If you would like to comment on the issues in this paper, please send your responses by 30 November 1998* to the following address:
Paper copies of the paper can be obtained from Ms Hunter at the above address.
When responding it would be helpful if you would explain who you are and, where relevant, who you represent.
Please ensure that you mark your response clearly if you wish your name or the contents of your response to be kept confidential. Otherwise your name and the general contents of your response may be made public following a request under the Open Government Initiative.
* There will, of course, be a period of analysis of the responses. Should a late representation be received before that analysis is complete it will be included. However, we are unable to extend this deadline.
This Government is committed to modernising and improving the operation of the courts, providing a better and more cohesive system of justice. Magistrates' courts are an integral part of the process for delivering justice, responsible for dealing with the vast majority of criminal offences prosecuted in England and Wales. It is vital that they are supported by a legislative framework and policies which look to the next century.
One important element of that modernisation and improvement programme is an examination of the organisation and management of magistrates' courts. The role of the justices' clerk in the new structures is a key issue facing magistrates' courts committees (MCCs).
This consultation paper is the result of initial discussions held on the nature of this important post between the Department and various interested stakeholders in the service. It aims to produce responses which will help Ministers to provide a strategic steer for the future role of the justices' clerk.
Justices' clerks have been valuable contributors to the criminal justice system for a very long time. Over the last 50 years or so, the duties and functions of the post have developed organically: there have been many changes to the organisation and functions of magistrates courts, often without a clear view or vision of the overall framework or structure being created.
This Government is taking a fresh approach. Ministers have made it clear they wanted to see a much more strategic and ‘joined up' system of all the criminal justice agencies.
For magistrates' courts, this means:
a programme of amalgamation of MCCs, moving towards fewer and larger committees which align their boundaries with those of other criminal justices agencies;
a more strategic approach to the use of resources across the whole system;
a greater separation of the legal and administrative functions undertaken; and
better and more flexible use of professional and judicial resources.
Ministers are now developing strategies to put these policies into practice. Their overall aim is to provide a national framework for magistrates' courts.
Since the advent of the justice's chief executive as the senior officer for the MCC area, in 1995, it has become increasingly evident that there is a need to re-examine the role of the justices' clerk. A number of interested parties have expressed views on what this should be. All contributions to the debate have been welcomed, but the time is now right to draw some of the issues together and reach conclusions.
This paper is concerned with the basic framework for the post of justices' clerk. It builds on the work started from the justices' clerk's perspective by the Justices' Clerks Society in its paper “The Future Role of the Justices' Clerk”, and the representations of others. We recognise that there are a number of related issues it does not cover. These will be fully considered when decisions are taken on the way forward following this consultation.
Justices' clerks may be employed by MCCs only after their candidature has been approved by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with section 42 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. In addition, and now in wholly exceptional circumstances only, one person may hold the dual appointment of justices' chief executive and justices' clerk with the Lord Chancellor's agreement in accordance with section 40(6) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (Guidance on appointment of justices' chief executives and justices' clerks was issued on 1 April 1998).
It is not proposed that any amendment be made to :
the statutory status in relation to appointment or employment;
section 45 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, particularly sub-sections (4) and (5) which serve to clarify the primary role of the justices' clerk as legal adviser; or
section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, which sets out the independence of justices' clerks and staff in relation to legal functions.
Neither is it proposed that justices' clerks ought to take the judicial oath. The Lord Chancellor believes that since justices' clerks are not subject to the same extensive screening as those selected for their ability to be judges, it would not be appropriate. He would, however, welcome suggestions on an up-to-date Practice Direction on the role of the clerk in court, and would support a version agreed with the Magistrates' Association and the Lord Chief Justice.
Of course, no chief executive personally carries out all the tasks necessary to discharge his or her responsibilities. The chief executive is the line manager for all staff employed by the MCC, including justices' clerks. Under the direction and leadership of the chief executive, it is the staff of the MCC to whom most tasks are delegated. Ministers support the view that so long as proper directions are given, and the person undertaking the task is considered capable, any task that is not restricted to a specified person by statute, may be delegated. Of course, delegating the task/ function in question does not mean that the person in whom the task is statutorily or otherwise vested, relinquishes overall accountability.
Ministers have decided, as part of their policy for greater separation of legal and administrative roles, that the requirement for justices' chief executives to be legally qualified in accordance with s42 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 should be removed. MCCs would still have the right to choose and appoint lawyers as a head of service, but they would have the added advantage of being able to attract candidates, if they believe this meets their needs, with backgrounds in managing large or complex organisations, public or private sector. This will give MCCs a greater potential for appointing a justices' chief executive able to bring the most relevant qualities to the role of head of service at that particular MCC. It is not unusual for specialists to be managed by a person who may not have in depth knowledge in that field, and Ministers do not see this change, once the necessary legislation has been enacted, as changing the role of the justices' clerk or his or her relationship with the justices' chief executive.
One of the main considerations underlying Ministers' policy on a greater separation between legal and administrative functions in magistrates' courts, is that the primary role of the justices' clerk to provide the best possible advice and support to magistrates. That primary role should neither be compromised nor diluted.
Ministers announced in a Statement to both Houses on 29 October 1997, and various speeches since, that when a suitable legislative opportunity arises they will transfer the statutory responsibility for the fines and fees accounts to the justices' chief executive. That is an important step towards the policy of greater separation.
Ministers wish to see the status of all court clerks, as legal advisers to the lay magistracy, enhanced. On 11 August 1998 they announced that, from 1 January 1999, all new court clerks appointed shall be professionally qualified as a solicitor or barrister. There will be a 10 year transition for existing court clerks, with special arrangements for those unqualified court clerks near retirement age. This provides further opportunities for staff development, opening up the position of justices' clerks as an avenue for promotion for all their deputies. The vision for the next century is therefore a wholly professionalised legal support service for the lay magistracy.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 extends the range of functions that may be delegated from magistrates to clerks. These new powers are intended to allow better case management, so that delays in magistrates' courts can be kept to a minimum. The new provisions are to be piloted and, if successful and following consultation locally, will be extended to other parts of the country. Ministers consider it appropriate that clerks should undertake this preliminary case management in order to ensure that cases are progressed as quickly as possible and that the bench hears cases that are ready - although some areas may prefer to use single justices for this work, not least because the powers available to single justices at preliminary hearings are more extensive.
This potential extension of clerks' powers does not alter the clerks' traditional role of providing the advice and support necessary to the bench. It is important to remember that the powers to be exercised by clerks are delegated powers from single justices. Ministers want to see clerks operating effectively in supporting the bench and have ensured that it is open for them to provide more assistance in managing cases effectively. Given their legal qualifications and training, and their extensive court and professional experience Ministers see this legal and expert advisory and supporting role as being the main focus for clerks.
There is currently no single definition of the duties for which a justices' clerk should be responsible. Similarly no national guidelines exist. Each MCC is responsible not only for employing its staff, but also determining the service provided locally. However, with this freedom, vast differences have emerged in individual responsibilities and the organisational model within MCCs. Ministers have received an increasing number of representations, for example, as to which model is preferred and whether there is a national strategy, or commenting on the recruitment/appointment processes undertaken by other MCCs. It has become clear that a strategic steer is needed.
Ultimately, it remains for the relevant magistrates' courts committee to decide how it will use its resources to provide that local service. It is right, though, that MCCs are clear about the Government's view on what might, or might not be, appropriate arrangements.
In order to ensure the main concerns of the service were addressed, officials from the Magistrates' Courts Division held a series of meetings with representative bodies. Officials were encouraged to see that each group agreed that:
it is not possible to envisage justices' clerks not undertaking at least some administrative duties;
the main focus of the justices' clerks role should be that of the senior legal adviser to magistrates;
there should not be a rigid system where one particular model for an MCC was imposed, but a general description of the job role/ functions would be helpful;
the justices' clerk should be responsible for the training of the legal team.
Several themes were common to all representations:
the service wanted a strategic steer from the Lord Chancellor so that there is a clearer statement about the national framework envisaged by Ministers; and
people were still not clear exactly where the line between legal and administrative functions should be drawn;
Each group, perhaps understandably, also had its own perspective on where justices' clerks should fit into the service. Without attributing the concerns to individual groups, and some did overlap, those concerns were:
management training and experience of justices' clerks should not be wasted;
everyone agreed everything possible must be done to ensure access to quality legal advice/ legal adviser;
justices' clerks should not be seen as having a special status; they are a valuable member of staff, but it should be accepted they are a member of the team who function effectively with colleagues; and
there is a need to bolster the perception of the service, to raise the public's perception of the work done, and to raise public confidence in the justice system.
Within the context, then, of changes to the service described earlier and those concerns expressed above, this paper seeks to explore the issues outlined in the remainder of this paper.
To give full effect to the policy of clearer separation of functions, we ought to take a fresh look at all the other statutory functions given to justices' clerks and assess which should only be for justices' clerks, and which should be for the justices' chief executive to delegate to justices' clerks or other members of staff as appropriate.
In response to the comments received so far, we have constructed an outline job description for justices' clerks [Annex A] which identifies functions that could be said to be the irreducible core of that post holder. This job description might account for at least 75% of their responsibilities, depending on the numbers of justices' clerks in the MCC area.
We do not intend that this description should be seen as a prescribed model to fit all MCC structures. As now, full details of job descriptions will still be for local management to decide. We anticipate a continuing need for local variation, to reflect local circumstances and business needs. Justices' clerks appointments will still be subject to the usual consultation with magistrates in accordance with section 42 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.
| QUESTIONS: Is the list of functions the irreducible core of the legal/judicial tasks? If not, which functions should be added or deleted, and why? Is it helpful for the national framework to include such a list of functions? |
The statutory responsibilities of the justices' clerk as office holder are discussed later in this paper. Earlier in this paper we have outlined Ministers' general policy on delegation of functions. However, if there is an irreducible core of legal/judicial tasks for justices' clerks, comments received so far indicate that consideration needs to be given as to whether there is something special about the justices' clerk office holder.
It has been suggested that there are some functions of justices' clerks which must never be delegated and must be carried out personally by the office holder. If there are such personal responsibilities, this would impact on the organisational structure adopted by an MCC and on the number of justices' clerk's office holders employed in a given area.
| QUESTIONS: Are there functions of the justices' clerk office holder which must be carried out personally by him/her. If so, what are they and why must they never be delegated? |
The development of wide variations between MCCs of organisational models, which attribute various other duties to justices' clerks, produces a spectrum. For ease of reference, three organisational models are illustrated as a basis for discussion.
Model A [Annex B] - status quo in most areas; this is the ‘traditional' MCC. The appointment of the justices' chief executive was imposed as a layer above the existing structure, with little or no change to the role of the justices' clerk, who remained the lawyer/manager of his or her area. Those MCCs with dual appointments use this as a basis, but vest all statutory functions in one person.
Model B [Annex C] - larger/county size single clerkship; this has already been adopted in a number of areas, even if the unit managers' titles differ. The single justices' clerk is responsible for all court clerks, legal training, ‘in court' services and if applicable any pastoral care for magistrates. A model such as this has the scope for either a single justices' clerk or several jointly responsible for the whole area. The justices' clerk (or one of them) will be the ‘chief clerk'/unit manager implementing MCC policy whilst the justices' chief executive retains overall responsibility for strategic planning.
Model C [Annex D] - justices' clerk as professional head of legal services only i.e. heading a unit as the MCC's independent legal adviser, the court clerks being the responsibility of office managers. The justices' clerk undertakes the ‘irreducible core' functions, with management of court clerks restricted to ensuring their professional competence and standards being done on behalf of the group manager. This is the most extreme end of the separation of legal and administrative functions and is not known to exist currently in any MCC. None of the groups so far consulted could see an organisation developing at this end of the spectrum, but it would be possible if the justices' clerk role did not include any administrative functions.
There are, of course, many possible variants between the illustrated models - too numerous to reproduce here. Some MCCs have appointed a single justices' clerk for the whole of their area in order to create a clear head of legal services. This has allowed some administrative tasks to be centralised, either under the ultimate control of the justices' clerk or the justices' chief executive. In these circumstances someone other than the justices' clerk maintains the daily workload of the centralised functions.
