Lesson video

My name is Mr. Henson.

And today, we are looking at who enforces the law.

Now, before we start this lesson, can you please make sure that you have completed the pre-learning quiz which is attached to this lesson? And also, can you make sure that either you have your notes ready from last time or you have a pen and a paper to write with for this lesson.

Make sure as well that you're free away from distractions so that I have your full attention for the next hour.

Now, previously, if you haven't done the lesson with me, what we looked at last time is we looked at who creates law.

Today we're following on from that, but don't worry if you haven't completed the previous lesson, because I will go through what you need in detail today.

We're looking at who enforces the law today, and we're looking at the people involved and the processes involved.

But first to get us warmed up, what I want us to think about is the following scenario.

So you have a list there on the right hand side in green, and I want you to appreciate the following questions and the scenario that's given to you.

So, imagine that Bob has broken the law and is due to appear in court.

Now, if Bob has a choice, and we'll go on to why he doesn't have a choice.

But if Bob has a choice, who do you think he would want to judge his case? So who would be the judge in Bob's case if he had a choice and a reason why? And then similarly, who do you think Bob would least want to be his judge, and why? So consider, would Bob choose one of his teachers, would Bob choose one of his classmates, either of his parents, the police, or the young people who have been in trouble, the victim or the victims of Bob's crime, the group of people chosen at random who Bob doesn't know and doesn't know him? Or, if you can think of somebody else, you are free to choose so.

But this is the good thing about citizenship education.

If you can justify why you have chosen that, then your answer is correct.

It's all about the arguments; how you formulate your reasoning.

So what I'd like you to do, is again, consider Bob has broken the law and is due to appear in court.

Who would he choose to be his judge if he had a choice, and why? And who would he least like to choose as his judge, with a reason why? You can now pause the video.

You can rewind a little bit so you've got the list on screen.

But complete the task: one reason to say why he would want to choose the judge and one reason to say who he would not like to choose to be his judge and why.

Press play once you've finished the task and we shall continue.

So who did he choose? Now, I'm hoping here that you've considered the qualities of the people that are involved in being a judge for Bob.

Now, he might choose his teacher.

He might choose his classmates.

He might choose his parents.

But what I'm looking at is why you've chosen that.

So you might be looking down on, who's going to treat Bob the fairest? Who's going to listen to the evidence and give Bob a fair trial? Maybe, you've considered who's perhaps going to let Bob off.

Who's going to give Bob the benefit of the doubt? Or, on the flip side, you might be thinking, "Well, who's going to treat Bob and give him the trial that he deserves.

But also, who's going to treat Bob and perhaps treat him harshly?" So you've considered people on their characteristics there.

Now, it's important for us to decide here and important for us to learn that Bob doesn't get a choice, who is his judge.

Bob will be assigned to a court and Bob will then have people presented to him, who will look after his trial.

We are going to look at those people now.

So there are a lots of people who play a role in the criminal justice system.

And this isn't a comprehensible list; this isn't a full list, this is just a list of people who play important roles.

Now, partially due to its complexity and depth, there are a lots of people involved to make sure that the court process is smooth and efficient.

So today what we're going to look at, is we're going to look at nine roles.

We're going to look at judges, magistrates, juries, police officers, the CPS; also known as the Crown Prosecution Service, solicitors, barristers, and probation officers.

Now, don't worry if you don't know who some of those people are, because we are about to cover them in detail.

So now we've got the roles people, how do they enforce the law? Well, would it take three to start with? We're going to look at judges, magistrates and a jury.

First of all, if we focused on judges, judges work in both criminal and civil courts.

So you might be aware that there is criminal law and that there is civil law.

And we are going to come on to look at that in a few weeks time.

If you were with us last time, we looked at three branches that were involved in making law.

We looked at the legislature, we looked at the judiciary and we looked at the executive.

Now, judges form the judicial branch.

Now, although they don't make law as such, they do interpret the law in ways of which they decide.

So they will look at the law, and because they sit by themselves in court, they interpret the law how they wish.

And then they apply that law, to how they've interpreted it.

