« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
REPORT OF THE SUMMARY JUSTICE REVIEW COMMITTEE: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE WRITTEN CONSULTATION - FINAL REPORT
CHAPTER THREE GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT
INTRODUCTION
3.1 Many of the responses received, in addition to commenting on particular recommendations contained within the Report, also offered their opinion about the Report in general. This chapter details these opinions.
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING REPORT
3.2 For many respondents - specifically JPs and JP Committees, there was a fundamental contradiction within the Report in that, despite the Committee stating that it did not find a "system in crisis" and that "there were few voices demanding revolutionary change", a majority of the Committee recommended unification of the summary courts and the use of a wholly professional judiciary.
3.3 Although most respondents welcomed the concept of a comprehensive and wide-ranging review of summary justice, many JPs, JP Committees and some local authorities felt that the Report, in its present form, relied too heavily on anecdotal and qualitative evidence and, paradoxically, that the majority of the few verifiable statistics that were stated actually supported the value of lay justice.
3.4 Many JPs and Justices' Committees further stated that most of the factual information and statistics given within the Report tended to support the case for retention of lay justice within the current structure, rather than to justify its abolition. In addition, many were concerned that the Report lacked any evidence that showed that the difficulties in the delivery of summary justice were the fault of lay justice.
3.5 West Dunbartonshire Justices' Committee's submission was typical of many from justices, stating that the Report:
"…appears to rely heavily on assumptions, generalised impressions, unsubstantiated arguments and perceptions… it provides no solid grounds or evidence for the abolition of the role of Lay Justice in the Summary Justice system".
3.6 One continuing criticism of the Report - mainly from the majority of Justice of the Peace Groups and JPs themselves - was the concern they felt that the Committee had failed to look at a number of other options other than abolition and believed this was due to the make-up of the Committee, with few of its members having direct experience of the day-to-day running of a district court.
« Previous | Contents | Next »