Talk:Magistrates' court (England and Wales)

Expansion request

How many such courts are there? Do they have web sites? Is it feasible to list them all? -- Beland 01:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Stipendiary magistrates

Haven't these now been renamed district judges? Loganberry (Talk) 13:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Unclear tag

I have tagged the first sentence of the section "Offences and role" as unclear. What is that "1 year" doing? Either it is misplaced, or something is missing. Jamie Mercer 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

{{TOCleft}}

What was the point of this, exactly? I've BOLDly removed it; it looked hideous. Ironholds (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Law Enforcement Agencies

A minority of cases are prosecuted by other law enforcement agencies, such as HM Revenue & Customs, RSPCA or the Health and Safety Executive, and in such cases a solicitor or barrister will attend especially to prosecute.

Is the RSPCA a Law Enforcement Agency? In my opinion this term implies official status where it does not exist. The RSPCA are merely a Charity who sometimes bring private prosecutions, but anyone can do this and they have no special powers. 82.46.49.45 (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Although they don't have special powers they do have the ear of most judges as a recognised authority and subject-matter-expert on animal welfare. In the past the RSPCA has advised on sentencing 81.105.9.22 (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

More useful might be to say delete the whole phrase "law enforcement agencies" and replace simply with "agencies". One would normally expect that a law enforcement agency's prime function was law enforcement, but this is clearly not the case with the RSPCA, HSE or even HMRC. Besides, vastly more cases are brought by local authorities (for recovery of unpaid Council Tax), LEAs (school non-attendance) and the TV Licensing Agency and there is no way that councils, LEAs or TV licensing can be said to be "law enforcement agencies". Their cases are typically held by devoting a whole session of the court to them and this would be described as a "private court", i.e. they are private prosecutions. The prosecutor in such cases will not necessarily be a qualified lawyer (i.e. solicitior or barrister), but this is also the case when the CPS prosecutes - an increasing number of CPS prosecutions are conducted by "agents" who are employed and trained for the role but who are not lawyers. Emeraude (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point. TV Licensing, for example, is actually conducted by a private contracted corporation called Capita. But the difference here is that whilst Capita are contracted by the government to enforce TV tax licensing, RSPCA is not contracted by anybody to fulfil this role so couldn't really be considered an agent of any official department or body. 81.105.9.22 (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely true - RSPCA does have statutory powers from Parliament to investigate and prosecute offences. Emeraude (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the RSPCA does not have any statutory powers, which is why they can't get warrants. They have over the years lobbied for statutory powers, but Parliament has never given them any. The police will usually act on information from the RSPCA, and when the police execute warrants under animal welfare legislation, they will "invite" the RSPCA (the police can invite anyone who's assistance they need when executing a search warrant). But every time the RSPCA appear to exercise police powers, there is always a police officer present who the RSPCA are nominally assisting. However it is a complete misconception that any authority is needed to initiate a prosecution, anyone can start a prosecution by laying an information before a Justice of the Peace (See section 1 of the Magistrates Courts' Act and part 7 of the Criminal Procedure Rules). I have added references to the relevant CPS page on private prosecution, and the leading Supreme Court judgement on the matter, this should hopefully clear things up. --Ivanleo (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Committal to Crown Court

The procedures have recently changed and "committal" is no longer used. Instead, cases are "sent" to the Crown Court. Has anyone got the details to amend the relevant details here? (I'd do it, but I'm on holiday and, quite frankly, the temptations of pool and fine wine are more attractive than trawling the Internet for legal references!!) Emeraude (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Apostrophe

Surely there is no apostrophe in 'Magistrates Court'. It is not a possessive. The court is not owned by the magistrates. 'Magistrates' here is adjectival, merely describing the type of court. Hence: Supreme Court; High Court; Crown Court; County Court; Magistrates Court etc. JordiYiman (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There is an apostrophe because it is a possessive. See, for example, Sheffield Magistrates' Court website or any other similar site (search here.) Emeraude (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't see in your reply any reason why it should be a possessive. I repeat, the court is not owned by the magistrates, it is owned by the crown. Some courts add an apostrophe, probably because government legislation uses an apostrophe, e.g. "Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980". My point is that that is wrong.JordiYiman (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is a possessive. All magistrates' courts use the apostrophe and, as you say, so does the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. But, in fact, government publications and websites always do, not just that Act. Have you found a reliable source that doesn't? And, actually, even if it were, technically, grammatically wrong, that would stil be the accepted and official way to write it, which makes it correct. See, for example, the information on criminal courts. Incidentally, there are also Coroners' Courts. Emeraude (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magistrates' court (England and Wales). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514092512/http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_overarching_principles_sentencing_youths.pdf to http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_overarching_principles_sentencing_youths.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)