Clause 3 (Hansard, 3 April 1973)

§ Mr. Clinton Davis

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 46, at end add: '(3) A justice of the peace shall attend at least one course of instruction in each calendar year.' I raised this question in the Second Reading debate. It concerns the obligation of justices of the peace to undertake some form of instruction in each calendar year. In his Second Reading speech the Solicitor-General indicated that he thought it inappropriate to impose an obligation of this character upon a voluntary body. I do not accept that argument. It has to be remembered that when justices of the peace accept the solemn obligations imposed upon them on assuming office—the duty to determine guilt, the duty to impose an appropriate sentence, the duty to adjudicate on civil issues, as between husband and wife, and so on—they accept, perhaps by implication, the corollary duty that they will endeavour to keep abreast of changes in the law and in procedure, and, in conceptions that govern the thinking of magistrates' courts—and, in these days, Crown courts—to consider the way in which society at large is thinking about a wide variety of issues which impinge upon the functions of the justices.

I know that many justices of the peace accept and honour those obligations and already attend the instructional courses provided. I know something about those which are provided in inner London at least, because my wife is an assiduous attender of the instruction courses and sentencing exercises which are set. Many justices unquestionably attend, but there is still a substantial minority of justices of the peace who will not go to these sentencing exercises and have no real 386 interest in what is being discussed there and yet continue to occupy their important office.

I know that some justices of the peace say "We have enough to do spending our time in courts once a week or once a fortnight." I know that it is a heavy and time-consuming responsibility. But that is not an adequate excuse for one who accepts this solemn undertaking. These people may be extremely busy, but in order to fulfil their functions adequately they must not be too busy to attend at least one sentencing exercise or instructional course in each calendar year. That is not asking too much, particularly since these courses are generally held on Saturdays.

Sitting as a justice of the peace is not a game. One does not undertake these functions for purposes of social embellishment—at least, one should not do so. This is a vitally important role in our judicial system. Therefore, it is not a function that one should take on lightly.

Other justices say, "We are fairly experienced magistrates already. We do not need these instructional courses. We get our experience where it matters— on the bench". I do not think that is a satisfactory argument either, because there are often changes which affect our criminal law and, indeed, the civil jurisdiction of magistrates, and it would be wrong to treat those appearing before justices as guinea pigs.

11.30 p.m.

It is important that those who are experienced should obtain greater experience by attending sentencing exercises and other instructional courses. It is wrong, in a sense, to refer too much to sentencing exercises, because the courses ought to be of a much wider nature than they are now. I referred to this matter on Second Reading, and I shall not embellish upon it at this late hour, but there are important aspects of civil jurisdiction which perhaps do not feature too much in the instructional courses undertaken by justices.

I believe, too, that the experienced magistrate has a good deal to offer to the inexperienced one attending these instructional courses, and he ought to think about that. After all, he can pass on the benefit of the experience which he has acquired by sitting on the mock 387 benches at sentencing exercises. I hope, therefore, that there will not be too many who feel that they do not need the guidance and help which these courses can bestow.

I am not seeking to disparage justices —I hope that the Solicitor-General will recognise this—because I accept that a large number of them undertake these exercises, but it should be obligatory on them all to undertake the minimum number of courses which I have set out in the amendment. They are volunteers but of a special kind with special obligations, and I do not think that this would be asking too much of them.

§ The Solicitor-General

This matter was debated in Committee. One of the problems raised by the amendment is that it would need a great deal of prior consultation, followed by agreement with the Magistrates' Association as representing the lay magistrates and, indeed, with magistrates, courts committees which have the duty and the financial responsibility of mounting the courses which they arrange each year for the justices.

When compulsory training was introduced it was recognised that those who were appointed were giving up their time to voluntary service and that they were usually mature and responsible persons, many of whom occupied prominent positions in the community. It was not thought proper to enforce this compulsory training by legislation, but it was enforced in a different way. That was by requiring justices to give an undertaking on appointment to complete a prescribed course of instruction within a year of appointment. They are, therefore, given that instruction within the first 12 months.

It must be remembered that justices are busy people with many other commitments. The amount of time which they are being required to give to their magisterial duties is increasing every year due to the increase in the number of cases which they have to try, and in my view it would be an intolerable burden to enforce attendance at even one course of instruction a year.

Magistrates' courts committees arrange at least a sentencing exercise, which is available for all the justices for whom they are responsible, not less than every 388 other year and in a number of cases more often. All justices are encouraged to attend these exercises and also any other instructional courses which may be available. Sometimes these are arranged by the magistrates' courts committees, or by branches of the Magistrates' Association, and at other times by universities and other educational institutions.

In my experience in East Anglia it is a frequent occurrence to have a weekend session from late on Friday evening until after lunch on Sunday at one of the colleges. There is a huge attendance. A large number of important, useful people—probation officers, prison officers, judges and the like—come to give lectures. A very big sentencing exercise takes place. It may be that in that part of the country we have been very lucky. It would be wrong to say that such attendance is lacking among magistrates generally. It is not. Most of them are very good about it.

I should not like to enforce upon magistrates by legislation what is basically recognised and agreed to be a voluntary system. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has under constant review the training of justices, a subject upon which he receives expert and informed advice. If at any time it became apparent to him that some form of compulsory training was required in addition to the basic training, I think that it could be introduced either as a condition of appointment, which would be the best way because upon accepting the appointment a magistrate would know what was involved, or subsequently by legislation.

My inclination would be not to change the terms of office of somebody who has accepted voluntary duty as a justice by thrusting upon him a few years later a compulsory form of instruction which he did not accept at the time of his appointment in addition to the onerous duties that he has to carry out in any event.