The managed judicial decision
The managed judicial decision
The principal thrust of this study is that, over the last twenty five years or so, following decades of relative stability, the managerial and administrative structures which support the magistracy have been largely swept away; virtually every level of the summary justice process, including judicial decision makers, rendered accountable to central government and its executive arm; and the independence of the summary justice process compromised.
The study explores the transformation of the courts of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales. Without pursuing courts of summary jurisdiction to their roots the study nevertheless reveals the relative stability of those courts over many decades, albeit, within an ambiguous constitutional framework and muddled notions surrounding the performance of judicial, legal and administrative functions.
The emergence of principles associated with "new public management" in the public sector is subjected to analysis; and the study reveals how, by the imposition of a regime of cash limiting, a Scrutiny and three legislative measures in the Police and Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1994, the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 and the Access to Justice Act, 1999, all containing strong resonance’s with the "new public management" agenda, governments secured the accountability of the summary justice process.
The focus of the study, informed throughout by the opinions and observations of senior civil servants and leading practitioners in the criminal justice process, is a contextualised case study, which explores how Hampshire Magistrates’ Courts Committee interpreted the agenda of central government in its area. At the heart of the issues explored in the case study is the extent to which, as a result of the legislative and other activities of government over the last twenty years or so, magistrates’ courts committees have been compromised in the performance of their primary responsibility to provide a framework capable of supporting the summary justice process, and, thereby, placed at risk the fine checks and balances across the criminal justice process which seek to ensure the freedom of the individual under the law.
The study concludes that a corrosive element has been inserted within the courts of summary jurisdiction which suggests that the individual can no longer look with confidence to that forum for the independent adjudication of justiciable issues.
University of Southampton
Walters, Kevin Frank
7a357dc8-48a2-4784-9b20-c9b4e5d40b2d
2002
Walters, Kevin Frank
7a357dc8-48a2-4784-9b20-c9b4e5d40b2d
Walters, Kevin Frank
(2002)
The managed judicial decision.
University of Southampton, Doctoral Thesis.
Record type:
Thesis
(Doctoral)
Abstract
The principal thrust of this study is that, over the last twenty five years or so, following decades of relative stability, the managerial and administrative structures which support the magistracy have been largely swept away; virtually every level of the summary justice process, including judicial decision makers, rendered accountable to central government and its executive arm; and the independence of the summary justice process compromised.
The study explores the transformation of the courts of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales. Without pursuing courts of summary jurisdiction to their roots the study nevertheless reveals the relative stability of those courts over many decades, albeit, within an ambiguous constitutional framework and muddled notions surrounding the performance of judicial, legal and administrative functions.
The emergence of principles associated with "new public management" in the public sector is subjected to analysis; and the study reveals how, by the imposition of a regime of cash limiting, a Scrutiny and three legislative measures in the Police and Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1994, the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 and the Access to Justice Act, 1999, all containing strong resonance’s with the "new public management" agenda, governments secured the accountability of the summary justice process.
The focus of the study, informed throughout by the opinions and observations of senior civil servants and leading practitioners in the criminal justice process, is a contextualised case study, which explores how Hampshire Magistrates’ Courts Committee interpreted the agenda of central government in its area. At the heart of the issues explored in the case study is the extent to which, as a result of the legislative and other activities of government over the last twenty years or so, magistrates’ courts committees have been compromised in the performance of their primary responsibility to provide a framework capable of supporting the summary justice process, and, thereby, placed at risk the fine checks and balances across the criminal justice process which seek to ensure the freedom of the individual under the law.
The study concludes that a corrosive element has been inserted within the courts of summary jurisdiction which suggests that the individual can no longer look with confidence to that forum for the independent adjudication of justiciable issues.
Text
905554.pdf
- Version of Record
More information
Published date: 2002
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 465032
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/465032
PURE UUID: be5c87e9-0abe-488d-a34c-2b9aa6ecf2cb
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 05 Jul 2022 00:17
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 19:54
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Kevin Frank Walters
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics