Increased Magistrates' Court Sentencing Powers

Slightly later than expected, new rules came into force today increasing the sentencing powers of the Magistrates' Court in relation to single either way offences.

The rules will allow the court to sentence anyone convicted of a single either way offence to a maximum custodial sentence of 12 months. The change applies to any eligible offence committed from today.

Defendants pleading not guilty to an eligible offence can still elect to have their trial heard at the Crown Court.

The maximum sentence that can be imposed for multiple either way offences remains 12 months' custody. The sentencing powers in relation to summary offences remain unchanged, with certain summary offences attracting up to 6 months' custody.

Under the previous rules the Magistrates' Court could impose a maximum sentence of 6 months' custody in relation to a single either way offence. Any offence considered to merit a sentence in excess of 6 months was sent to the Crown Court for consideration.

As it stands fewer than 5 percent of all cases dealt with by the Magistrates' Court result in an immediate custodial sentence. Those that do often attract a custodial sentence far shorter than the 6 months previously available.

The Government hopes the new rules will allow more cases to be sentenced by the Magistrates' Court, thus allowing the Crown Court to tackle a greater number of more serious or complicated cases.

Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Dominic Raab said: "We are doing everything in our power to bring down the court backlog, and doubling the sentencing powers of Magistrates will create more capacity in the Crown Court to hear the most serious cases.

"Together with an extra 30 Nightingale courtrooms currently open, digital hearings and allowing the Crown Court to hear as many cases as possible for another financial year, we will deliver swifter and more effective justice for victims."

Over the past few months Magistrates, District Judges (Magistrates' Court) and Legal Advisors have been undergoing training in preparation for the increased powers.

Beverley Higgs, national chair of the Magistrates' Association, said: "The Magistrates' Association has long called for this measure; it will lead to more timely justice that can only benefit all court users - defendants, complainants and witnesses.

"We are pleased that the Government has placed its confidence in the Magistracy and introduced this power, alongside other measures, to ease court delays."

The Criminal Bar Association has been critical of the change, expressing concerns that it might be counterproductive in freeing up Crown Court time.

Jo Sidhu QC, chair of the Association, said: "Keeping back more cases in the Magistrates may in any event only trigger more appeals to the Crown Court, adding to the growing lists of outstanding cases and diverting criminal advocates from tackling the pre-existing pile-up of trials.

"There simply aren't enough Judges to sit because, as the Ministry of Justice knows full well, it can't recruit sufficient Judges who are in very large part drawn from the same diminishing pool of criminal Barristers who also prosecute and defend and who are leaving in droves."

As mentioned earlier, the new rules will only be a factor when a defendant is charged with a single either way offence that crosses the custody threshold. That is a very small proportion of cases handled by the Magistrates' Court. Even if the offence does cross the custody threshold, that does not make a custodial sentence inevitable. Even if a custodial sentence is inevitable, that rarely means it comes anywhere near the 12 months now available.

If the defendant is wavering in their plea they could always ask the Magistrates' Court for an indication of sentence. If they deny the offence, they can always elect a Crown Court trial.

I really do not expect any discernible difference in the proportion of defendants being sentenced to immediate custody.