» Foreword
» How to Respond
» Summary of Proposals
» Proposals: Section A - Rules
» Proposals: Section B - Guidance
» Appendix A: List of Questions
» Appendix B: Consultation Co-ordinator
» Appendix C: General Principles of
Consultation
This paper sets out for consultation the Lord Chancellor's proposals for updating the Justices of the Peace (Size and Chairmanship of Bench) Rules 1995 to take account of, amongst other things, the introduction of the new training initiative for magistrates. The consultation is aimed at magistrates and those in magistrates' courts involved with the organisation and administration of benches in England and Wales. This limited consultation is being conducted as far as possible in line with the Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office. It does not fall within the scope of the Code. The Code criteria set out in Appendix C, with the exception of criterion E, have been followed.
An initial impact assessment indicates that no groups outside the immediacy of the magistrates' courts service are likely to be particularly affected. The proposals are unlikely to lead to additional costs or savings for businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. Copies of the consultation paper are being sent to:
Justices' Chief Executives for distribution to:
Members of the Magistrates' Courts Consultative Council
HM Treasury
Please send your response by 18 May 2001 to:
Allison Mackie
Lord Chancellor's Department
Magistrates' Courts Division
4th Floor
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Or by e-mail to: Allison Mackie
Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent when they respond.
The Department may wish to publish responses to this consultation document in due course. Please ensure your response is marked clearly if you wish your response or name to be kept confidential. Confidential responses will be included in any statistical summary of numbers of comments received and views expressed.
Further copies of this consultation paper can be obtained from Allison Mackie at the above address or by phoning 020-7210 8885.
The 1995 Rules were devised to create a clear framework for the election of the chairman and deputy chairmen of benches but with room for local application to meet local needs.
These Rules have since been amended by the Justices of the Peace (Size and Chairmanship of Bench) (Amendment) Rules 1999, and allow for the election to the offices of chairman and deputy chairman for the City of London. These changes reflect the repeal of section 23 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 in the Justice Act 1999 which removed the automatic right of the Lord Mayor to be chairman of the justices for the City of London.
The Magistrates' New Training Initiative (MNTI) is a national programme and has now been running for two years. It is important that all magistrates' courts committees (MCCs) comply with the basis principles of the scheme and that there is consistency in content and quality of the training they provide. The Justices of the Peace (Size and Chairmanship of Benches) Rules 1995 contained provisions on Bench Chairmanship Committees (BCCs) which cannot be directly transposed as they do not adequately support the newly developed Bench Training and Development Committees (BTDCs). In the absence of any rules governing and empowering the BTDC this paper proposes that their arrangements are put on a statutory footing.
In December 2000, a new Advisory Committee, composed of members from the magistrates' courts service representative bodies, was set up under the chairmanship of LCD, to consider what changes to the rules need to be made to modernise them and to allow for the introduction of MNTI.
This consultation paper reflects those discussions and now seeks wider views. A list of the questions asked throughout this paper can be found at Appendix A.
The Consultation Paper is divided into two sections:
Section A - proposals affecting the Rules. It is proposed to introduce changes to make provision for:
Section B - proposals for items which should be considered as guidance. As well as issuing any supporting commentary to accompany the rules, it is proposed for the guidance to include proposals for:
There are a number of problems with the current Rules where they are either not sufficiently clear or do not say anything at all. The introduction of the new training initiative for magistrates means the arrangements for, and functions of, BCCs no longer apply. This is because most aspects of the management of the new scheme are the responsibility of the new BTDCs. In many areas, the new BTDCs have already replaced the existing BCCs. Consequently, the rules need to be amended to take account of the formation of the new BTDCs.
In addition, there has been considerable pressure to modernise the rules; to remove rules which no longer apply; to introduce postal ballots for bench elections; and to introduce length of tenure for the chairman and deputy chairman.