Now, judges in a Crown Court might see the law differently.

So another judge in another Crown Court might interpret the law in a slightly different way, and they are free to do that.

However, if judges and senior courts; so those in the court of appeal or those in the supreme court, interpret a piece of law, a piece of legislation in a way and they apply that law to a case, every judge below him or her; so if a supreme Court judge sets a precedent; so interprets the law in a way that they see fit, those in the court of appeal and those in the Crown Court must follow up that decision.

So the higher that you get in the judicial system, the more power that you have.

Now a judge is there to listen to the case, and then they direct the jury who we'll come onto in a second.

It's not the judge's decision to decide on whether or not a person is guilty or innocent.

However, if we move on to magistrates, there are two different types of magistrates.

You can get a full time magistrates and part time magistrates.

We'll first deal with the full time magistrates, they are called district judges and they sit by themselves in a magistrates' court.

Now, like judges, they've undergone legal training.

They are usually barristers or solicitors with at least seven years worth of experience and then they've worked their way up into the court system to be a judge or a district judge.

Now, because they sit alone, magistrates decide that the defendant is either guilty or innocent, and then they decide the sentence.

Now, that gives district judges quite a lot of power.

However, if they decide that the defendant is guilty and they wish to apply a custodial sentence; so they wish to send the defendant to prison, they can only give a maximum of six months due to the restrictions in magistrates' court.

If we look at part time magistrates then, they have the same power.

They can still sentence people to six months in prison as a maximum, but part-time magistrates come from all walks of life and they are not paid.

They are volunteers from the community who offer their services for a set number of days per year.

Because they don't have any legal training or legal experience, they sit as a group of three.

Now, that group of three allows either a majority or unanimous verdict.

So they can either have two agree and one disagree, or they can have all three agree on the same verdict.

Now, because they don't have any legal experience, they rely on the legal advisor who sits in the magistrate's court.

The legal advisor is there to make that the law is applied fairly and consistently, and make sure that the magistrates have any questions answered if they are perhaps struggling; interpreting a piece of law.

So, judges and district judges get paid.

Part time magistrates; lay-people, do not get paid.

If we have a look at the jury then; the jury sit in a criminal trial, and they sit in the Crown Court.

The jury's made up of 12 people; 12 adults, and their job is to decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty.

They listen to the evidence that is presented in court, and then they make their decision.

Now, usually the judge will direct them that all 12 of them need to be of the same opinion.

So you can see here, sometimes the law is time consuming because trying to get 12 people to agree on one decision takes a lot of time.

If after a few hours or a day or two, the jury are struggling to reach that unanimous verdict of 12 to zero, the judge might direct that he'll take a majority; 11 to one or 10 to two.

So you get 10 people voting one way and two people voting the other, or 11 and one.

Now, once they decided that they present their decision to the court.

And if they find them guilty, it's for the judge to then sentence.

If they find that person innocent, the defendant is free to go from court.

Now, the way that the jury is made up is random.

If you are on the electoral role; so if you are eligible to vote in an election, you can be called to complete a jury service.

Now, you're usually on jury service for about two weeks, and after that you are discharged.

You can however, be chosen again.

There are some people who have never done jury service.

There are some people who have done maybe three, four services in court.

It's at random.

Now, there are very few exceptions when you can differ; when you can say, "I can't do my jury service now." But if you fail to do your jury service, if you do not provide an excuse or a reason as to why you can't or didn't do your jury service, you can be held criminally responsible.

It is an offence to not answer our summons to court.

So those are the three people that are involved in the criminal courts.

If we move on, we've got the police, we've got the CPS and we've got solicitors.

Now, the police do not make the law.

They are there just to enforce the law; is a duty.

So, some of their main jobs is protect the public, to arrest any law breakers and to keep the peace.

And once they have those people, they can then bring them to court.

Now, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service; the CPS, they rely on each other to work.

Once the police have gathered all of the evidence and they've conducted all of the interviews, the Crown Prosecution Service will then advise the case.

And what they do is, they look at the evidence that's been gathered and they will either, A; advise on whether or not they believe a conviction would occur in the court system.