However, those MCCs with county-size single clerkship areas have altered the traditional relationship between the magistrates and the justices' clerk. This relationship has changed over time in any event. The changes in society and the demands of an ever changing workload have meant varying degrees of evolution. Justices' clerks retain the responsibility for maintaining an effective working relationship with magistrates. Often employing professionally qualified deputy justices' clerks or ‘magistrates' clerks' has assisted the day-to-day relationship and/ or pastoral care in these areas.
Current legislation allows more than one justices' clerk to be approved for any given PSD. Traditionally this has been used to effect joint appointments (of justices' chief executives and justices' clerks) for centralisation purposes. However there is no barrier to appointing, for example, two justices' clerks to a particular area, should the work dictate this. Indeed, there is no barrier to appointing a number of justices' clerks to all the PSDs in the area, either as a team with joint responsibility or moving them periodically.
| QUESTIONS: We invite observations on the illustrated models or variants of them, particularly commentary on the effectiveness of the organisational structure adopted in individual MCCs. Should we adopt as the national guideline any of these models? |
Model A illustrates the continued existence of the lawyer/manager structure in most MCCs. Given the context of change described earlier in this paper, this model does not seem to provide the clearer separation of functions sought. Nor does it clearly show much change in organisation consequent on the introduction of the justices' chief executive post. Changes in organisation and management may generally be expected to lead to a change of culture, which can provide the driver for business change.
However, given that many justices' chief executives were recruited from the existing pool of justices' clerks, the fact of little change may not be surprising. For decades, justices' clerks were the lawyer/manager heads of service in small areas. As the responsibilities of justices' clerks grew, so did the need for them to develop into lawyer/managers. A great deal of resources were directed at improving the management skills of justices' clerks and this partly explains the continuing existence of this organisational structure - utilisation of the management skills of those individuals in post. A further reason for some MCCs maintaining the status quo is the pay and conditions terms of justices' clerks. The costs of redundancy or early retirement are considerable and MCCs have, understandably, taken this factor into account when reviewing staffing structures.
Paragraphs 10.2 and 10.3 (p 34) of HM Inspectorate's review of the proposed amalgamation of Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull suggests that the Crombie costs associated with redundancy would have been a significant factor in any reorganisation of this area.
As has been said, it is almost impossible to envisage any situation where the justices' clerk has no administrative/managerial functions. Much work has been done over the years to try to establish where the dividing line is between the legal/judicial and management/administrative functions. We recognise that there will always be differing opinions on the margins, but perhaps they key question is the competence of the person carrying out any particular duty rather than the statutory title of the post.
Currently each area needs to ensure that any list of duties for either a justices' chief executive or a justices' clerk recognises and records the appropriate level at which responsibility for these duties should be vested. For example, there are a number of administrative responsibilities related to fine enforcement which are vested with the justices' clerk. Yet the justices' clerk must be subject to the justices' chief executive, the line manager in all matters except the giving of legal advice. Some MCCs have alleviated this problem by making the justices' chief executive a joint justices' clerk. This means the justices' chief executive is the justices' clerk for all the petty sessional divisions in the area, where a substantive justices' clerk already exists for each division, purely so that some of the administrative functions may be streamlined or centralised. The only mechanism for this is rather unwieldy and involves consulting all the magistrates in the MCC area. This seems an unnecessary hurdle when it cannot be disputed that the justices' chief executive as head of service has ultimate responsibility.
Some functions may be easily defined as either legal or administrative. For example, if we take the historical role of a justices' clerk with responsibility for everything in the clerkship area. On the legal responsibility side we have: the giving of legal advice whether in court or not; cultivating a relationship with the magistrates to ensure the advice is respected, ensuring the court clerks are suitably trained; etc. On the administrative side we have: accounting for fines and fees; line management for non- legal, often specialist staff e.g. computer staff; building maintenance; etc.
Providing a greater separation of functions would still allow an individual to move to different posts, if it suits the needs of the service or personal circumstances. It merely means that whatever the position the individual occupies at that point in time, the main emphasis of that post will be either administrative or legal.
HM Inspectorate have noted some examples are examples of deputy justices' clerks successfully specialising either in administration or the legal side and examples of justices' clerks who have moved from the generalist lawyer/manager posts to become specialist managers (i.e. a justices' chief executive) or director of legal services (as in Model B, see Annex C).
| QUESTIONS: In the light of Ministers' policy on the clearer separation of functions, is there a place for Model A given the extent of managerial/administrative duties this imposes on justices' clerks? |
Ministers have indicated that they would favour a structure where, if it suited the MCC, there could be a “chief” justices' clerk responsible for the provision of legal services and other legal staff who are suitably qualified. There is more than one possible approach. One is that there is a single justices' clerk, supported by all other clerks (who hold non-statutory posts). A second is several justices' clerks appointed to a single clerkship, with one of them recognised as “chief” clerk upon the basis of first amongst equals. In either approach, the functions of the “chief” would be to ensure consistency of approach by all justices' clerks throughout the MCC; perhaps responsible for centralised training of magistrates; acting as the representative for the MCC on various liaison groups etc. Under the second approach it could be appropriate for this post to be undertaken on rotation with other justices' clerks in the area.
HM Inspectorate reports demonstrate at least one example We have seen at least one example of an MCC that has divided a number of roles between two justices' clerks eg one is responsible for strategic liaison with the other parts of the criminal justice service and the other is the justices' training officer. In this example, the justices' clerks remain responsible for the traditional range of bench related and administrative duties of the clerkship.
| QUESTIONS: Should there be a "chief" justices' clerk and, if so, should his/her duties be defined? |
The justices' clerk has many statutory responsibilities, outside those covered in sections 45 and 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Many of these statutory responsibilities date back many years, certainly most of them pre-date the introduction of the justices chief executive. A list (not exhaustive) is at Annex E to illustrate.
A further issue then is the accountability between the justices' chief executive and justices' clerk in relation to the existing statutory non judicial/legal functions of the justices' clerk. As has been said, the justices' chief executive is the line manager of the justices' clerk. However, though the justices' chief executive is accountable to the MCC for all of operations in the MCC, and must exercise that responsibility, he/she cannot decide to allocate certain tasks to individual members of staff where the justices' clerk is named as the person statutorily responsible. Only the justices' clerk themselves can decide who to delegate to.
In most cases, of course, the justices' clerk and chief executive agree on the allocation of duties. If there were to be disputes though, it would be the justices' clerk who had the final say - not the head of service directly accountable to the MCC. The final details of any organisational/administrative structure is for individual MCCs to determine. The statutory position of the justices' clerk in relation to some functions therefore provides an opportunity for restrictions to the decision making and accountability of the MCC, as well as the potential to undermine the justices' chief executives statutory functions for the entire MCC area.
Some HM Inspectorate reports have given examples where the effect of the statutory position underlines concerns about:
the effects on other agencies of different administrative practices between clerkships in one MCC area eg listing practices, production of court lists and orders, pre-trial reviews.
the dispersal of the administration of fines and fees across clerkships and the use of different processes leading to unnecessary duplication of effort.
| QUESTIONS: Which [if any] of the statutory functions listed at Annex E should be for the justices' chief executive to decide to whom to delegate? |
This Government is committed to modernising and improving the operation of the courts, providing a better and more cohesive system of justice. Magistrates' courts are an integral part of the process for delivering justice. It is vital that they are supported by a legislative framework and policies which look to the next century.
One important element of that modernisation and improvement programme is an examination of the organisation and management of magistrates' courts. The role of the justices' clerk in the new structures is a key issue facing magistrates' courts committees. This paper is concerned with the basic framework for the post of justices' clerk, in light of Ministers' policies on: the greater separation of legal/ administrative functions; and the professionalisation and increased status for court clerks. There are a number of related issues which this document does not cover. These will be fully considered when decisions are taken on the way forward following this consultation.
Since the advent of the justice's chief executive as the senior officer for MCCs in 1995, it has become increasingly evident that there is a need to re-examine the role of the justices' clerk.
