Up *** Creek With A Lng Paddle
News1 min ago
Magistrate's Second Interview
11 Answers
I have just heard that I have successfully passed the first Magistrate's interview and have my second interview next month. I am aware that I will be given a couple of cases to study and will then be asked about my views on those cases. Can anyone advise me as to where I can get further guidance and advice on this second interview and tips on how to prepare for it? Many thanks
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fountain100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Easy answer is to find someone newly appointed to a local panel of magistrates and ask them.They should know what is being looked for ! You local chief clerk to the magistrates' [justices' clerk] should be approachable and able to help you find someone suitable (maybe on more than just that).I'm assuming that you are not to be assessed by someone from the local magistrates but by some neutral individual(s) from the Department!
A hunt around Amazon for books, under 'magistrates', that might help was utterly useless, which is surprising.
If you can give a bit more about this e.g whether the cases are summaries of evidence for you to review and say how you'd go about deciding, or facts or decided cases where you're expected to comment on the decision, and how much notice you have of them, that would help me to answer better, but you may think the first suggestion is more use.My guess is that they'll want you to look at the cases, see how you'd approach each judicially, and mentally flag up possible problem areas (such as corroboration) and areas where you'd instantly think you might need to take advice on the law from the clerk .
A hunt around Amazon for books, under 'magistrates', that might help was utterly useless, which is surprising.
If you can give a bit more about this e.g whether the cases are summaries of evidence for you to review and say how you'd go about deciding, or facts or decided cases where you're expected to comment on the decision, and how much notice you have of them, that would help me to answer better, but you may think the first suggestion is more use.My guess is that they'll want you to look at the cases, see how you'd approach each judicially, and mentally flag up possible problem areas (such as corroboration) and areas where you'd instantly think you might need to take advice on the law from the clerk .
I was appointed nearly 10 years ago and things may be slightly different these days.
However from what I remember there was a panel of around 6 or 7 people. Before the interview I was put into a waiting room and given two pieces of paper.
One was a list of offences - ranging from things like shop theft to burglary, and asked to rank them from the least to the most serious.
The other was a summary of a case - comprising brief facts from the prosecution and the defence, and a statement from the defendant. It was a guilty verdict so there was also mitigation from the defence solicitor. I was told the sentence and asked if I agreed or disagreed with it. I was also asked what I would have sentenced if I was on the bench for that case.
After that there were more general questions about my attitudes to various problems in society, and my local area in particular.
I didn't prepare at all for the interview. They are not interested in what you know about the law - that all comes with training. They are interested in your thought processes and your ability to identify the issues clearly.
Good luck with it all.
However from what I remember there was a panel of around 6 or 7 people. Before the interview I was put into a waiting room and given two pieces of paper.
One was a list of offences - ranging from things like shop theft to burglary, and asked to rank them from the least to the most serious.
The other was a summary of a case - comprising brief facts from the prosecution and the defence, and a statement from the defendant. It was a guilty verdict so there was also mitigation from the defence solicitor. I was told the sentence and asked if I agreed or disagreed with it. I was also asked what I would have sentenced if I was on the bench for that case.
After that there were more general questions about my attitudes to various problems in society, and my local area in particular.
I didn't prepare at all for the interview. They are not interested in what you know about the law - that all comes with training. They are interested in your thought processes and your ability to identify the issues clearly.
Good luck with it all.
Thank you so much for taking the time to reply. It really is most appreciated. The only information I have been given is that I will be given 2 or three cases to review (which are typical of cases dealth with in the Magistrates' Court) and after half an hour or so, will be asked my views on them. Although I realise that it is not my knowledge of the law they are testing, I would like to be a little more prepared than I was for my first interview. I was rather surprised to find that the interviewing techniques were somewhat outdated and relied heavily on hypothesis rather than actual life experience. I am presuming they will be looking for me to comment upon mitigating/aggravating factors and my opinion on the judgement imposed?
-- answer removed --
Yes they will be looking for you to identify the issues in the case and be able to discuss them. What makes the offence more or less serious, might it be a domestic offence, was alcohol a factor, is there a history of similar offences - that sort of thing.
