Report comment

"It is expected that some judicial functions will be reserved for staff with specified qualifications or experience."

Yes but we all know that will maybe start off with fully qualified legal advisers, then go down to court associates, then will just be whoever anyone who has seen an episode of Matlock in a bar with the sound off. Just like 'Associate Prosecutors' in the CPS who completed a 2 week course and were then released onto the courts (as opposed to at least 6 years for a solicitor or 4.5 years for a barrister).

"more straightforward judicial functions such as issuing a summons; taking a plea"

Does this not strike terror into anyone else's heart? That anyone other than a judge can demand that somebody attend court and, if that person doesn't, he can be arrested and held in custody and subsequently produced at court in custody. We already have precious little oversight with regards to the issuing of proceedings compared to our cousins over the pond - the thin gruel has been further watered down.

As for taking a plea, it's hardly a straightforward judicial function. It's bad enough having lay magistrates misunderstanding the law and pressuring defendants into pleading guilty. It's bad enough them saying "well you must know whether you did it". It's bad enough having legal advisers who want to go onto their lunch break pressuring defendants into pleading guilty so they can carry on with their day. I've heard stories that a single lay justice found someone guilty for driving into a bus lane when an emergency vehicle was trying to get past, moaning later that there was no defence available to the motorist, before having it pointed out to him that necessity is most definitely a defence to that charge.

These are NOT simple administrative procedures and there were good reasons that things were set up the way they were. That we're too stupid to realise it and are ploughing on with 'modernisation' without realising the gravity of the changes we are making is to our eternal shame.