Procedure For The Election To The Offices Of Chairman And Deputy Chairman Of Justices
It is proposed that the 'traditional' procedure now be abolished. There is a belief that the nomination procedure is now used widely for both the election of chairman and deputy chairmen and, as benches increase in size, the traditional procedure is no longer appropriate. Abolishing the traditional procedure would create a more standardised and modern election procedure.
| Q1. Do you agree all benches should use the nomination procedure for the election of the chairman and deputy chairman? |
References To Justices' Clerks And Justices' Chief Executives
The Rules currently refer to a number of functions to be performed by the justices' clerk. All these references will be amended to justices' chief executive to be consistent with Section 90 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and Schedule 13 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the definition of legal function. It is proposed that the only exception to this change be that of Rule 13(5) in order to allow the justices' clerk to attend BTDC meetings.
| Q2. Do you agree that there should be a rule to allow the justices' clerk to attend BTDC meetings? |
Postal Voting Procedure
The election for chairman of the bench, as with all the other elections, is conducted at the October meeting. The sole exception is where the nomination procedure is used, and one nomination only is received, in which case the justices' clerk declares the person nominated to be elected. There is a growing body of opinion which holds that this election should be conducted by postal ballot. In favour of this proposal is the fact that the chairman could be sure of having received the support of a majority of the bench as a whole, as opposed to that portion of it which is able to attend the meeting. On the other hand, it might be said that the introduction of postal voting would have the effect of reducing substantially the incentive to attend the October meeting, with a negative effect on communication within the bench and a reduction in the number of justices taking part in the elections and other decisions that appear on the agenda.
In the event of the election for chairman being conducted by postal vote, it would remain to be decided what form of procedure should be adopted. Under the existing rules, a candidate can only be elected if s/he receives a majority of the votes cast. Although this can result in a complex procedure as individuals are removed from the list in successive ballots, it does at least ensure that a result will be obtained at the meeting.
In the event of a postal ballot being conducted according to the same rules as currently used for elections at meetings, there is a strong possibility of the ballot being inconclusive where more than two candidates have put their names forward. Given the protracted timescales that would be required to allow for further ballots, it would be necessary to revert to a ballot held at the meeting if a clear result were not obtained. An alternative might be to adopt one of the other methods of balloting that currently exist. As only one chairman is to be elected, the "single transferable vote" would probably be inappropriate, since this is normally appropriate for multi member constituencies in Parliamentary elections. It might, however, be feasible to adopt the "alternative vote" system. Under this system, justices would be invited to rank the candidates in order of preference. If a candidate were to receive a majority of the first choice votes, then s/he would be declared elected. If such a majority were not obtained, then the second choice votes for the least popular candidate would be redistributed. This process would be repeated until an overall majority was obtained.
Consultees' views are requested on the following questions:
| Q3. Do you agree that:
|
Voting Eligibility Dates For Magistrates
Rule 4(3) of the current Rules sets out that: -
"...a justice shall not be entitled to vote at any election for the chairman or a deputy chairman at any election meeting held within 12 months of his assignment to the petty sessions area in respect of which the election meeting is held".
The exception to this is in Rule 4(4), which states that: -
"where a new petty sessions area is constituted, a justice for that petty sessions area may vote at any election at the first election meeting for that area if at that time he could, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (3), have voted at an election held at an election meeting in respect of a petty sessions area which, or part of which, was in the same commission area as the new petty sessions area".
It has been argued that the present Rule 4(3) excludes those justices who are re-appointed after a period away from office. There are differing opinions as to when a new magistrate should be eligible to vote. It has been suggested that this should be from the first time s/he sits. An opposing view is that this would in fact disenfranchise magistrates and that they should be eligible to vote as soon as they become a magistrate. One view expressed was that the issue of being assigned to a petty sessions areas (PSA) needs reconsidering. Months can pass between someone's name being added to the commission of the peace and them actually starting to sit - and that there may be merit in changing the date to that on which sittings on that bench actually started. We propose that the first time a magistrate sits be the eligibility date.
An alteration to Rule 4(3) would result in 4(4) being omitted from any new rules.
| Q4. Do you agree that magistrates be eligible to vote from the date they first sit?. |
Election Of Chairman And Deputy Chairman - Rules 8 And 9
There is some concern that the current Rules are open to ambiguity. For instance, Rule 8(5) of the Rules ('Election of Chairman') states that
"where a ballot (other than the third ballot) has been inconclusive the justices' clerk shall announce the fact and state the names of the justices for whom votes have been cast and the number of votes which each justice has received".
However, 8(6) states that "where the ballot has been conclusive the justices' clerk shall announce the result".
Such wording has caused some confusion within the magistrates' courts community. On the face of it, the procedure for an inconclusive ballot states very clearly that an announcement is to be made as to which justices have been voted for; and how many votes they have received. However, Rule 8(6) is open to interpretation by stating merely that the result should be announced. Consequently, we are aware that there are differing procedures used when the ballot has been inconclusive.
