Hi, I'm Mrs. Allchin, and I'm going to be taking you through the citizenship lesson today.

I'm going to give you all the information that you need to be able to take part in the lesson, and I'll also pause and tell you when you need to complete an activity or complete a check for understanding.

Hope you enjoy the lesson.

This lesson is called Which Legal Professionals Support our Rights in Criminal Courts? And it's taken from the unit of lessons.

Does our legal system protect citizens' rights? By the end of this lesson, you'll be able to explain how legal professionals represent citizens and ensure their legal rights are met.

So these are our keywords for today's lesson.

We've got criminal court, which are courts that deal with individuals who have been accused of breaking the law.

The judiciary, the branch of the state responsible for enforcing the law, and it's composed of judges and other legal officials.

Legal executive, legal specialists employed by solicitors who handle case preparation.

Solicitor, who is a legal professional who gives advice, prepares cases and represents clients in magistrates' courts.

And barrister, who presents cases in Crown Court and higher courts, representing defendants or state.

This is our lesson outline for today.

First of all, we're going to look at how does the judiciary support our rights, and then we're going to look at how do legal representatives support our rights.

So we're gonna start off by looking at the judiciary and how they support citizens' rights within criminal courts.

The judiciary refers to the entire judicial structure, including judges, and judges play a key role in ensuring that citizens have their legal rights met.

In England and Wales, there are judges who oversee cases in Crown Courts, so for serious crime types like murder.

We've then got magistrates or justices of the peace who oversee cases in magistrate courts for lesser crimes, for example, theft.

And civil court judges who oversee cases heard in civil courts.

So disputes related to rights, e.

g.

divorce, and neighbour disputes.

So judges play a really crucial part in our whole justice system.

So Izzy's asking, "What type of qualifications or training do judges need in criminal courts?" 'Cause remember, we're gonna be looking at criminal courts for this lesson.

So pause and have a think for yourself.

Could you answer this question? So first of all, magistrates or justices of the peace who work in magistrate courts do not need legal qualifications, and they actually volunteer their time to carry out the role.

They complete judicial training and receive advice from a legally trained legal advisor within the courtroom to help them.

Whereas Crown Court judges must be a qualified barrister or solicitor, and they must have extensive courtroom experience.

They also attend training at the judicial college following their appointment by the monarch.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Identify who oversees criminal cases in a magistrate court and a Crown Court.

So in a magistrate court, it's the magistrates or justices of the peace, and in a Crown Court, it is the judge.

In criminal courts, judges work to ensure that citizens legal rights are met in the following ways.

So they ensure a fair trial, they follow sentencing guidelines, they support the jury, and they also develop common law when it's needed.

So Izzy's asking, "How do they do this?" So have a look at those four bullet points and think to yourselves, "How exactly do judges go about ensuring rights are met in these ways?" So judges ensure that citizens receive a fair trial.

This is a fundamental part of our justice system and also a human right as identified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UDHR, and also article six of the Human Rights Act from 1998.

Within criminal law, judges ultimately oversee everything that takes place within their courtroom, constantly performing scrutiny of the evidence presented, and the conduct of the behaviour of the legal professionals to ensure that the proceedings are fair and that defendants are not being unfairly convicted.

So judges will do all of these things within their courtroom.

They'll explain legal rights to ensure that the defendants fully understand what's happening.

They will ensure that the defendant gets a fair chance to present their case.

So making sure that the defence is getting that fair time within the courtroom.

They'll stop any disruptions within the courtrooms. They'll call for order when needed if things are getting a bit boisterous 'cause it needs to be really calm in order so that everyone can hear what is happening.

They'll stop lawyers from asking misleading questions that could cause bias.

They'll stop evidence from being used if it was gained unfairly or if it's going to mislead the jury or other people in the courtroom.

They'll also stop the use of evidence that could cause prejudice if it's not relevant.

So for example, a defendant's previous criminal record being brought up, if it's got nothing to do with the current case that they're being tried for.

And actually, if the judge actually considers that the case has become too unfair to continue, perhaps because of so much disruption or perhaps 'cause of unfair evidence being shown or misleading questions, they can actually declare a mistrial or ask for a retrial.

So judges even have the power to ultimately stop a case if they feel it's become unfair.

