Thursday, August 29, 2013

Where's The Logic?

Bystander N has posed the following question:





At seventy years plus one day I am too old to sit as a magistrate, despite possibly having enormous experience.

At seventy five years less one day I am fine to sit on a jury, despite possibly never having done it before.


Where's the Sense?



22 comments:

  1. What on earth makes you look for sense?

    ReplyDelete
  2. To help ensure constant renewal of the Bench (were it recruiting, of course)? Recommend become a trainer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There has to be a cut-off age for magistrates and jurors, but I agree that it is very odd that the MoJ has not chosen the same value for both.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Because the system places more responsibility on individual magistrates than on individual jurors?

    ReplyDelete
  5. They have however chosen the same age for all judicial office holders, with the last judges able to sit until 75 being those very few remaining members of the Supreme Court who were first appointed to judicial office before 31 March 1995.

    Back in the post-war days, the 1948 Royal Commission on the magistracy found that there were significant numbers of justices over the age of 90, many of whom only rarely sat. A campaign to impose a maximum sitting age of 70 was led by an Oxfordshire magistrate from the mid 1930s on, and finally achieved its goal in 1949 following the Commission's report (which also introduced the current minimum of 26 sittings per year to maintain competence).
    From Me 2 EU

    ReplyDelete
  6. No more sensible than the ages for getting the vote, being allowed to buy cigarettes or alcohol, having (legal) sex, driving a car, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Default retirement ages have been abolished. It probably won't be long until that is applied to the judiciary.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The chances of having insominia , restless legs etc leading to sleep deprivation that makes clearing thinking not so easy for all of the day -increase a lot after 65-70.
    Rx Let go.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm intrigued to see that the MA has highlighted this paradox with a picture of a man in a lounge suit leaning on the front of the jury seating area and addressing the occupants directly at very close range. I had not realised that the proposal to increase the qualifying age for jurors is accompanied by a suggestion that American court practice should be adopted.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Retired jurors have no loss of earnings and probably get to court on a free bus pass!

    ReplyDelete
  11. -despite possibly having enormous experience- ? Ugo Betti, a judge and playwright, makes a character of his say about a mutual brother judge : " The hierarchy of human values is getting somewhat muddled in his spirit. He's been passing sentence for too long. There's some danger in it." ( Corruzione al palazzo di giustizia, Atto I)
    Perhaps, when one's past being awed by the task, it is time to sit back.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's easy. At 70 you are too old to dispense justice, but only at 75 are you too old to recognise it. It's the old active vs passive argument again, I guess!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I suspect that the retirement age will remain at 70 across the whole judiciary. There used to be no limit, but I do remember mutterings that Lord Denning, for all his eminence, was getting on a bit to be in the Court of Appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There are many magistrates who are still very well qualified to sit well into their 70s. Particularly remembering their wealth of experience and that they are regularly appraised. So how on earth can an inexperienced juror of 75 be more qualified to sit on the most serious cases to come before the courts?
    Ex Bench Chairman.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm very glad that there are retirement ages in the professions. Imagine being treated by an 80 year old Dr Frost. A certain death sentence given how far gone his mind already is!

    ReplyDelete
  16. We are not jurors. That is the point. We are members of the judiciary who are responsible for the increasingly onerous tasks in court in terms of case management or sentencing or even pronouncing. It isn't a comparison to say we are like jurors. And it shows magistrates themselves are a bit confused as to what they are so Lord help the public. We simply have to move on for new people. I day this as an over 50...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Before we sentence, as magistrates in a trial, we decide on guilt or innocence so up to then we are exactly the same as a jury, just three and not twelve.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 'Before we sentence, as magistrates in a trial, we decide on guilt or innocence so up to then we are exactly the same as a jury, just three and not twelve.'

    Well, and the entire conduct of the trial.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes, but that's not all we do. Do you do all your sittings in trial courts? And yes, the conduct of the trial is another way in which we differ to jurors.

    It is part of what we do, but only a part.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What's the betting that we soon have the Daily Mail fulminating because we don't have enough Magistrates? If Magistrates are able and willing to sit until they are 75, why not let them? Possibly they should be subject to more rigorous re-appraisal.

    ReplyDelete
  21. According to the latest Private Eye, the Teeside coroner, one Michael Sheffield, is 83, and has been in post for over 40 years. His retirement age would have moved to 70 in 2009, but he was already in post, so no change.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am a former bench chairman who retired at 70. I got many complaints from colleagues who were approaching the dread birthday and had to explain that the retirement age is contained in primary legislation and could not be changed without the legislation being amended or repealed. It amused me that those who complained the most vociferously were, in most cases, those who caused me the most trouble and little did they know I would be glad to see the back of. No doubt, a more rigorous appraisal system could go hand in hand with a later retirement age, but it would need to have the sanction of forced retirement for those not up to scratch. Such a system would raise a whole host of new problems.

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.