News2 mins ago
for buenchico please answer
im sorry but im a really picky questioner if you get what i mean! so could you please fill me in on some details on the question i asked before: 'what court would a person end up in'
could you please fill me in on this:
quote:
b) the magistrates believed that their sentencing powers were likely to be insufficient to deal with the matter
in what circumstances would they feel this? and please answer one more question: what would make the person stay in the magistrates court?
i thought i typed this in earlier yesterday but it seems to have vanished, really annoying.
could you please fill me in on this:
quote:
b) the magistrates believed that their sentencing powers were likely to be insufficient to deal with the matter
in what circumstances would they feel this? and please answer one more question: what would make the person stay in the magistrates court?
i thought i typed this in earlier yesterday but it seems to have vanished, really annoying.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by snine. 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.
magistrates have the power to send people for sentencing to the crown court because they feel that the maximum peroid of imprisonment they can impose is not enough for the crime,which means they could receive a longer prison sentence at the crown court.once they have decided that they will be sent to crown court for sentence,there is no way back,the bench feel he or she needs to be punished more severely then they can impose.
Norman and I rarely agree on anything but he seems to have summarised the situation rather well.
If, at the beginning of the case in the magistrates court, the magistrates believe that the appropriate sentence (if the defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty by them) might exceed 6 months imprisonment, they'll refer the case to the Crown court. They can also wait until the end of the magistrates' court hearing and then, if they believe that a sentence of more than 6 months is appropriate, they can pass the matter to the Crown court for sentencing. i.e. the trial (if there is one) takes place before the magistrates but the Crown court passes sentence.
Note that a referral to the Crown court does not automatically mean that a lengthy sentence will be imposed. It's not unusual for the Crown court to reject the magistrates' view that a lengthy sentence is required and, instead, impose either a very short term of imprisonment or a non-custodial sentence.
Many vote-chasing politicians are currently urging the courts to impose prison sentences for all offences related to carrying knives in public. However, the courts are maintaining their independence and (assuming that this is the sole charge and that the offender doesn't have a string of previous convictions) they're typically imposing non-custodial sentences of, say, 150 hours unpaid work.
Chris
If, at the beginning of the case in the magistrates court, the magistrates believe that the appropriate sentence (if the defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty by them) might exceed 6 months imprisonment, they'll refer the case to the Crown court. They can also wait until the end of the magistrates' court hearing and then, if they believe that a sentence of more than 6 months is appropriate, they can pass the matter to the Crown court for sentencing. i.e. the trial (if there is one) takes place before the magistrates but the Crown court passes sentence.
Note that a referral to the Crown court does not automatically mean that a lengthy sentence will be imposed. It's not unusual for the Crown court to reject the magistrates' view that a lengthy sentence is required and, instead, impose either a very short term of imprisonment or a non-custodial sentence.
Many vote-chasing politicians are currently urging the courts to impose prison sentences for all offences related to carrying knives in public. However, the courts are maintaining their independence and (assuming that this is the sole charge and that the offender doesn't have a string of previous convictions) they're typically imposing non-custodial sentences of, say, 150 hours unpaid work.
Chris
My answer (which I was composing whilt Chris was posting his) adds a little, but not much.
For each offence that is �either way� (that is, can be dealt with either by the magistrates or the Crown Court) magistrates have guidelines that help them decide whether to retain jurisdiction or not. As Norman and Chris say, these usually relate to the length of sentence the magistrates consider appropriate. If they consider it longer than their maximum (currently six months, but, exceptionally, 12 months for two separate either way offences) they would decline jurisdiction and pass the matter up to the Crown Court. The guidelines describe aggravating features for each offence which, if present, would put the offence beyond the lower court�s maximum.
If the defendant pleads not guilty and the magistrates decide to retain the matter, the defendant has the final say and can opt for a trial before judge and jury. Note, however that he has no right to a trial in the lower court if the magistrates decline jurisdiction.
Most defendants pleading guilty try to have the matter dealt with by magistrates. This is because of the lower limit of punishment they can be imposed. Among those pleading not guilty a number choose a jury trial. This could be because the extra delay in that process means that there is a stronger likelihood of witnesses not turning up or not recalling events quite so well. There is a philosophy among habitual criminals that delay can only further their cause. Nonetheless, statistics show that more defendants are acquitted after trial by magistrates than by jury.
For each offence that is �either way� (that is, can be dealt with either by the magistrates or the Crown Court) magistrates have guidelines that help them decide whether to retain jurisdiction or not. As Norman and Chris say, these usually relate to the length of sentence the magistrates consider appropriate. If they consider it longer than their maximum (currently six months, but, exceptionally, 12 months for two separate either way offences) they would decline jurisdiction and pass the matter up to the Crown Court. The guidelines describe aggravating features for each offence which, if present, would put the offence beyond the lower court�s maximum.
If the defendant pleads not guilty and the magistrates decide to retain the matter, the defendant has the final say and can opt for a trial before judge and jury. Note, however that he has no right to a trial in the lower court if the magistrates decline jurisdiction.
Most defendants pleading guilty try to have the matter dealt with by magistrates. This is because of the lower limit of punishment they can be imposed. Among those pleading not guilty a number choose a jury trial. This could be because the extra delay in that process means that there is a stronger likelihood of witnesses not turning up or not recalling events quite so well. There is a philosophy among habitual criminals that delay can only further their cause. Nonetheless, statistics show that more defendants are acquitted after trial by magistrates than by jury.
Thanks for the reply.
All cases (even multiple murders) start in the magistrates courts. As I've indicated, it's extremely unlikely that a magistrates court would would consider a custodial sentence for a first-time offender pleading guilty to a charge of possession of a bladed article in a public place, so the matter would almost certainly remain in the magistrates court.
In practice, the offender would normally be in and out of the courtroom in under 10minutes. He'd simply be given a community punishment which would mean he'd have to report the duty probation officer, at the court, to sort out the arrangements for his attendance. He might also be given a fine (�100?), plus expenses (�60?) and a victim surcharge (�15), in which case he should speak to someone at the court payments office to find out how to pay the money in.
Chris
All cases (even multiple murders) start in the magistrates courts. As I've indicated, it's extremely unlikely that a magistrates court would would consider a custodial sentence for a first-time offender pleading guilty to a charge of possession of a bladed article in a public place, so the matter would almost certainly remain in the magistrates court.
In practice, the offender would normally be in and out of the courtroom in under 10minutes. He'd simply be given a community punishment which would mean he'd have to report the duty probation officer, at the court, to sort out the arrangements for his attendance. He might also be given a fine (�100?), plus expenses (�60?) and a victim surcharge (�15), in which case he should speak to someone at the court payments office to find out how to pay the money in.
Chris
1 to 9 of 9
Latest Posts
Can't Access My Hard Drive On File...
Technology11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago