skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 148997 Find in a Library
Title: Pre-Trial Reviews in the Magistrates' Courts Parts I and II
Journal: Justice of the Peace and Local Government Law  Volume:158  Issue:15, 16  Dated:(April 16, 1994); (April 9, 1994)  Pages:,250-251
Author(s): I D Brownlee; A Mulcahy; C Walker
Date Published: 1994
Page Count: 6
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United Kingdom
Annotation: The Great Britain Home Office sponsored a study in Leeds and Bradford, in which data were collected on 357 cases in which pretrial reviews (PTRs) had been held and 275 cases of a similar estimated trial duration in which they had not.
Abstract: The statistical data were divided into two broad headings: profile data and outcome data. The findings showed that both Leeds and Bradford courts gained from their use of a PTR system in reducing the numbers of cases originally destined for contested trials. Approximately 63 percent of all cases in which there had been a PTR eventually settled without a contested trial, compared to 45 percent of non-PTR cases. The nonsettled PTR cases took slightly longer to reach a final disposition, even though, in terms of their profile data, they were no more complex or serious than non-PTR cases. The authors concluded that the efficiency gains which can be claimed for the PTR are limited in scope, and, in fact, PTRs add something to the cost of operating the courts. When PTR is adopted, court officials should use advance disclosure whenever possible, gauge the suitability of a case for PTR using a matrix of indicators, leave control of the proceedings in the hands of an experienced court clerk rather than a lay magistrate, and use the lawyers at the PTR who will control the case if it comes to trial. 6 notes
Main Term(s): Courts
Index Term(s): Foreign courts; Great Britain/United Kingdom; Magistrates; Pretrial hearings
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=148997

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.