What Is The Maximum Sentence In The Magistrates Court?
What Is The Maximum Sentence In The Magistrates Court?
Magistrates Courts
have sentencing powers that allow them to impose a range of sentences, including unlimited fines, bans, community orders and prior to November 2024 up to 6 months’ custody, depending on the offence. However, for those convicted after November 2024 for a single either-way offence, the sentence has increased to up to 12 months imprisonment.
In
addition to the punitive element of the sentence, the Magistrates can also impose
restrictive orders such as
Sexual Harm Prevention Orders, Restraining Orders,
Domestic Abuse Protection Orders and
Sexual Risk Orders.
Do All Cases Go To The Magistrates Court?
All cases begin in the Magistrates Court irrespective of the seriousness, your plea or likely sentence. However, not all cases will remain in the Magistrates Court. Whether or not your case will remain in the Magistrates Court will depend on the offence alleged, the circumstances of the alleged offending, and in some cases the choice of the defendant.
The defendant will have a choice where their case is heard if they are charged with an either-way offence, unless the Magistrates refuse jurisdiction over the case. Magistrates are likely to refuse to hear a case where it is too serious, involves complex legal arguments or disputed and complex forensic evidence which would be best placed before a Crown Court
judge.
What Is An Either-Way Offence?
There are three types of criminal offences; summary only offences which can be heard by the Magistrates Court only for example common assault
and controlling or coercive behaviour, either-way offences can be heard by both the Magistrates and the Crown Court and include indecent image offences, sexual communications with a child, and sexual assault. Indictable only offences which are those deemed far too serious such as rape
and sexual assault by penetration
are sent to the Crown Court following the defendant's first appearance in the Magistrates Court.
If the Magistrates Court deems your either way offence too serious for them to deal with your case will be sent to the Crown Court. If the Magistrates Court accept your case you would then be given the option to elect which could you would like your trial to be heard in. There are many benefits to a Crown Court trial before a jury and there are greater procedural safeguards in place, however the sentencing powers of the Crown Court are greater than the Magistrates.
Should I Elect The Crown Court For Trial?
There are many benefits to having your trial in the Crown Court, conviction rates are lower and there are much better procedural and evidential safeguards for the defendant. When you are charged with a serious sexual offence
or an offence involving domestic abuse
we strongly advise our clients to elect the Crown Court where they have the choice to do so.
In the Crown Court your case would be heard by one judge and a jury made up of 12 members of the public, both serve different functions; the role of the judge is to make sure the laws and procedures are followed correctly, they will oversee the conduct of the defence and prosecution and ensure that the rules of evidence are followed. The jury are the finders of fact. They listen to the evidence, receive guidance on the law from the judge and decide whether they find the defendant guilty or not guilty. If the defendant is found guilty, they will be sentenced by the judge.
There is no automatic right to appeal from the Crown Court, to appeal a Crown Court conviction or sentence
your legal team will be required to identify grounds to appeal and then make an application to the Court of Appeal.
In the Magistrates court your trial could be heard by three lay magistrates or two lay magistrates and a District Judge. The Magistrates would be assisted by a legal advisor who is a qualified lawyer, their role is to provide advice and assistance to the magistrates on any complex areas of law where required. There is no jury in the Magistrates Court.
A defendant does have an automatic right to appeal from the Magistrates Court, the appeal is made directly to the Crown Court.
What Will Happen During My First Hearing at the Magistrates Court?
When you attend the Magistrates Court for your first appearance you will be expected to enter your plea. Prior to your appearance the Crown Prosecution Service will provide you/your legal team with the Initial Details of the Prosecution Case (IDPC for short). This is a summary of the evidence the CPS intend to rely on to prosecute you for the alleged offence. The information is usually deemed sufficient enough for the defendant to have an idea on the strength of the prosecution case, and therefore able to consider and decide their plea.
Although the first hearing at the Magistrates Court is relatively quick, there are a lot of considerations to have before you enter that plea and therefore, obtaining legal advice and representation prior to your first appearance at the Magistrates Court is essential to give you the best chance at defending the allegations made against you.
How We Help You to Prepare For Your First Appearance in the Magistrates Court
The decisions you have to make at the early stages of your case are important, and can impact the outcome. Before deciding your plea, or which court to elect for trial, it is important you understand the consequences of the decisions and that you understand the evidence against you.
When we prepare our clients for their first appearance we will ensure they have received the Initial Disclosure of the Prosecution Case, that this is carefully considered and that thorough advice on the strength of the evidence and our client's options are given to them. We want you to feel confident and informed when making decisions and attending court hearings in respect of your case.
If the CPS do not provide sufficient evidence to allow you to make an informed choice, or that evidence is not provided in good time then we will take the necessary steps to protect you from any disadvantage this could bring.
Strong representation and looking after our client is priority, supporting you and guiding you throughout your case is what are our team will do. Working with some of the country's leading barristers and experts we have combined experience of 25 years when preparing cases for court.
Our initial consultation is free, during this we discuss your case with you and how we can help put you into strongest position possible.
We Can Help With
Have you been charged with indecent image possession? Do you want to know how many cases get dropped? Read our latest article to learn more.
