The Lord Chancellors Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace

The Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) is the professional and leadership body representing Legal Executive lawyers and has a membership of 22,000 students and practitioners.  There are 7,500 Fellows who are regulated by the ILEX regulatory arm, ILEX Professional Standards (IPS). 

Alongside Barristers and Solicitors, Legal Executive lawyers are recognised under the Legal Services Act 2007 as qualified lawyers.  Recent developments also mean that Legal Executive lawyers are eligible for prescribed judicial appointments, including eligibility as first tier judges of tribunals.  Recent changes in legislation also permit Legal Executive lawyers to become partners and to form partnerships with other lawyers.

Fully qualified and experienced Legal Executives lawyers are able to undertake many of the legal activities that solicitors and barristers do, (subject to advocacy rights).  For example, they will have their own client base with full conduct and responsibility of cases. 

Legal Executive lawyers must adhere to a code of conduct and, like solicitors, are required to undertake and obtain continuing professional development points each year and throughout their careers in order to keep themselves abreast of the latest developments in the law.

ILEX provides policy responses to consultations in order to represent its members and the public interest. 

ILEX welcomes the opportunity to respond to the above Consultation paper. The Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007  has opened up the possibility of suitably qualified legal Executive lawyers being considered for prescribed  judicial appointment; either as first tier tribunal and as deputy district judges ( including magistrates’ courts).  It follows that ILEX has a interest in the procedure adopted for appointment of Justices of the Peace.

1.      As the above paper rightly points out the Magistrates are the backbone of the criminal justice system, which is reflected by the fact that magistrates’ courts deal with around 95% of all criminal cases. The Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committees on Justice of the Peace (the Committees) have retained the role of selecting and recruiting, which ILEX understands was due to be transferred to the Judicial Appointments Commission.  The Committees have without doubt been a success.  For example, the Committees have increased diversity in the selection and recruitment of a greater proportion from magistrates from the Black, Minority and Ethnic backgrounds, together with increasing the number of young magistrates.

2.      In view of the above, it is essential that any proposed changes do not inadvertently undermine the successful drive of the committees to improve diversity in the magistracy.  This seems partly down to the wide geographical spread of the advisory committees.  Relatedly, any reduction in the number of committees should not adversely affect the opportunity for local people to make representations on judicial appointment.

3.      In principle ILEX has no objections with the proposal to align with her Majesty’s Court Service organisational structures in the number of Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace.   ILEX understands that the link to the local justice areas would not be lost and there would be continued wide spread coverage of the Advisory Committees. 

4.      Subject to the above, option 2 (aligning the Advisory Committees in line with the number of Justice’s Clerkships) appears to be a sensible model to adopt.  However, ILEX is not convinced with the application of the ‘’Lean’’ analysis to the proposed change to bring about the desired best practice and efficient procedures to any model adopted for implementation.   For example, Lean is delivering value to the end customer. In the above proposed changes, who is the end customer?

5.      ILEX is of the view that the more traditional models of public sector efficiency are better suited to the proposed changes in order to drive improvement in efficiency and effectiveness, together with identifying areas of potential cost savings.   For example, the ‘Best value’ model applied to local authorities to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.  There is no reason why such a model could not be adopted for the proposed change.  ILEX also understands that the UK’s public sector audit agencies have developed indictors to measure to determine effectiveness in the public sector.

6.      ILEX is not convinced of the need for a change of name as suggested by the consultation paper.