made possible by a survey of members, to which over 1,200 of you responded; thank you to everyone who took the time to share their views and experiences.
To our knowledge, this is the first survey of its kind put to the lay judiciary and published as a response, not to a single incident or concern, but a cumulative sense that there were issues to be identified, quantified, and – in time – solved. Roughly half of the questions put to members were open-ended so that we could hear directly from magistrates. Alongside the quantitative findings, the report therefore puts the voice of magistrates at the forefront.
Whilst most magistrates will feel safe most of the time, some of the findings are concerning. One in four magistrates have felt unsafe in the court building at some point during their time on the bench, with most of these incidents relating to defendants/parties and their conduct. Failures in process or equipment, issues around existing safety measures and processes, and the dangers of a crumbling court estate were also identified by members as areas of concern.
The report gave specific attention to each of the three jurisdictions. In the family court, where 25 per cent have felt unsafe, court layouts, staffing levels (of ushers and security personnel), and the prevalence of litigants-in-person (LiPs) gave rise to concerns. The youth court was perceived as the safest of the three, with just over one in ten having had an experience there that made them feel unsafe. Like the family court, the court layout – designed with good intention to create a less adversarial, less formal, more child-friendly environment – gives rise to safety and security concerns.
The report also considered the experience of disabled magistrates, reporting processes, experience beyond the courtroom, social media and how the courts engage with an increasingly online world from a safety and security standpoint, and managing openness. Do give the report a read. Since publication, we have been in dialogue with the HMCTS security team and David Ford – our new National Chair – now sits on the Judicial Security Committee.
Family Policy Special Webinar
This month we hosted our first Family Policy Special Webinar. Following a model for similar events focused on the youth jurisdiction, this event brought together over 100 family magistrates, both members and non-members. The Family Court Committee shared an update on the policy work that the Committee has been involved with over the last year before attendees broke into smaller groups for discussions of potential future areas of work that the committee may pursue in future. The discussions were fruitful and demonstrated the depth of expertise held by family magistrates, as well as their passion for the family court.
The MA intends for this to be an annual event, so if you missed it this year do look out for future communications.
BAME conference
The MA’s BAME network, working through the Diversity & Inclusion Committee, hosted a one-day conference in London in October. Titled ‘Stepping Up: Challenges and Opportunities for Black, Asian and Global Majority Magistrates’, the event brought together a range of speakers, including judicial office holders, representatives from the business and charity sectors, and artists for a series of keynote and panel discussions. MA Policy Officer Samira Ali also presented our analysis of the judicial diversity statistics and the MA’s recommendations for removing barriers to recruitment and retention of magistrates. You can read these recommendations and our comments accompanying the data release, in our press release.
Media coverage
Since our last update, we have been working with the MoJ on its magistrates recruitment media campaign. Over the last few months, a number of magistrates, including MA members, have shared their stories with media to encourage people to consider joining the magistracy. During the campaign, we’ve picked up mentions in local newspapers including the Yorkshire Evening Post, the Wiltshire Times, and the Bournemouth Daily Echo. The campaign aims to recruit 2,000 new magistrates across England and Wales by March 2026.
In September, media attention once again turned to the controversial Single Justice Procedure (SJP), when a teenager was convicted of not insuring his car when he was sectioned in hospital and receiving treatment for a life-threatening eating disorder. In sharing the story, the Evening Standard published the MA’s position that the SJP is in serious need of reform. Our concerns were repeated by the Daily Mail in October, as campaigners continue to put pressure on the government to change tack.
Finally, in October the MA’s (then) National Chair Mark Beattie was quoted by Justice Committee Chair Andy Slaughter MP during a Westminster debate on Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. Discussing the recommendation of setting up a Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD), Slaughter quoted Mark’s suggestion that an extra 6,000 magistrates would be needed to ensure the successful running of the division, while maintaining capacity in the magistrates’ courts.
