The quiet revolution: the rise and rise of out-of-court summary justice

Abstract

Discussions about summary justice used mainly to be about the jurisdictional boundary between the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court (see, for example, Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, 1993). What sorts of cases should be eligible for jury trial? Is the right to be tried by a jury the longstanding, God-given right of every true-born Englishmen whose reputation is at risk? Those questions haven't entirely gone away but they've been replaced, or arguably should be, by more fundamental questions. Which criminal matters should be brought before and determined by the courts, any court? This is so because during the past decade there has taken place a quiet revolution, as yet scarcely commented on by either academic researchers or the mass media. It involves the growth of out-of-court summary justice where the decisions to punish are taken not by magistrates or judges in open court but less visibly by police officers on the streets and prosecutors in offices. Whereas ten years ago roughly two-thirds of all decisions resulting in citizens acquiring a criminal record were made by courts, today fewer than half are and it seems very probable that the proportion will diminish much further. Is this trend desirable? And if it is are the safeguards in place sufficient to protect the vulnerable and uncomprehending?

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rod Morgan

is Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Bristol and Visiting Professor at the University of Cardiff and the London School of Economics