There is currently no single definition of the duties for which a justices' clerk should be responsible. Similarly no national guidelines exist. With this freedom, vast differences have emerged in individual responsibilities and the organisational model within MCCs. Ministers have received an increasing number of representations as to whether there is a preferred model and whether there is a national strategy.
All contributions to the debate have been welcomed, but the time is now right to draw some of the issues together and reach conclusions. To ensure the main concerns of the service were addressed, officials from the Magistrates' Courts Division held a series of meetings with representative bodies. The same basic themes emerged. [See ISSUES, from para. 23].
We have, therefore, attempted to define an irreducible core of the functions of a justices' clerk [see Annex A]. This is not intended as a prescribed model, rather an outline job description accounting for, perhaps 75% of the postholder's time. The detail of any job description would still be for MCCs to determine. A question is then asked as to whether there are any functions that should be vested with the justices' clerk personally and which s/he may not delegate.
Three organisational models are floated as a basis for discussion [Annexes B - D] which help to illustrate some of the issues relating to where a justices' clerk should fit in, both now and in the future.
The role of the lawyer/ manager is developed more fully. It is almost impossible to envisage any situation where a justices' clerk has no administrative/ managerial functions, but how much time should this take up? If the justices' clerk concentrates on the role of principal legal adviser, would it be desirable for the postholder to retain the management of the legal team or other staff? If so, does this lead to the justices' clerk being the ‘chief' clerk? and what would the relationship be with other justices' clerks in the MCC?
Finally, a short section is included on one element of the statutory responsibilities attributed to a justices' clerk outside those of s45 and 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Most of this legislation, which is largely administrative in nature, was enacted prior to the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994 when no other management structure existed. It would, therefore, seem an appropriate time to establish if any of this legislation needs to be changed in the light of the modern role of the justices' clerk
All justices' clerks
All justices' chief executives
All chairmen of magistrates' courts committees
All chairmen of benches
All members of Magistrates' Courts Consultative Council
Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees
The Justices' Clerks Society
The Magistrates' Association
The Association of Magisterial Officers
Association of Justices' Chief Executives
Association of Stipendiary Magistrates
The Bar Council
The Law Society
Her Majesty's Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate
Liaison Judges
Copy to House of Commons Library
Copy to House of Lords Library
principal legal adviser to the justices in his/her area:
continued guarantee of independence in relation to legal functions in accordance with section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997;
manager and appraiser of court clerks [courtroom team?];
responsibility for training of court clerks [courtrooms team?], though not necessarily the trainer;
responsibility for ensuring MCC is advised when magistrates require training, though not necessarily the trainer.
exercise of any delegated powers from single justices and/or statutory functions; to include responsibility for further delegation of any of those functions;
responsibility for support to benches in their wider role and legal responsibilities eg co-ordinating independent responses to consultation on strategic change, selection of new justices' clerks or bench selection procedures;
directly accountable to the justices' chief executive for the quality of the legal services provided in his/her area;
directly accountable for ensuring that the standards set by the Committee for the entire area are met in relation to legal services in his/her area.
responsibility for analysis/ interpretation of MCC's legal business;
Advisory Committee liaison/ legal forum duties.
