What are the differences in trial procedure between the magistrates' court and the Crown Court?

The main differences between trial procedure in the magistrates' court and the Crown Court are: The composition of the court: A magistrates' court is presided over by a bench of three lay magistrates, who are unpaid volunteers. The Crown Court is presided over by a judge, who is a qualified lawyer. The role of the jury: In the magistrates' court, there is no jury. The magistrates decide the facts of the case and deliver a verdict. In the Crown Court, there is a jury of 12 people who decide the facts of the case and deliver a verdict. The sentencing powers of the court: Magistrates' courts have limited sentencing powers. They can only impose a maximum sentence of 6 months imprisonment, or a fine of £5,000, or both. The Crown Court has unlimited sentencing powers. The right to appeal: Defendants in the magistrates' court have the right to appeal their conviction or sentence to the Crown Court. Defendants in the Crown Court have the right to appeal their conviction or sentence to the Court of Appeal. In addition to these differences, there are also a number of procedural differences between trials in the magistrates' court and the Crown Court. For example, in the magistrates' court, the prosecution and defense are usually represented by lawyers, but in the Crown Court, the prosecution is always represented by a lawyer, but the defense may be represented by a lawyer or by the defendant themselves. The decision of whether a case will be heard in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court is made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS will consider a number of factors when making this decision, including the seriousness of the offense, the defendant's previous convictions, and the availability of legal representation for the defendant. If you are charged with a criminal offense, it is important to speak to a lawyer to discuss your case and the options available to you.