Likewise, there is a similar situation with regards to Rule 9 ('Election of deputy chairman'). Under Rule 9(2), where the ballot produces an inconclusive result (for instance, where an additional vote would be needed to enable a justice to be elected),
"the justices' clerk shall announce the fact and state the names of the justices concerned and the number of votes which they received..."
However, Rule 9(1) states in a case where there is a clear result that the votes will be counted 'and the justice or justices...who have obtained the most votes shall be declared to be elected'. Again, there is an ambiguity between these situations.
| > Q5. Do you agree that:
|
Length Of Tenure For Chairman/Deputy Chairmen - Rule 11
Rule 11 of the Bench Rules sets out the period of office and eligibility for the position of chairman and deputy chairman. At present, both can be re-elected, but there are differences in their terms of service. Whilst the chairman is not eligible for re-election if s/he has held office for a total of five years (either as a continual period of service or an interrupted term - Rule 11(2)), the deputy chairman has no such limit placed upon his/her service (Rule 11(3)).
We consider that there should be consistency in both these positions/provisions. The proposal is that there should be a move to a maximum of two three-year terms with a break of six years between each term for both positions.
| Q6. Do you agree that there should be a maximum length of tenure for both chairman and deputy chairman of a maximum of two three-year terms, separated by a break of six years? |
Vacancy In Office - Rule 12
Rule 12 of the 1995 rules provides for election of a chairman or deputy chairman "as soon as practicable" where one of those offices falls vacant during the year. In the event of the rules being amended to provide for mandatory adoption of the nomination procedure and postal balloting, there will inevitably be a period of some months during which there will be no chairman or deputy chairman as the case may be. There are a number of possible options to deal with this eventuality. We would like your views on the following:
| Q7. Should no action be taken and, in the case of a vacancy for chairmanship, should the remaining deputy chairman or deputy chairmen step in until an election can be held? |
| Q8. Where the chairmanship becomes vacant, should responsibility of the office be vested in the deputy chairman, where there is one deputy, or, where there is more than one, whichever deputy chairman is selected by them until an election can be held? |
| Q9. Should the procedure be expedited by holding an election meeting as soon as practicable or accepting verbal nominations from the floor? |
Consultees may have other options in mind. Responses are invited as to whether any of the above options are appropriate, or whether some other form of procedure should be used. Views are also sought as to whether it should be mandatory to fill a vacancy for deputy chairman where there are several deputies.
Bench Training And Development Committees
Under Rule 13 of the current Rules, a bench is required to establish a 'chairmanship committee'. Rule 14 defines the functions of the BCC.
However, MNTI and its adoption by MCCs and their benches is not governed by any rules. Most aspects of the management of the new scheme will be the responsibility of BTDCs. These BTDCs, which will be elected at the Bench Annual General Meeting, will replace the existing BCCs. They will have responsibility for:
Most individual committees have more or less detailed schemes of appraisal and mentoring which they will supervise. It is important that statutory authority is given to the appraisal scheme to enable committees to take action where an individual justice fails to meet one or more of the competencies. This might involve the power to prevent an individual taking part in some or all types of sitting until remedial action has been taken, or possibly allowing sittings only under certain conditions. Ultimately there needs to be authority to refer an individual to the Advisory Committee for consideration of removal from the bench. All these powers would, however, need to take into account Human Rights considerations.
As there are no rules empowering the BTDCs, it is important to put the arrangements for the establishment, constitution and functions on a more formal footing. As a consequence existing rules 13 and 14 will be replaced by new but similar rules dealing with the setting up of the BTDCs. For example, generally speaking large combined BTDCs are to be discouraged as they could be seen as distant from the local bench. Therefore this provision should only be available when either:
The decision to form a combined BTDC is for the MCC after consultation with the affected benches and justices' clerk.
NB: Legal advice has been sought as to how much of MNTI needs to be incorporated into new rules and how much can be captured by guidance.
Your views are sought on the following additional points about the BTDC:
| Q10. Do you agree that:
|
Appeals Process
We consider that a justice should have a right of appeal against any decision of the BTDC. A justice giving notice of appeal in writing to the Clerk to the Justices within, say, 21 days of notification of the decision could achieve this.
Appeals against decisions of the BTDC would be considered by the Chairman of the Bench or nominated deputy. That person has to consider an appeal on one of two bases:
The Chairman or deputy, as appellate authority, can only offer a view and return the decision to the BTDC. S/he cannot overturn the decision of the BTDC.