Understanding the difference between “consent” and “reasonable belief” can be key if you are being investigated or prosecuted for a sexual offence, where these two issues can arise. These are not just technical legal terms; they are real-world concepts that can affect the outcome of serious sexual abuse cases. At Eventum Legal, our aim is to help people grasp these important ideas so that they know where they stand, whether they’re seeking justice, facing an accusation, or just wanting to be informed. Consent and the Law: What Does It Mean? When it comes to sexual activity, the law makes it very clear that “consent” isn’t just about saying yes or no. Consent means agreeing by choice, having the freedom and capacity to make that choice, and being able to change your mind at any time, even if the sexual activity has begun. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that a person consents if they agree by choice and have the freedom and capacity to do so. In practical terms, this means no one should be pressured, forced, or tricked into sex. If someone is too drunk, too scared, or otherwise unable to decide, they cannot legally give consent. This applies also to issues with mental capacity where someone may not have the understanding or ability to give informed consent. When establishing whether consent or reasonable belief applies, the courts examine everything that happened, how the people involved acted, what was said, their relationship, and whether any threats were made. It’s not about just hearing a yes or no, but about whether the agreement was truly given, freely and knowingly, at the time. Reasonable Belief: The Other Side of the Coin While “consent” focuses on the person on the receiving end of sexual activity, “reasonable belief” is about the perspective of the person accused of the crime. UK law says it’s not enough for someone to claim they thought the other person was consenting. The belief that consent existed must be reasonable; it must meet the standard of what a reasonable person would think in those circumstances. This comes down to two questions: did the accused genuinely believe the other person was consenting, and would a reasonable person, knowing what the accused knew and considering everything that happened, have reached the same conclusion? It’s not a defence to say, “I just thought it was okay,” if evidence, actions, or common sense didn’t back that belief up. Courts look at whether the accused checked for consent, paid attention to what was happening, and took steps to make sure everything was agreed upon. How the Law Applies These Concepts The distinction between consent and reasonable belief matters because everyone is responsible for ensuring that consent is present, not just assuming or hoping it is. The prosecution in a sexual offence case has to prove that there was no consent or that the accused did not have a reasonable belief that consent existed. To judge this, courts examine the context: Were both people sober and able to make decisions? Was there clear, positive agreement? Did one person ignore signs of hesitation or discomfort? In cases where someone is very intoxicated or unable to communicate, the law presumes that there is no consent, and it is challenging for anyone to claim a reasonable belief otherwise. However, where alcohol is in question the issue can become complex as we all have difference alcohol tolerances, what may be too drunk to one person, could be different to the other. Therefore, working to establish the intoxication and affect is crucial for lawyers in some cases. In cases where it can be proven that that someone was too drunk to speak or move, and the accused says they thought there was consent just because the person didn’t say “no,” the court is unlikely to accept that as reasonable. The law expects people to check in with their partner, look for positive signs, and stop if there’s any doubt. Clearing Up Common Myths Many misunderstandings exist about how consent and reasonable belief work in real life. One myth is that if someone doesn’t say “no,” they must have agreed. The absence of a “no” is not the same as a “yes.” Another myth is that if two people are in a relationship or have had sex before, consent is always assumed. Every sexual act requires consent, every time. Some people also believe that as long as they honestly thought there was consent, that’s enough. But the law sets a higher bar: the belief has to be reasonable, meaning it must be backed up by what happened and what a reasonable person would think. In our digital age, misunderstandings can easily happen through text or online communication. Courts are aware of this and look at all available evidence, including messages and social media, to determine what happened. Other avenues of evidence exploration can include CCTV footage and witnesses. Why These Legal Standards Matter The way UK law approaches consent and reasonable belief has changed over time. In the past, people could argue they had an “honest” belief in consent, even if it wasn’t reasonable. That changed with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which now requires honesty and reasonableness. This protects people from harm and ensures that the law takes the experiences and choices of everyone involved seriously. These rules are designed to keep people safe and ensure everyone’s rights are respected. The law encourages open communication, respect, and responsibility. It expects everyone to look for clear signs of agreement and to stop if there is any doubt or hesitation. What To Do If You’re Involved In A Sexual Offence Case Suppose you’re facing a situation involving consent or reasonable belief and you as the accused want to prove that either of these legal requirements existed, then you must seek legal advice and engage with specialist lawyers who can navigate the complexities of the key legal issues in sexual offence cases. These cases can be stressful and complex, and every detail matters: what was said, what was done, and what steps were taken to ensure everyone agreed. At Eventum Legal, we specialise in helping people understand their rights and responsibilities. We listen, explain your options in straightforward language, and support you throughout the process, always with respect and confidentiality. Whether you’re seeking justice, defending your reputation, or simply want to know your rights, we’re here to help. Frequently Asked Questions What is the difference between consent and reasonable belief? Consent is when a person freely agrees to a sexual act. Reasonable belief is whether the accused genuinely and reasonably believed that consent was given, based on all the facts. Can someone be convicted if they misunderstood consent? Yes, if their belief in consent wasn’t reasonable. The court looks at the whole situation, not just what the accused thought. How can I protect myself or prove consent? Open communication and ensuring everyone is comfortable and willing are the safest approaches. If you’re worried about misunderstandings, keep records of conversations. Where can I get help or advice? Contact Eventum Legal for confidential, expert support tailored to your needs.
Have you been accused of breaching your SHPO, maybe by accident or knowingly? Speak to our specialist team.