And if they believe that a conviction can happen, they will then look at what charges are brought to the defendant.

So the Crown Prosecution Service, I think they're quite an important, because they will decide what evidence is available to them and whether or not they believe that a case will be successful.

From the title, the Crown Prosecution Service, you can see that they work on behalf of The Queen.

They work on behalf of the government.

Now, sometimes, the police might have arrested somebody, they might have gained evidence into an alleged crime that's been committed, but the Crown Prosecution Service will argue that there's not enough evidence to present to the jury in a court or presented to the magistrates.

At that point, they advise the police not to press charges.

So sometimes, it might seem a little bit unfair that justice is not brought, but the balance of probability; if you take somebody to court in a criminal trial, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

And to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, some legal professionals will argue that that's 98% sure that this crime has been committed by the person that's accused of that crime.

So the Crown Prosecution Service will look at the evidence, and if they do not believe that they've got that 98% proof, they will not take that case to court.

Now, once we get to court, you're entitled to legal representation.

So first of all, you will see a solicitor.

Now, a solicitor will be present with you during an interview at the police station, and then they will prepare the case.

Now, solicitors have gone through legal exams, they've got their law degrees, and they are qualified to give legal advice.

However, they're not always entitled to represent you in court.

Something that's called right of audience, he needs specialist training and he needs specialist qualifications; advocacy training, to get your audience and get to speak in court.

Solicitors can speak in a magistrate's court and you can do extended training to get the rights of audience in a Crown Court, but not all solicitors do.

They are there to advise you on your legal rights; on what you can and cannot do, what you should and shouldn't say, and also, they'll advice on whether or not to plead guilty or innocent.

Now, because they can't speak in the higher courts, they rely on another role.

They rely on barristers.

Now barristers like solicitors, undergo a long legal training, but they are qualified to speak in every court.

So, the barristers can either work for the Crown Prosecution Service or they can be independent.

So you will have a barrister that brings the case for the prosecution, and you will have a separate barrister who brings the case for the defence.

Now, in a criminal trial, it's for the prosecution to prove that a crime has been committed.

It's not for the defence to prove a crime has not been committed.

And if the prosecution do not satisfy the criteria; that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that this crime has taken place, the defendant will walk free from court.

So arguably, the defence barrister has a slightly easier job because all they have to do, is plant an element of doubt in the jury's mind.

If we move on to the probation service then, community service is a type of offence.

Sorry, a type of sentence that can be given to you in both magistrates' and Crown Court.

And the community service, from the title, involves you doing work in the community.

So you might have committed a vandalism crime or criminal damage, and part of your community service might be to restore that back to how it was before the crime took place.

So it might be to clean graffiti, it may be to clean parks from rubbish, but if you're giving community service, you will work with the local probation office.

And the local probation office look after you and support the defendant back into the community and make sure that they received the treatment and the help that they need.

Prior to that sentence taking place, they'll write reports for the court about offenders and they will advise on what sentence should be given.

So, somebody might be dependent on alcohol or on drugs, and the probation service job there is to advise the courts to perhaps give them some rehabilitation programmes or some treatment orders to help along with our addictions.

They might check in with them; once, twice a week, whilst they're on their community service or doing unpaid work, and they will make sure that they are sticking to their sentence and making sure they are sticking to their treatment programmes.

Finally, we've got parliament.

Now, in our previous lesson we looked at how parliament passed laws, but here, when they enforce the laws, they look at laws that have been enacted; and they usually look at laws that are between three and five years old, and they make sure that they are still being applied effectively, and make sure that they are there for the purpose of which they were intended.

So they'll go back and they'll look at how a judge or judges are applying the law, and they'll perhaps tweak it; they'll alter it, they'll amend it, to make sure that it is for the purpose of which they intended.

Now as we said there, there are nine people there and equally, they all have a separate role to play.

But now we know who's involved, I want us to look at; who do you think, or what are the most important roles in the criminal justice system? Now, some of you might be familiar with a diamond nine.

A diamond nine is a way of ranking a set order.

Okay? So what I've got here is an example for you, is months of the year.

