Comparing Magistrates' Court and Crown Court Trials

In the case of a denied either way offence, the defendant may be given the choice of having their trial at either the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court.

On a preliminary examination of the alleged circumstances, the Magistrates' Court may decline holding a trial of its own (summary trial) which would result in the defendant having a jury trial at the Crown Court (trial on indictment). This means that the defendant doesn't always have a choice in the matter.

In our earlier article about Allocation of Either Way Offences we touched on the circumstances in which the Magistrates' Court might decline jurisdiction and send a case to the Crown Court for disposal.

In today's article we shall explore some of the perceived advantages of a defendant electing either summary trial or trial on indictment. Before proceeding, our customary reminder that this is only a brief overview of a broad topic. That said, we hope to cover the most pertinent points.

Summary trial has the following perceived advantages:

• The process is usually much quicker, cheaper and more convenient for all parties. A summary trial typically takes place 2 or 3 months after the defendant pleads not guilty at their first hearing. On the other hand, it often takes many, many months for a Crown Court trial to take place. There is considerably more work goes into preparing for a Crown Court trial, which means legal expenses - whether borne by the public purse or privately funded - are considerably higher.
• The defendant always has the right to appeal the outcome of a summary trial. If they disagree with the outcome of their first trial they can have the case reheard at the Crown Court. This effectively gives the defendant two chances of acquittal. In contrast there is no automatic right of appeal against the outcome of a trial on indictment. Unless there are significant legal or procedural errors, which is pretty unlikely at the Crown Court, the jury's decision is final.
• The Magistrates' Court's sentencing powers are lower than the Crown Court's. A defendant convicted by summary trial is unlikely to face any nasty surprises in terms of sentencing, whereas the range of options available to the Crown Court is much broader. That said, the Magistrates' Court would normally reserve the option of sending the defendant to the Crown Court for sentencing, if it believed its own sentencing powers were insufficient.
• The Magistrates' Court tends to be a less formal or intimidating venue than the Crown Court, with not a wig or gown in sight. This could help put the defendant at ease and improve their performance if they are giving evidence.

Trial on indictment has the following perceived advantages:

• A Crown Court jury will know nothing about the defendant, meaning they begin their trial with a completely clean slate. In the Magistrates' Court it is fairly likely that the District Judge or Magistrates will know something about the defendant, perhaps having dealt with them on several previous occasions. The District Judge or Magistrates should always try a case on the facts before them, but there is some concern that their past experiences of the defendant might influence their decision making.
• A Crown Court jury is more likely to be balanced and representative of the community than a District Judge or Magistrates. A jury is more likely to view the defendant as an equal and without any preconceptions.
• Juries are more inclined to give defendants the benefit of the doubt. They tend to be less case hardened and cynical than District Judges or Magistrates.
• Following on from the previous point, juries are more likely to acquit the defendant. According to the Crown Prosecution Service Annual Report 2019/20, the percentage of trials resulting in a conviction was 59 percent in the Crown Court and 68 percent in the Magistrates' Court. Of course this data only relates to those cases prosecuted by the CPS.
• The delay in waiting for a Crown Court trial might play to the defendant's advantage. It gives the defence longer to prepare its case. It is harder for the prosecution to pacify any nervous or impatient witnesses.

Given the unique nature of every criminal case, there will also be other considerations that we haven't mentioned. We'd invite readers to pen any suggested additions in the comments below.

Thanks for reading. If you found this article useful we'd be grateful if you could share it.