There should be a three-stage appeal process:
It is proposed that an appeal process be built into guidance - see paragraph 43 and Annex A.
Presiding Justices - Rule 15(a)
Rule 15(a) requires that a justice must have completed a course of chairmanship training within the six years preceding the 1st January of the year in question in order to qualify to preside in court. Since the adoption of MNTI, the requirement on justices to attend a given number of hours training in each triennium has been replaced by the requirement that they maintain the necessary competences for the role that they undertake on the bench. It might be argued that retention of rule 15(a) is counter to the philosophy of MNTI and should be abolished or replaced by an alternative rule to the effect that they have satisfied the BTDC through the appraisal process of their competence to preside within (say) the preceding three years.
It is proposed to scrap Rule 15 and replace it with a rule which states that a justice may not preside in court unless the justice has completed a course of instruction for chairmanship provided by the MCC and has been included by the BTDC in the list of approved chairmen
| Q11. Should Rule 15(a) and (b) be replaced? |
Request To A Justice To Preside - Rule 17
This rule dates from the time when a Bench Chairman or Deputy Chairman was normally required to preside if present at a court sitting. It might be thought to run counter to current thinking to preserve the rule, given that the emphasis is now on every justice on the list of approved court chairmen having the opportunity to preside on a regular basis as set out in rule 14(2)(b). An alternative might be to treat the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the bench like any other justice on the approved list for these purposes and to abolish rule 17 altogether. NB: The legislative references need updating. Sections 17(2) and 63 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 should now read sections 22(2) and 64 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.
The paragraph currently reads:
"Before a chairman or deputy chairman of the justices for a petty sessions area who is present at a meeting of those justices requests another justice to preside under the provisions of section 17(2) of the [Justices of the Peace] Act [1979] he needs to satisfy himself as to the suitability of that justice for this purpose; but nothing in this rule shall permit a justice to preside in court unless he has completed or is undergoing a course of instruction for chairmanship approved by the Lord Chancellor under section 63 of the Act."
| Q12. Should Rule 17 be retained? If so, for what purpose? |
We propose to issue guidance to support the revised rules. This section sets out details of those matters which should be included in guidance and are not covered by rules.
Holding of multiple offices
It is recommended that the Chairman of the Bench should not hold office as chairman of any committee or panel associated with the PSA and no other bench members should hold more than one chairmanship or a panel or committee.
The holding of multiple offices may lead to a conflict in priorities and loyalty, causing difficulties for the harmony of the Bench. Members need to feel that their interests are foremost in the chairman's mind. The Bench Chairman has a responsibility for the oversight and effective and efficient working of all aspects of the work of the Bench and can most effectively do this if they are not chairman of other committees or panels.
It is also recommended that neither bench/deputy chairman (or those involved in appeal process) should sit on a BTDC
Sharing of Work
It is recommended that the Chairman share his workload amongst his Deputy Chairmen. This will ensure that there will be a greater involvement of deputies in the work of the various benches and panels and who will, as a consequence, gain further valuable experience.
Candidates for chairman/deputy chairman to produce CV/manifesto.
Nothing in the Rules precludes canvassing. However, this is a practice which should be been discouraged, primarily because canvassing may not be beneficial for the harmony of the bench and could lead to the forming of factions and, possibly, political groupings. Nevertheless, it is recommended that "pen pictures" of nominees containing a brief CV relating to their experience and service on the Bench [and manifesto reflecting local needs and circumstances] could be circulated to all members of the Bench. This would give individual justices a better idea of candidates experience etc.
Competence levels for Members.
All magistrates, both new and existing should be provided with training by their MCC in line with a central syllabus determined by the Lord Chancellor, on the advice of the Judicial Studies Board, and delivered locally.
This syllabus will be based around the areas of competence determined by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the Judicial Studies Board.
Benches should be required to produce schemes for written appraisal and mentoring which the bench agrees.
New and existing magistrates shall be appraised in line with the requirements of the Lord Chancellor against standards of performance as determined by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the Judicial Studies Board.
MCCs should maintain individual training and development records for each magistrate in line with the requirements of the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the Judicial Studies Board. Benches should maintain such information as is necessary to support the MCC training and development records
It is also intended that the guidance include amplification of the Rule on written appraisal/mentoring scheme to be approved by Lord Chancellor as and when. The current guidance, which we intend to include, is set out at Annex A.