So let's have a check for understanding.

Identify three ways in which a judge can ensure a fair trial.

So you could have said anything from this list.

They can explain legal rights, ensure the defendant gets a fair chance to present their case, stop any courtroom disruptions, prevent misleading questions, stop unfair evidence from being used, stop the use of evidence that could cause prejudice, and to declare a mistrial or a retrial if needed.

Within a magistrate or Crown Court, if a defendant is found guilty, an appropriate sentence will need to be passed.

To ensure the sentence is fair, judges must follow strict sentencing guidelines which will outline the minimum and maximum sentences that can be given for specific crimes.

So this is really, really important because it really ensures fairness.

So judges will use their legal expertise and consider mitigating and aggravating factors when deciding where within these guidelines the sentence should fall.

And this is why Crown Court judges must have really extensive courtroom experience as they may need to pass maximum sentences.

So for any given crime, there is ultimately a range of sentences that that judge can give, and they'll consider the mitigating, so reasons almost for the defendant and aggravating reasons against the defendant when making that decision.

So they have to fall somewhere within those guidelines, and that's when they use that really extensive legal expertise and knowledge when they are making that judgement.

So within a Crown Court, it is the jury that decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

So that can be a little bit of a misconception.

It's the judge that passes sentence in a Crown Court, but it's actually the jury that decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

So for this role to be carried out fairly that ensures the rights of both the defendant and the victim of crime are met, clear procedures absolutely must be followed within the courtroom.

So Izzy's asking, "What rules and procedures must be followed when using a jury?" So pause and have a think for yourself.

What are the special rules, policies, roles of a jury within a courtroom? Clear rules and procedures begin when selecting a jury.

Citizens are chosen at random from the electoral register, and this means that there's a random selection to choose from.

And then from this randomly selected group, both the defence and the prosecution can discard jurors if they are concerned regarding bias.

So for example, someone who has previously served as a witness in a similar case may be considered unsuitable.

So they might be worried that actually, they'll be almost getting the cases mixed up, or they'll be using their emotional experience from the previous case and using that and being biassed about the case that they're currently a jury member for.

So both the defence and the prosecution can potentially say no to certain potential jury members if they are worried about that bias.

And they need to get to a point where there'll be 12 jury members in total.

So 12 members of the jury are needed, and they will remain on the case throughout.

The jury also have very important rules that they must follow to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.

The Crown Court judge will guide the jury to ensure that these are followed.

So they'll give really clear instructions about what the jury should do, what they should be considering, and what they need to be discounting.

Some of the jury rules and procedures include they have to absolutely carefully listen to all of the evidence within the courtroom because it's fact that they'll be basing their decision.

They need to remain impartial and decide on the outcome on evidence only.

And that can be difficult 'cause we're dealing with humans, and the judge will keep on reminding the jury about that, that they're not to make judgments on what the defendant looks like or what they're wearing or what their voice is like, or anything like that.

They should only be looking at the evidence when making their decision.

Not discussing the case outside of the jury room, that's really, really, really important.

And avoiding any outside research.

So evidence heard in the courtroom is the only information that should be considered when deciding an outcome.

They absolutely should not be going and looking on social media to try and find the defendant, for example, and can actually get into trouble for doing so.

And they, of course, need to follow the judge's directions at all times.

Jury rules and procedures also include maintaining confidentiality.

So not going home and talking about what's happening in the courtroom with their husband or their children or colleagues at work, or anything like that.

They must not communicate with any parties in the case.

So they absolutely shouldn't be going outside the courtroom and talking to witnesses or talking to anybody, or trying to talk to 'em on social media.

Again, can get into trouble for that.

They need to report any misconduct from the other jury members.

So if they overhear something or think that a jury member is acting in a way that means they could be biassed or they could be acting in a discriminatory way, they've got a duty to report that, and they need to attend all required court sessions 'cause they need to make sure that they're hearing all of the evidence every day, so that they can make a decision.

Let's have a check for understanding.

So can you identify three rules that the jury must follow? So you could have said that they need to listen carefully to evidence, they need to remain impartial, not discuss the case outside of the jury room, avoid outside research, follow the judge's directions at all times, and only base decisions on evidence presented.

Judges also create common law in cases where there is no legislation covering a particular issue, and these judge made legal decisions create legal principles that become law.

So actually, our rights can be supported by judges, by the judges actually creating law where law does not exist and when it's needed.

Common law allows judges to use their legal expertise to set legal precedent, which is a decision that then guides all future legal decisions, and this better ensures that citizens rights within the criminal justice system.

An example of how common law has supported rights is regarding the law on joint enterprise.

And you might have heard this term before.

So this law used to state that if someone was in the company of someone who committed a crime and they may have foreseen the crime happening, so they might have had maybe an idea that this person might be about to do something illegal, they were jointly culpable.

So that basically means they were just as guilty, and that meant that they could be tried for the same crime under joint enterprise, and that includes murder.

So if somebody was in the company of someone that went out and committed a very serious crime, such as murder, if that person had an idea that that person had a real issue, that they were really, really angry, that they wanted to maybe fight that person, then actually, they could also be tried for the same crime and receive the same type of sentencing.

But actually, it was judges that decided that actually, this law had been wrongly and unfairly applied and that a person can only be guilty of crime committed by another person if they intended to assist.

So they actually intended to help the person commit the crime or they encouraged them.

So they really sort of egged them on and kind of try to get them to commit that crime, not just because they foresaw that it might happen.

So simply thinking, "Oh, there's a chance this could happen," that was viewed as not being enough and they actually had to be wanting to help them or trying to encourage it.

So that's an example where actually, judges felt that people's rights were being denied and it wasn't fair, and they actually created common law to better support people's rights.

So this decision strengthened fairness in criminal law, and it strengthened citizens' rights by ensuring that only those who genuinely intended to assist in a crime could be held responsible.

In 1991, common law ensured that marital rape was criminalised.

Judges ruled that a husband could be found guilty of raping his wife, and that simply being married did not imply consent to sex.

This case strengthened women's rights in relation to sexual offences.

So this is looking at how actually a law was created, and common law was created to say that actually, rape can absolutely happen within a marriage.

And just because a woman is married to her husband, that doesn't mean that she's always going to consent to sex.

So this huge shift in the law was really, really massive for the rights of women.

So that's another example of how judges have supported the rights, in this case, the rights of women by amending and changing law.

So let's have a check for understanding.

Judges have no way of shaping the law to improve citizens' rights.

Is that true? Is that false? And can you tell me why? It's false.

And why? Judges can create common law to provide justice where no legislation exists, e.

g.

by criminalising marital rape.

For Task A, I'd like you to summarise how criminal court judges support the legal rights of citizens.

We've covered a lot so far.

So to help you, your answer may refer to applying the law fairly, sentencing guidelines, how they support the jury, and also common law.

So pause while you have a go at this task.

So when summarising how criminal court judges support the legal rights of citizens, you may have included, criminal court judges help protect legal rights by making sure the law is applied fairly in every case.

They follow sentencing guidelines to decide fair punishments based on the crime and the circumstances.

Judges also advise the jury, explaining legal rules and helping them understand how to judge the evidence properly.

If there is uncertainty in the law, judges can create common law by making decisions that set new legal principles, making sure justice stays fair and up to date.

Their role is important because they make sure trials are fair, people's rights are protected, and the law is used properly.

We're now going to have a look at how legal representatives support our rights.

So judges are not the only legal professionals that support our legal rights.

There are other legal representatives that play a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial.

So Laura is asking, "Can you think of any legal representatives that support citizens' legal rights?" So there are a few, we're gonna have a look at these this lesson.

So we have legal executives, and they are legally qualified professionals who normally work for solicitors and they specialise in a specific area of law.

So for example, they might specialise in criminal law.

Legal executives in criminal law work in defence or in prosecution, and they support legal rights by providing that legal advice by using their specialist expertise to prepare cases, and assisting solicitors and barristers.

They're different from solicitors, as solicitors have a general knowledge of many areas of law and can practise in all areas, whereas a legal executive's knowledge is specialist.

So Laura is saying, "I've heard of solicitors and barristers, what do they do exactly?" So you might have heard of these professionals as well.

So what do they do? What's a solicitor? What's a barrister? What's the difference between the two? So solicitors prepare cases within a magistrates court.

They also prepare cases for criminal trials and they may instruct a barrister for more serious cases.