Just try to take your time and read through what you are given carefully. You should be able to make notes and refer back to them in the interview. Be prepared to have your views challenged - it doesn't mean you are wrong - just that people have different opinions and ways of looking at things.
Don't be afraid to disagree with the sentence given - just be prepared to back up your point of view with sound reasons.
Just try to take your time and read through what you are given carefully. You should be able to make notes and refer back to them in the interview. Be prepared to have your views challenged - it doesn't mean you are wrong - just that people have different opinions and ways of looking at things.
Don't be afraid to disagree with the sentence given - just be prepared to back up your point of view with sound reasons.
So, docspoc, you would be quite happy to have your guilt or innocence determined by the Clerk of the Court (or to be more accurate, the court�s Legal Advisor), would you?
Presumably you would also be happy for he or she to decide on the sentence applicable for an offence where the guidelines suggest anything from a fine to imprisonment, depending on the circumstances.
What makes you say that magistrates are drawn from �ranks of stupid people�? Do you have knowledge of how the selection process works that ensures they are only drawn from such sources?
Please let us all know how you have arrived at your conclusions.
Presumably you would also be happy for he or she to decide on the sentence applicable for an offence where the guidelines suggest anything from a fine to imprisonment, depending on the circumstances.
What makes you say that magistrates are drawn from �ranks of stupid people�? Do you have knowledge of how the selection process works that ensures they are only drawn from such sources?
Please let us all know how you have arrived at your conclusions.
Docspock, times have changed a lot, thank goodness.You're a bit behind the times.
Magistrates do get training and do get independently assessed before being allowed to be magistrates.They are drawn from a wider range of people than before,too . In the distant old days, magistrates were untrained and pretty much self-selecting and all of a type in background
Everyone who ever practised widely had horror stories of some courts, many years ago.Guilt in a lot of courts was decided by the one in the middle, the chairman,not the 'bookends', assisted by the Clerk (who ran the court as his personal fiefdom). The great trick for the advocate,was to discover the personal foibles of both, and get the clerk on your side (didn't matter how: flattery, frightening the wits out of him, obsequience, picking up his personal eccentricity and playing to it, it didn't matter). That got a lot of sway over the chairman, who might acquit against his personal judgment, but you had to play to him as well.
And the great thing about challenging police was to be in either an extremely upper class area, populated by people who snootily treated a policeman as they would a servant (might lie might not) or a really working class area (same, but they thought of him as another working class man like themselves). It was the classic Hyacinth Bucket, middle class benches who revered policemen and thought it was a sin to disbelieve a policeman because policeman never lied , who were impossible.
Happily, those days are gone.
Magistrates do get training and do get independently assessed before being allowed to be magistrates.They are drawn from a wider range of people than before,too . In the distant old days, magistrates were untrained and pretty much self-selecting and all of a type in background
Everyone who ever practised widely had horror stories of some courts, many years ago.Guilt in a lot of courts was decided by the one in the middle, the chairman,not the 'bookends', assisted by the Clerk (who ran the court as his personal fiefdom). The great trick for the advocate,was to discover the personal foibles of both, and get the clerk on your side (didn't matter how: flattery, frightening the wits out of him, obsequience, picking up his personal eccentricity and playing to it, it didn't matter). That got a lot of sway over the chairman, who might acquit against his personal judgment, but you had to play to him as well.
And the great thing about challenging police was to be in either an extremely upper class area, populated by people who snootily treated a policeman as they would a servant (might lie might not) or a really working class area (same, but they thought of him as another working class man like themselves). It was the classic Hyacinth Bucket, middle class benches who revered policemen and thought it was a sin to disbelieve a policeman because policeman never lied , who were impossible.
Happily, those days are gone.
Docspoc should think before he comments. The magistrate system is an attempt for the populace to be judged by their peers. My earlier comment was not meant to be flippant - but magistrates just don't seem to be able to get it right these days (in the eyes of the press that is). They are subject to very stringent guidelines and very often I feel they are unable to give a sentence they consider appropriate.
Try these interview tips from Payscale.com. See http://
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.