Appeals following appraisal decisions
Following the appraisal a report is forwarded to the BTDC with appropriate marks agreed between the appraiser and the appraisee. If the appraisee has been assessed as achieving the required standard s/he will be approved by the BTDC to sit as a magistrate, or to continue to sit as a chairman.
If the appraisee has not achieved the required standard the BTDC must consider his/her development needs and offer him/her one of the following options.
Where, following steps 2a or 2b the magistrate has undergone a second unsatisfactory appraisal the BTDC may consider that it is unlikely that the magistrate will achieve the required standard; the BTDC should consider the following,
When option 2a is chosen the BTDC must inform the MCC and / or the training officer, and the appraisee. Suitable resources for the training are to be provided. It is expected that the training and re-appraisal will be completed within 6 months. This loop can be completed only once.
After a re-appraisal the report to the BTDC will show either that the appraisee has met the required standard and is now competent or that s/he is still below standard. If the decision of the BTDC is that s/he is below standard the appraisee must be informed prior to the matter being reported to the Advisory Committee. S/he has the following options;
The powers of the Bench Chairman (or other designated person) in an appeal are;
In either case the Bench Chairman (or other designated person) must refer the matter back to the BTDC with his/her findings for their further consideration. The Bench Chairman (or other designated person) either sitting alone, or as part of a specially convened panel not involved in the original decision, will receive all the documentation i.e. a copy of the Personal Development Log / 1st and subsequent appraisal reports. After consideration, which may include interviewing the appraisee, a report will be completed which will go to the BTDC.
If it is found that the procedures have not been correctly followed then the BTDC will arrange re-appraisal in line with the procedures agreed by the Bench.
If it is found that the decision was not justified on the basis of the evidence on which it was taken then the BTDC will re-consider their original decision.
Where the appeal confirms the appraisee is not competent, and has made no further progress towards achieving/regaining competence the BTDC will,
A magistrate may have his / her name placed on the supplemental list for one or more of the following four reasons:
Advisory Committees must be informed of any resignation of a magistrate.
If the decision of the BTDC after any appeal, is that the magistrate has not achieved or regained competence and has made no further progress towards doing so then the BTDC will instruct the Clerk to the Justices to report the matter to the Advisory Committee as per paragraph 4 of Annex A2. The Advisory Committee will satisfy itself that the decision has been reached in a proper manner and that any review procedure has been properly followed and, if necessary, exhausted. The committee should not concern itself with the substance of the decision which has been taken. Its task, in this context is to act as guarantor of the due process and to report to the Lord Chancellor. The report to the Lord Chancellor will recommend what action should be taken. This may include removal from sitting as a magistrate.
The decision of the Lord Chancellor is final.
* see paragraph 11 of the guidance at Annex A
Powers of Advisory Committees and the Lord Chancellor
General
In August 1998 the Lord Chancellor revised the Directions to Advisory Committees. Contained within the directions are details of the Lord Chancellor's powers and step by step guidance on dealing with cases where the conduct or competence of a magistrate is called into question
The Powers of the Lord Chancellor
Section 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 provides that
".......Justices of the Peace for any commission area shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor by instrument on behalf and in the name of Her Majesty and a justice so appointed may be removed from office in like manner."
As a corollary to this power the Lord Chancellor may take a lesser step. In summary his powers may be described as follows. He may:
He may also direct that a magistrate shall not sit, or discharge any other magisterial duty, pending enquiry. In exercising his disciplinary powers the Lord Chancellor will only act for good cause, will always observe the rules of natural justice, and requires that those acting on his behalf shall do likewise. Any actions taken in this regard must be such as to withstand the test of judicial scrutiny.
Paragraph 19.53 of the Directions deals with allegations of lack of competence under MNTI, and is as follows;
"Under new training arrangements beginning in the autumn of 1998, training officers will be expected to report to a Bench Training and Development Committee on the achievement of the relevant competencies by magistrates. Where a magistrate fails persistently to reach the required standard so as to call into question his or her capabilities to remain a magistrate, the Bench Training and Development Committee shall instruct the Clerk to the Justices to report the matter to the Advisory Committee. The report will take the form of a letter, with supporting documentation, which will include the appraiser's reports. The role of the Advisory Committee is to satisfy itself that the decision has been reached in a proper manner and that any review procedure has been properly followed and, as necessary, exhausted. The Committee should not concern itself with the substance of the decision which has been taken. Its task, in this context, is to act as the guarantor of due process and to make any formal recommendations for removal to the Lord Chancellor."