Solicitors also carry out lots of legal work within communities.

So often, their office space within the community where people will go to them for legal advice.

So they work directly for citizens on matters such as land and building issues, making a will, and buying and selling a property.

So for example, when I bought a property, I went to a solicitor and they drew up all of that legal paperwork to ensure that everything was as it should be.

So solicitors absolutely support the work of the courts, but they carry out a lot of their work in the community as well, helping on a wide variety of legal issues and legal complex topics that people might need support with.

So let's have a check for understanding.

Which of the following is a role carried out by a legal executive? Is it A, passing sentence? Is it B, arresting citizens? Or is it C, preparing legal cases? And it's C, they prepare legal cases.

And legal representation is a key element of legal rights.

People have the right to have legal representation.

So therefore, a citizen's income, so how much money they have, should not be a barrier to legal representation, nor should factors like the date and time of arrest.

So for example, if someone was to get arrested on Christmas Day, they should have exactly the same access to legal representation that someone got arrested on just a random Saturday, for example.

So for that reason, duty solicitors are available free of charge at police stations and magistrate courts 24 hours a day and seven days a week.

And that means that they can represent citizens that have been suspected of committing a crime, and they can be there during police questioning and early hearings.

So some people might want to use their own solicitor, and that's absolutely fine.

But if somebody hasn't got their own solicitor, if somebody can't afford to get their own solicitor, then a duty solicitor can be provided for them.

So that's a really important aspect of rights.

And barristers specialise in courtroom advocacy and represent clients in criminal courts, normally within Crown Courts or higher.

They defend citizens that have been accused of crimes, ensuring they have their legal right to representation, and they can also prosecute on behalf of the state to ensure the rights of the victim are also met.

So we have defence barristers and we have prosecution barristers.

And when you're thinking about a courtroom, often when you might watch this on the television, and you see the people that often wear the white wigs and the robes, they would be your barristers normally in that case.

And barristers are appointed by a solicitor to work for their clients, but the barrister is completely independent from the solicitor and they will make their own decisions relating to their client's case.

So having a barrister in a courtroom is an absolutely crucial part of how legal representatives support our rights because they provide that legal representation.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Explain one similarity and one difference between the role of a solicitor and the role of a barrister.

So solicitors and barristers are similar as they are both legal professionals who represent citizens and ensure they understand the legal process.

Solicitors and barristers are different because solicitors may carry out lots of work in the community, supporting citizens with legal advice about concerns such as property law.

In contrast, barristers work in Crown Courts or higher courts, representing the defence or the state.

Legal representatives support our rights by using their legal specialism and qualifications to provide access to justice, providing legal advice and helping people understand legal processes, fair trials, ensuring cases are properly prepared, so that the trial is fair and it's based on sound evidence.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Identify two legal rights that legal representatives support.

So they support access to justice and they also support the right to fair trial.

For Task B, I'd like you to outline how legal representatives support citizens' legal rights.

I'd like you to include information about legal executives, solicitors, duty solicitors, and barristers.

Pause while you have a go at this task.

When outlining how legal representatives support citizens' legal rights, you may have included, legal representatives help protect people's rights by making sure they get fair treatment in the justice system.

Solicitors give legal advice, prepare cases, and can represent clients in magistrates' courts.

Duty solicitors are available for free at police stations and courts to give emergency legal help and ensure that rights are understood.

Barristers defend clients or prosecute cases, making sure trials are fair and that the right legal rules are followed.

Legal executives are similar to solicitors but focus on specific areas of law.

They help with case preparation and make legal help more accessible.

So in summary of the lesson, which legal professional support our rights in criminal courts? Judges protect legal rights by applying the law correctly, making sure evidence is presented fairly, advising the jury, deciding on fair and appropriate sentencing.

Judges can also make common law when no legislation exists, further strengthening legal rights.

Legal executives focus on specific areas of law, assisting in case preparation and ensuring legal services are accessible.

Solicitors provide legal advice, prepare cases, and can also represent clients.

Barristers specialise in courtroom advocacy, defending clients in Crown Court trials or prosecuting cases.

These legal professionals represent our legal rights, ensuring justice.

Brings us to the end of this lesson.

Well done for working hard, and I hope that you'll come back some more citizenship lessons in the future.