And what we do at the top, is we would put our favourite month and then down the bottom, I put my least favourite month.

So my favourite month is September, 'cause that's when my birthday is.

Down the bottom, I've put February, because it's dark, and it's cold, and it's miserable, and it's early mornings, and I'm not a fan.

But then in between, sort of July and August, those are my second and third favourite months.

In the middle of June, May and April, because it's warm and it's, the birds are singing.

And then down the bottom, January and March.

So you can see there that it's a good way of ranking my favourite months.

And what I want us to do, is to look at the roles that we've just looked at; so the judges, magistrates and so on, and I want you to rank order, who plays the most important role? So in your opinion, out of the nine that we've just looked at, who's the most important piece of that puzzle? And then similarly, who do you think down the bottom plays the least pivotal role? So, you can pause the screen here so you can get a list of the people that are involved and complete your diamond nine on, who do you think plays the most important role? All the way down to who plays the least important role.

Pause your video here and complete the diamond nine.

And once you've done that, I would like you to summarise your reasoning into a paragraph.

So, why have you chosen who you have at the top, and why have you chosen who you have up the bottom? And then a secondary question there if you want a little bit of a challenge is, the roles that you've put down the bottom; so those that you would rank at number nine, at number eight and number seven, are those roles something that we could get rid of altogether? So I would like you to argue that following point.

Pause here, and once you've done that, come back to the video and we will complete the remainder of this lesson.

Now, our final task today is some independent thinking.

And this task is designed to get you to think about being independent; being professional learners and doing things yourself.

So, we're going to think outside the box.

And what I want us to do is consider the question there; how could technology change the roles of those enforcing laws? Now, there is technology used in the criminal justice system.

There is technology used by the people in the criminal justice system.

So that top left image there, you can see that police officers wear body cams. Now, this plays two roles.

One: it's to capture footage during arrest, but mainly, it's for the police officers protection; for their own safety, to the document what goes on.

Now, you might think that that's a good idea.

You might think that that's a bad idea.

Because if no crime has been committed, should you be filmed? Which leads us on to CCTV cameras.

They are there for public safety; for our protection, but they are recording all of the time.

Should it be allowed for people to record you without your consent? What I want us to look at, is what benefits and what risks would or does technology provide? So I want us to think about how technology could be used in the criminal justice system.

So, how could barristers use technology more efficiently? How could solicitors use technology more efficiently? How could judges, how could the courts, how could magistrate and so? But not only benefits, what risks are involved? And that bottom image there might give you some ideas about, how safe would that technology be? If you're streaming a court case online, could somebody view it? Could somebody change it? Could somebody alter it? So what I'd like you to do, you can create a mind map, you can create two separate ones if you wish: one for benefits and one for risks, or you can complete it all in the same one, but make sure that you change colour for the benefit and for the risks.

I've given you some starting points here.

So, if we look at technology and the law, how safe would be, technology, using in the court systems? How would it improve the system? You might want to do some research into what's already in place.

How easy would it be to use in court? So, bearing in mind, you might get people who are younger in the court system, but you also might have people that are older in the court system.

So how easy would it be for those people to use? And then a final say, yes or no to using technology in the criminal justice system? You don't have to use those headings, but they are there as a guidance if you wish.

Again, what I'd like you to do is pause the video at this point and consider the question, what are the benefits and, or risks, of using technology to enforce the law? In summary, produce a mind map to explore the benefits and risks of using technology and research the roles of the people in the criminal justice system, and if they are already using technology.

And if they are, how could they improve it? Pause the video, and then we will come back to the lesson shortly.

So in summary, what have we learned today? Well, we've looked at the people who enforce the law.

We've looked at who those roles, what they do and what their role consists of.

And then we've considered a really high order thinking question there on, how would technology impact the court systems and the criminal justice system itself? Hopefully, you've arrived at a decision on whether or not you believe that technology is safe to use or whether it should be used.

Bop! Hopefully you found today's lesson insightful.

And if you've got any questions, you can also follow Oak on Twitter.

But until next time, I've been Mr. Henson.

I will see you again next week.