Lay participation in the English Legal System is a waste of time. Only qualified lawyers should be arbiters of both fact and law.

Critically discuss this statement in light of the pros and cons of laypersons in England & Wales

This question is extremely broad and allows you to have a discussion as to the advantages and disadvantages of using both magistrates and juries in the criminal justice system (thus the broad term “laypersons”). By warned however that you are not expected to just consider the advantages and disadvantages; you are also expected to provide an answer (or argument) for whether you agree or disagree that lay participation is a “waste of time”.

It is a matter of personal preference whether the student considers the advantages and disadvantages of each role separately or at the same time; however, it is important to avoid repetition as you write your answers. Further to this, when considering the apparent advantages and disadvantages of both roles, ensure that you consider the alternative argument to it, e.g. if you were to argue that magistrates hold no legal knowledge, you can challenge this by stating that they have a legal clerk to assist them – thus legal knowledge is not key. 

The following may be used as an advantage/ disadvantage of laypersons:

Advantages of using lay people include:

• Cost
• Trial by peers
• Simplicity of procedure
• Public confidence
• Impartiality

Disadvantages of using lay people include:

• Bias
• Media influence
• Lack of training
• Perverse verdicts/sentencing
• Limited representative nature

The distinction between the legal professionals of the English legal system is clouded and lacks any real divergence in their respective roles.

Critically consider this statement.

This question seeks to have the student discuss the differences between solicitors and barristers and comment on whether the distinction between the two professions is an easy one to make.

Students may comments upon:

1. The respective roles of both professions: The client retains the solicitor who then instructs the barrister. The solicitor will begin the process by taking the relevant information from the client, finding evidence useful to the client’s case, taking witness statements etc.
2. The barrister on the other hand will be responsible for conducting any trial advocacy and acts as a specialist consultant on the law, its interpretation and application. In this respect, the roles appear quite distinct.
3. However, students must note that with the introduction of direct access for barristers, and the introduction of higher rights of audience for solicitors and the increase in paralegal and legal executive roles, the distinction may not be as clear.

The real issue in this question is for students to get to grips with whether it matters that the distinction is not as clear! Does it really make a difference? With this in mind, students should be able to tackle this question with ease.