By Gabriel Princewill-
Justice Secretary, David Lammy, (pictured)should be ashamed of plans to imprison defendants for long sentence without a proper process, a prominent criminal solicitor has said.
Controversial proposal to allow magistrates—who are typically volunteers without formal legal qualifications—to preside over cases carrying prison sentences of up to two years is unacceptably wrong and problematic. The view presented by ministers that it will ease pressure on Crown Courts, reduce backlogs, and speed up justice for victims, is dishonest, according to a prominent legal expert of many years experience.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Implementing such a change could have catastrophic consequences, jeopardising fairness, due process, and public confidence in the legal system., he warns.
Expressing utter disappointment to the leaked government proposals, outstanding solicitor Joseph Monson of Mary Monson solicitors, told The Eye Of Media.Com: ‘Whether it’s the erosion or partial elimination of the constitutional right to trial by jury of one’s peers, or the increase of sentencing powers of the magistrates court, it is grotesque for the government to pretend that it is solving a court delays problem of its own making by attacking access to a just and fair legal system.
‘When it comes to the magistrates’ court, the reason that’s the limit of imprisonment has been set at one year is because those proceedings are summary. Summary means quick and practical, as opposed to Crown Court proceedings in front of a jury, in which a defendant has a right for evidence to be considered carefully, presented by barristers, and managed carefully by a judge.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
‘People going to prison for long sentences without a thorough and professional process is something that we should be ashamed of happening within our jurisdiction, and politicians presenting it as a good thing is something that is both dishonest and wrong.
‘Magistrates’ courts have long handled lower-level criminal matters, including minor assaults, thefts, road traffic offences, and public order cases. Serious crimes, especially those involving significant prison sentences or complex legal issues, are reserved for Crown Court judges.
The proposal to extend magistrates’ sentencing powers from six months to two years represents a dramatic shift in long-standing legal practice”.
The move comes at a time when the Crown Courts are struggling under the weight of a historic backlog. Years of underfunding, court closures, staff shortages and the lingering effects of pandemic disruptions have left the system overwhelmed.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar
Government ministers argue that empowering magistrates to deal with more cases is a pragmatic solution, enabling the Crown Courts to focus on the gravest crimes.
However, this framing, critics say, ignores the real cause of the backlogs; which ultimately is political decisions. “This is not a natural crisis—it’s a manufactured one,” said Jonathan Marks, a legal analyst. “Years of stripping back resources caused this. Now the government is trying to patch holes in the system by watering down justice.”
Unlike Crown Court judges, magistrates are not legally trained professionals. They rely heavily on legal advisers to guide them on points of law, sentencing frameworks and procedural rules. Handing them responsibility for more serious offences, critics warn, would increase the risk of incorrect rulings, unsafe convictions and disproportionate sentencing.
Members of the public reacted to the proposals with consternation. Data policy analyst, Matthew Foreshaw, told this publication: ”The British public places enormous trust in magistrates, but their role is deliberately limited for good reason. Extending their sentencing powers to two years would expose structural weaknesses that the system spent decades trying to contain.
”Magistrates’ courts already face a considerable workload and often struggle with inconsistent approaches. Introducing more complex cases risks compounding those problems. “Magistrates do invaluable work, but they are simply not equipped to handle cases involving serious legal nuance. Asking them to do so is setting them up to fail—and the public will pay the price.
One of the most serious concerns about the proposal is the heightened risk of miscarriages of justice. Magistrates usually sit in benches of three, guided by a legally qualified clerk. But complex indictable cases often require nuanced interpretation of law, understanding of intricate evidential issues, and assessments of credibility that require professional judicial experience.
“Magistrates do a difficult job, and they do it well within their remit,” said Criminologists Dr Priya. “But their remit exists for a reason. Two-year sentences are not minor matters. These cases frequently involve vulnerable defendants, complicated evidence, or significant points of law. It would be highly imprudent too expect lay people to navigate that territory safely.”
‘There are also longstanding concerns about bias and inconsistency in magistrates’ courts. Criminologist Dr. Priya Patel noted, “Regional sentencing variation in magistrates’ courts is significant and well documented. Relying on magistrates to sentence up to two years will magnify these disparities. Justice risks becoming even more of a postcode lottery.
”The expansion could also have disproportionate impacts on marginalised groups. According to Dr. Patel, “Magistrates’ courts already show greater disparity in outcomes for Black and working-class defendants. Giving these courts more power increases the risk of intensifying these inequalities.”
The argument that empowering magistrates will reduce pressure on the Crown Courts may have some intuitive appeal, but critics insist it is deeply misguided.
The backlog crisis is not a structural inevitabilitiy, but rather the direct result of prolonged underfunding.
Between 2010 and 2020, the Ministry of Justice budget was repeatedly cut. Hundreds of courts closed, sitting days were slashed, and legal aid funding was gutted. The consequences are now visible everywhere.
“The Crown Courts are overwhelmed because successive governments allowed them to wither. Shifting cases downward to magistrates is not reform—it’s retreat,”
Public trust in the fairness of criminal proceedings is already fragile. Serious delays, collapsing cases, and shortages of barristers have eroded confidence. Adding inexperienced magistrates into the mix for serious cases, critics warn, could deal a further blow. A defendant facing two years in prison needs to know that at least trained judge or a jury considered their fate
Meanwhile, court staff warn that the changes could create new systemic failures. “We are barely holding the system together as it is,” said a senior female court administrator in the Midlands on the condition of anonymity. “If the government wants magistrates to do more, the entire infrastructure needs an upgrade—not just the job description,” she said.
In the end, the question is not whether magistrates are dedicated—they are, and they play a vital role. The question is whether they should be entrusted with cases that require professional judicial ability, extensive legal training, and deep experience. Most experts believe the answer is a clear no.
Expanding magistrates’ powers may offer an attractive political narrative, but it risks long-term damage to the integrity of British justice. What is needed is investment, not improvisation; trained judges, not untrained volunteers; and a justice system built on principles of fairness, not expediency.
The price of getting this wrong will be counted in miscarriages of justice, inconsistent outcomes, and a further erosion of public trust.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said:
“No final decision has been taken by government. We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims – with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising – which will require bold action to put right.”