Paragraph 19.54 refers to existing magistrates where an allegation of lack of competence is made by reference to a serious and demonstrable diminution in a magistrate of any of the six key qualities viz:
It also applies to those who have failed to achieve the standard required of magistrates in relation to the training programmes which may, from time to time, be approved or prescribed by the Lord Chancellor.
When an investigation is conducted at bench level the Lord Chancellor requires the following essential steps to be taken:
The complainant's agreement should be sought to the complaint being made known to its subject. The facts, including past behaviour, must be ascertained. Unsupported allegations are not sufficient. Facts will include a record of a conviction or of a police caution.
The magistrate must be informed, in writing, of the matters of concern or of the allegations which have been made and given a fair opportunity to make representations on the case, by a set time.
A full note must be kept of any meeting with the magistrate and a copy of that note made available to the magistrate who must then be allowed to make comments, which must also be recorded, on the accuracy and substance of the note.
The note, with the comments of the magistrate concerned, must then be forwarded to the Advisory Committee if the Lord Chancellor's powers may subsequently be invoked. However, even if the matter is ultimately considered to be relatively trivial, and in consequence no further action is proposed, a proper record must be maintained for the benefit of subsequent chairmen, against the possibility that another similar difficulty may arise in the future.
Since the power to take disciplinary action against a magistrate is ultimately vested in the Lord Chancellor alone, particular care must be taken by all parties involved not to intimidate a magistrate or to appear to usurp the discretion which is vested in the Lord Chancellor. Thus, for example, a bench chairman may advise a magistrate that s/he should refrain from sitting, pending the conclusion of an enquiry, but the power to direct that a magistrate shall not sit, or discharge any other magisterial duty pending enquiry, may be exercised only by the Lord Chancellor on application to the Secretary of Commissions' Office.
Further guidance as to the conduct of any hearings etc. are contained in the Directions for Advisory Committees.
We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper:
Procedure for the election to the offices of chairman and deputy chairman of justices
Q1. Do you agree all benches should use the nomination procedure for the election of the chairman and deputy chairman?
References to Justices' Clerks and Justices' Chief Executives
Q2. Do you agree that there should be a rule to allow the justices' clerk to attend BTDC meetings?
Postal Voting Procedure
Q3. Do you agree that:
Voting eligibility dates for magistrates
Q4. Do you agree that magistrates be eligible to vote from the date they first sit?
Election of chairman and deputy chairman
Q5. Do you agree that:
Length of Tenure for Chairman/Deputy Chairmen - Rule 11
Q6 Do you agree that there should be a maximum length of tenure for both chairman and deputy chairman of a maximum of two three-year terms, separated by a break of six years?
Vacancy in Office - Rule 12
Q7. Should no action be taken but, in the case of a vacancy for chairmanship, should the remaining deputy chairman or deputy chairmen step in until an election can be held?
Q8. Where the chairmanship becomes vacant, should responsibility of the office be vested in the deputy chairman, where there is one deputy, or, where there is more than one, whichever deputy chairman is selected by them until an election can be held?
Q9. Should the procedure be short circuited and an election meeting held as soon as practicable using either the traditional procedure or accepting verbal nominations from the floor?
Bench Training And Development Committees
Q10. Do you agree that:
Presiding Justices - Rule 15(a)
Q11. Should Rule 15(a) and (b) be replaced?
Request to a Justice to Preside - Rule 17
Q12. Should Rule 17 be retained? If so, for what purpose?
Name:......................................................................................................................
Organisation: ........................................................................................................
Address: .................................................................................................................
If you are a representative group please give a summary of the people and organisations you represent
Please send your completed response to:
Allison Mackie
Lord Chancellor's Department
Magistrates' Courts Division
4th Floor
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Or by e-mail to Allison Mackie
If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process, you should contact the Lord Chancellor's Department's consultation co-ordinator, Bruce Eadie, on 020-7210 1344 or e-mail him at Bruce Eadie.
Alternatively, you may wish to write to him at the address below:
Bruce Eadie
Head of Corporate Services Secretariat,
Room 9.54
Lord Chancellor's Department
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
The criteria in the Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office is as follows:
Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.
It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose.
A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.
Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.
Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.
Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.
Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation co-ordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.