The people in the study area with whom I discussed some of the criticisms, were in general agreement on quite a large number of the issues. But it should be remembered that these are all people who work within the criminal justice system and in the magistrates' courts. There was from the outset a total consensus on the need for rules. There were strong views that rules are required to emphasise the solemnity and the seriousness of the occasion and to uphold the dignity of the court. Rules are also required in order to safeguard both the authority of the law and the authority of those who have been invested with the task of administering it. If there were no rules it was generally agreed that certain people would quickly take advantage of
the situation and the courts would find it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out their task of getting to the truth of the matters which they were being asked to consider.
Contrary to the views of many researchers, there was also a fair level of agreement that the courtroom procedures in themselves are not designed to degrade and humiliate the defendants, although one probation officer did compare the occasion with the parading of the beast at a cattle-market. However it was accepted that too often the procedures are applied in an unsympathetic manner which can result in the embarrassment and the humiliation of the defendants, and indeed other people who attend at the courts. This act of demeaning was condemned on a number of grounds. It was seen as a relic of past traditions which no longer had a place in the justice system, it was considered to be an abuse of power by those who had been invested with authority, and it was also seen as being counter productive to the aims and ideals of justice as well as a practice which may well breed resentment against the courts and the rule of law in society as a whole.
It was agreed by the majority with whom I spoke that there is a need for the courts to review some of their practices in an attempt to liberalise the procedures and to bring them more in line with the requirements of the modem age. The language, for example, was a source of constant confusion for many and the forms of address used by the court professionals came in for particular criticism, it was considered by some to be archaic and to be totally inappropriate for today's requirements, although this was not a view which was necessarily shared by the advocates in the study. It was, however, agreed by all that any changes should not be allowed to diminish the respect and recognition of authority which is currently demonstrated in the courts. A number of the suggestions which were put forward did appear to reflect the perspectives and the involvement of those making the suggestion. For example, some of the probation officers were in favour of more informal courts with all of the participants seated round a table and the defendants being addressed by their first names, but others were less certain. The court clerks and some magistrates felt that an informal court left them vulnerable to possibility of physical abuse. Others considered that the use of first names when addressing defendants only succeeded in detracting from the seriousness of the occasion, although almost everyone agreed that all defendants should be addressed using their appropriate titles. Other areas of agreement included the fact that all defendants, without exception, should be accorded the presumption of innocence, until it has been determined otherwise. This may seem like stating the obvious, but in the opinion of some it is not always applied. It was also suggested that there is a need for the courts to recognise that there is no such thing as a stereotype defendant, and there is sometimes a need for the court to identify any difficulties which the defendant may have, for example, social problems, educational difficulties, physical disabilities, and where possible adapt the needs of the court to that defendant rather than expecting the defendant to adapt to the procedures of the court, which he or she may find very difficult. Magistrates also need to be able to differentiate between those defendants who are being intentionally disrespectful to the courts from those who aren't. Again
there was total agreement that whatever changes were made the authority and the dignity of the court and the seriousness of the occasion must be maintained and in no way should a ’visit' to the court be allowed to be viewed by a defendant in the same context as a trip to the 'local supermarket'. If the defendant does show intentional disrespect to the court or to its authority, then the court has the right, and should impose the appropriate sanctions upon the transgressor even if this does result in the humiliation of the wrongdoer.
But while ever we have an adversarial system very little will change. Questions will still be asked, embarrassing areas of the defendants' and the witnesses' lives will still be probed, their word will still be doubted and efforts may well be made to discredit both the witness and their evidence, and all in open court. Even where efforts have been made to reduce the level of humiliation, for example, where the defendants can give written information about their finances to the court by way of a 'Means Enquiry' form, for whatever reasons the vast majority, at least in the study area, choose not to take advantage of this facility. The courts frequently need to know this type of information in order to arrive at a realistic and appropriate financial penalty. The questioning starts. Are you working? What is your job? What is your take home pay? Are you unemployed? How much benefit do you get? Are you married? Do you live alone? Do you live with your partner? Is your partner working? Does your partner claim benefit? How many children are there? How much child benefit do you receive? How much do you spend each week? How much on gas, electric, rent, mortgage, council tax, water rates? Have you any loans? Do you pay to any clubs? How much is still owed? Are there any other outgoings or debts you would like to tell the court about? The questions often appear endless even to those who are listening, the embarrassment is often very apparent for those being questioned. And yet much of this major source of humiliation in the courtroom could so easily be avoided, if the defendant chose to provide the information, as requested, and in advance. But as one of my respondents told me, having to reveal this type of information is no longer a cause of humiliation to the large majority of people who attend at court in the study area. Being either unemployed or receiving social security benefits, in an area where unemployment is high, is no longer considered a cause of acute embarrassment. Many of these people are used to their means being regularly assessed by various organisations. It could even be argued that the greater they are able to present their financial plight to the courts, the less they are likely to be asked to pay in either fines, costs or compensation when being dealt with for the offences which they have committed. But to many, and in particular to those who are not 'regular attenders', the appearance in court must still be a very daunting, even an awsome and often confusing experience filled with a large degree of uncertainty and apprehension.