This essay will discuss the arguments for and
against the positional statement “the aims of the courts in England and Wales
are always achieved”.  The courts system in
the UK is not unified and England and Wales have one system. The
courts system across the entire UK deals with both criminal and civil cases.
(Contact Law, 2016). The magistrates’ courts are where the vast majority of
the criminal cases are heard. These courts also deal with a wide range of civil
cases such as people who haven’t paid their council bills. There is also Crown
Courts in the UK court system. The Crown Court cases are heard by a judge and a
12-person jury. The Crown Courts deal with serious crimes, for example robbery,
rape and murder. (Contact Law, 2016). All of the courts in the UK court system
have specific aims that they need to follow. This essay will discuss whether
the court system does in fact achieve their aims or whether the court system
does not.

The purpose of the Criminal Justice
System (CJS) is to deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the
guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent and to
deliver an efficient, effective, accountable and fair justice process for the
public. (Garside, 2008). There are certain aims that run across the
whole criminal justice system, which should be followed by all agencies, whether
it be the courts, police, probation or CRCs. The aims they have set in place
include; the aims for public
protection, punishment, justice and to deliver fair treatment in every case. (Compass,
2013). The Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) works in partnership with the courts and other
agencies throughout the Criminal Justice System. (cps.gov, 2017). The CPS also have
their own aims including prosecuting without being bias, and to deliver justice
in every case. The CPS aim to explain their decisions properly and to be honest
if they have made a mistake, like a miscarriage of justice. They also aim to
work as one team, always seeking new and better ways to deliver the best
possible service for the public. (cps.gov, 2017). Each department in the Criminal Justice
System prioritises aims differently depending on their individual involvement
in the system, for example, the police, the courts, probation and CRCs, all
have different roles in the system and therefore achieve the aims differently.
However, the court system prioritises specific aims depending on the particular
case that they are dealing with at the time, whether it be a criminal case or a
civil case.

This positional statement can be
true to a certain extent when the aim to deliver fair treatment is achieved by
the courts by them performing a fair trial, by making sure that the defendant
receives proper treatment while being prosecuted. This is by prosecuting those
who have committed the crime and acquitting those who are innocent. Delivering
fair treatment can be achieved by the courts when following the rule, burden of
proof, upon prosecution. This is whereby prosecution must prove its case
against the defendant and not for the defendant to prove their innocence. (Hucklesbury, 2013). This shows
that the defendants get a fair treatment by the court system. This is due to
the courts following “innocent until proven guilty”. In addition to this,
another example of whereby the courts deliver fair treatment is by following
the rule standard of proof. In a criminal trial, the standard of proof is
successfully met when the prosecution presents facts that convince the jury
“beyond a reasonable doubt”. (Horiwitz, L.A, 1997). This aim gives the
defendant fair treatment and is shown by the courts in all cases, to do this
the criminal justice system provides the means by which people who break the
law are apprehended and ensures that those people who are accused of a crime
are processed in a fair, just and equitable manner. (Robinson and Cussen 2017).

Punishment is one of the main aims
in the criminal justice system. This is sentencing in accordance with specific
principles. If you are found guilty of a crime, your
sentence will depend on a number of factors, including the type, seriousness
and circumstances of the crime. To achieve this aim there are many
theories the court system need to take into consideration before punishing a
defendant. For example, the theory of reformation. This is to reform the
criminal so that he will not commit a crime again. Another theory is deterrence,
that the criminal himself and other potential criminals will be discouraged
from committing a crime through fear of punishment. An example of this is where
the UK alongside other countries,
have moved the problem of
sexual offending up the political agenda. On the criminal justice side
sentences have been increased and supervision periods extended. (Thomas, T.,
2004). The increase in sentences would be seen as a deterrent for sex offenders.
This is the court system trying to prevent crime by using the theory of
deterrence, achieving the aim of punishment. Another theory the courts are
mindful of is incapacitation, that the criminal is prevented from
committing crimes again, typically by imprisonment. The final theory is retribution,
where by the criminal should be punished in proportion to their blameworthiness.
(Herring, 2017). These theories are used differently by each court in the UK
court system when deciding a punishment in a case, due to different
circumstances that may occur. This is because these theories have their own way
of preventing crime as they can be more effective on certain criminals than
others. By the judge or magistrate considering these theories before
sentencing, the court system achieves the aim of punishment. The dominant
theory at present appears to be ‘just deserts’, also known as retribution.
(Herring, 2017).

Even though the court system may
achieve many of their aims, this positional statement is not always true, and
the court system does not achieve all of the aims set in place. For example,
the aim to protect the public when sentencing a criminal. The Sentencing Council for England and Wales promotes greater
consistency in sentencing, whilst maintaining
the independence of the judiciary. (Sentencing Council, 2017). The courts
system in England and Wales aim to keep the public safe when criminals are
sentenced to imprisonment as it is seen as keeping the criminals off the
streets so that they have no opportunity to commit more crimes harming the
public. However, with sentences for certain crimes being so short in many
circumstances, the criminals that are then released from prison have the
opportunity to reoffend again. The proven reoffending rate for adult
offenders released from custody or court orders was 38.2%, an increase of 0.1
percentage points compared to the same period in 2015. (Gov, 2016). Adults who
served custodial sentences of less than 12 months had a proven reoffending rate
of 64.5%. (Gov, 2016). This explains how this aim to keep the public protected is
not always achieved by the court system as these statistics prove that a large number
of offenders that are released reoffend, potentially putting the public back in
danger. Another example where the aim
for public protection isn’t always achieved is where sentences for crimes such
as, a murder involving the use of a firearm or
a murder done for gain, like in the course of a
robbery or burglary including crimes where the seriousness of the offence is
particularly high, has a starting point of 30 years in prison. (cps.gov, 2017).  However even though a 30-year sentence may
seem long and justified, after they have served their time the offender is then
back onto the streets where they may continue to commit crimes, putting the
public in danger once again therefore this aim is not achieved, even when the
offender gets one of the longest sentences.