[We trust this list is comprehensive, though it may not be exhaustive]
Justices of the Peace Act 1997 s 47(1)(b)(ii)
Reserve Forces Act 1996, Sch 3, para 9
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 s 234(9)
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 s 68(4)
Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 Sch 1, para 3(3)(b) NB: see also Road
Traffic Offenders Act 1988
Pensions Schemes Act 1993 s 68(1)(b)
Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 s 14(5)
Social Security Administration Act 1992 ss 107(10) (notice to clerk), 121(1)(b)
Criminal Justice Act 1991 s 20A(2), Sch 2 para 11(1), Sch 3 para 11(7)(b)
Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 Sch 2 paras
3(4), 10 and 11
Children Act 1989 s 83(5), Sch 1 para 6A(3) (giving of notice by clerk),
Sch 2 para 24(6)
Football Spectators Act 1989 ss 7(7)(b), 7(10)(c), 18(1)-(4)
NB: some provisions are “collecting” functions (eg ss 52(3)(c), 69(1), 75(8)(a)(i), 76(7) and 77(1)(a) of the 1988 Act). It is recognised that this legislation extends to Scotland.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 ss 41(10), (11) and (13), and 67(1)
Coroners Act 1988 ss 16(1), 17(1)
Public Order Act 1986 s 34
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 ss 7(4) and 23(3), (7) and (8)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ss 16(10) and (11), 46(3), (5) and (6), 73(2)(b) and (3)
Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 s 2
Criminal Justice Act 1982 s 18(8)
Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 Sch 1 para 15(4)
Highways Act 1980 ss 47(6), 116(9)
MCA ss 6(5), 12(1)(b), 12(4), 14(1), 60(4), 60(5) (written notice), 77(6), 82(5A), 97A(9)- (11), 114
Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980 s 4(3)
Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 s 20ZA(3) (written notice)
Bail Act 1976 ss 6(9)(c), 8(4)(a)
Adoption Act 1976 s 58A(3)
Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 Sch 4 paras 10, 12
Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 ss 1B(5)(b), 26(5) and (7)
Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 ss 18(1)(d), 23(2)-(4), 26(6), 27B(1), (2), (4) and (5), 27C(7), 32(2), 34(3), 34A(5) (written notice)
Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2 paras 23(1)(b), 31(3)
Children and Young Persons Act 1969 ss 18(3), 19(5) and (10)
Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969 s 6(2)
Gaming Act 1968 Sch 2 paras 2(2), 5(2), 6(2), 7, 12-15, 28, 29, 31, 35(5), 36, 37, 46, 48(4), 57(4), 58, 64, 65; Sch 3 paras 12, 13, 15, 16, 17(3), 24; Sch 7 paras 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 20, 25; Sch 9 para 11
Armed Forced Act 1996 s 33
Licensing Act 1964 ss 8A(2) and 9A(2) (both inserted by the Deregulation (Licence Transfers) Order 1998), 11(4), 19(1) and (2), 20(2) and (4), 20A(3), 22(1), (2), (4) and (5), 27(4)(c)(ii), 28(1), (3) and (4), 30(1), (2) and (4), 31(1) and (2), 32(1) and (2), 33(1) and (2), 34(3), 36(1) and (2), 46(2), 51(1), (2) and (4), 62(3), 75(2) and (3), 87A(5), 133(1), 142(1), 150(3) and (4)(a), 151(6), 153A(3), 154(1)(b), 180(3) and (4), 199(c); Sch 2 paras 1(a), 3 and 6; Sch 6 paras 1(1) and (3), 2, 4, 6(1) and 7; Sch 8A paras 1(1) and 4(2); Sch 12 paras 1(1)(a) and 3; Sch 12A paras 1(1), 2(1), 7(3)(a) and 8(a)
Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 ss 10A(4), 11(5), Sch 1 para 2
Army and Air Force Act 1961 s 30
Maintenance Orders Act 1958 ss 2(2)(b) and (5), 18(1)(b), (2), (4) and (8), 21(1)
Naval Discipline Act 1957 s 129B
Air Force Act 1955 s 199
Army Act 1955 s 199
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 ss 42(2), 46(1A), 56(3), 106(2)
Criminal Justice Act 1925 s 13(3)
Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 s 94(7)
Fairs Act 1873 s 6
Evidence Act 1851 s 13
London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 s 24
Justices of the Peace Act 1997 Sch 4, Part II, para 18
Reserve Forces Act 1996, Sch 2, Para 7(3); Sch 3, para 9(2)
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 s 30(4)-(9)
Social Security Administration Act 1992 s 107(5),(11)
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 Sch 4 paras 1(5), 9(4)
Criminal Justice Act 1988 s81
Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985 s 4(6)
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 s 38(6), (7)
Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 s 8(3)
Gaming Act 1968 Sch 3 para 23; Sch 7 para 24; Sch 9 para 21
Licensing Act 1964 s 74(6)
Naval Discipline Act 1957 ss 110(2) 129B(20
Air Forces Act 1955 ss 189(1), 199(2)
Army Act 1955 ss 189(1), 199(2)