Custodial sentences are more likely to be given in cases heard by a district judge than lay magistrates, according to research commissioned by the Ministry of Justice. The study, published this week and carried out by Ipsos MORI, shows that district judges gave custodial sentences in 7% of cases, while lay benches used custody in 4% of cases.

District judges were more likely to remand on conditional or unconditional bail (both 12%) than magistrates (8% and 9% respectively); while magistrates were more likely to give a financial penalty (37%) than district judges (29%).

Magistrates were also more frequent issuers of endorsements/penalty points; given by them in 9% of cases and by district judges in 6% of cases.

The researchers said these differences reflect at least in part the varying types of cases heard by magistrates and district judges. Magistrates preside over more summary motoring offences and district judges more cases involving violence against the person.

The study also found that magistrates and district judges think their jurisdiction and sentencing powers should be extended. And most of the 355 judges, court staff, and professional and lay court users questioned thought dealing with more cases in the lower court would save money.

Some justices’ clerks voiced concern that extending sentencing powers would lead to increases in the workload of magistrates’ courts and the prison population, because magistrates would impose harsher sentences than are imposed now in the Crown court. Defence solicitors highlighted the need for appropriate training to enable magistrates to cope with any increased powers.

Participants were also asked about the idea of mini-panels, comprising district judges and lay magistrates, but most were against it. District judges in particular questioned the rationale, believing mini-panels would undermine their own speed and cost-effectiveness.

During the research, aimed at examining the strengths and skills of the judiciary in magistrates’ courts for criminal cases, 2,291 cases at 44 court centres were observed.

The study found that magistrates were widely regarded as having a greater connection with the local community compared with district judges, and were more closely aligned with the concept of ‘fairness’. Some associated a bench of three with a greater degree of democracy, while others felt a lay bench was more open-minded and less ‘case hardened’ or ‘fatigued’ than a district judge.

The research found that district judges handled cases more quickly than lay magistrates, due to their legal expertise and the fact that they sit alone and do not need to retire to consider a verdict or sentence.

An MoJ spokesman said: ‘This research provides us with the necessary information to understand how to make the most effective use of existing resources in the magistrates' courts at a time when substantial changes are being implemented. Both magistrates and district judges are essential to the administration of criminal justice and this research confirms a balance between both is required to deliver justice in the magistrates' courts efficiently and effectively.’

The full report is at the justice website.