Courts play a very crucial role in ensuring justice is
attained within the criminal justice system. This includes justice for the
families affected by the crime and justice for the victim involved in the
crime.  Courts have a duty to deliver
justice when sentencing criminals, they need to take into account the
seriousness of the crime, when deciding a sentence and how this will affect the
public. In the most sickening and evil cases, criminals in the UK can be given
lifelong anonymity. It means once they have been released they cannot be
identified by law. (The Mirror, 2018). This is an example of how justice is not
always achieved by the court system. This is due to the fact that in certain cases
ex-convicts like Jon venables and Mary Bell, were released from prison and were
granted lifelong anonymity, giving them new identities for their own safety. By
this the court system is not achieving their aim of delivering justice because
the convict is able carry on living their life, after committing such horrific
crimes. They are then back with the public where by nobody knows who they
actually are. This is potentially putting other members of the public in
danger, for example Jon venables is on his forth new identity as he continues
to reoffend. (The Daily Star).

However, there are other ways in which the court system
does attain justice. The courts provide evidence-based analysis and proposing
practical solutions to law-makers, judges and relevant public servants, while
strengthening the law by looking across jurisdictions, across types of law and
across the legal profession. (Justice Org, 2018).

In conclusion, this essay has explained how this
positional statement on whether the aims of the court system in England and Wales
are achieved is partially true. This is due to the fact that the courts
prioritise their aims differently in each particular case, while still trying
to achieve them all. This essay shows that the court system does in fact
achieve some of the aims that they have set in place, for example having fair
treatment for the defendant and achieving the aim for punishment. Treating the
defendant correctly, giving them fair treatment is important as in the UK legal
system, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty and this is for the
prosecution to prove this. Due to this, it is crucial that the defendant is
given a fair trial by the courts in order to get the correct verdict, avoiding
any miscarriages of justice. This essay also explains how the court system
achieves the aim for punishment, when sentencing criminals, as they consider
all theories before doing so. In spite of this the court system doesn’t attain
all of their aims. This is shown in this essay in regard to keeping the public
safe and for delivering justice. The courts do not always achieve their aim to
protect the public, this is because the sentences of imprisonment are so short,
even for horrific crimes. This results in some offenders reoffending. This
essay also explains how the court system doesn’t always achieve justice, making
this positional statement only partially true.

Bibliography

• Assets.publishings.service.gov.uk. (2018). Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, October 2016 to December 2016. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/751109/proven_reoffending_bulletin_October_to_December_16.pdf [Accessed 27 Oct. 2018].
• Cps.gov.uk. (2017). Sentencing – Mandatory life sentences in Murder cases. [online] Available at: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/sentencing-mandatory-life-sentences-murder-cases [Accessed 26 Oct. 2018].
• Cps.gov.uk. (2017). the criminal justice system. [online] Available at: https://www.cps.gov.uk/criminal-justice-system [Accessed 26 Oct. 2018].
• Contactlaw.co.uk. (2016). Types of courts in the UK. [online] Available at: https://www.contactlaw.co.uk/types-of-courts-in-the-uk [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018].
• Davidson, T. (2018). The four criminals handed lifelong anonymity like James Bulger’s killers Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. [online] Mirror.co.uk. Available at: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/four-criminals-handed-lifelong-anonymity-11990821 [Accessed 27 Oct. 2018].
• Garside, R. (2008). The purpose of the criminal justice system. [online] crimeandjustcie.org.uk. Available at: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/purpose-criminal-justice-system [Accessed 26 Oct. 2018].
• Herring, J., 2017, criminal law. 10th ed. Palgrave, p.31
• Horiwitz, L.A., 1997. Reasonable doubt instructions: Common sense justice and standard of proof. Psychology, public policy, and law, 3(2-3), p285
• Hucklesbury, A, 2013, Criminal Justice, second edition, oxford, p.107
• Justice.or.uk. (2018). Our Mission. [online] Available at: https://justice.org.uk/about-us/ [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018].
•  Lawton, J. (2017). Bulger killer Jon Venables has FOURTH identity revealed after being locked up again. [online] dailystar.co.uk. Available at: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/662539/Jon-Venables-identity-revealed-after-child-porn-bust-James-Bulger [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018].
• Roninson, S. and Cussen, T. (2017). The Criminology & Criminology Justice Companion. Palgrave, p.6.
• Sentencingcoucil.org.uk. (2017). Sentencing. [online] Available at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/ [Accessed 27 Oct. 2018].
• Thomas, T., 2004. When public protection becomes punishment? The UK use of civil measures to contain the sex offender. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10(4), pp.337-351.