I have been planning for some time to go up to London and spend a couple of days Courtwatching in the Magistrates Courts there as part of the Courtwatch project organised by the charity Transform Justice but I have not been able to find the time to fit in a visit.

Instead I decided to add some more Courts to the list of Magistrates Courts that I have visited and observed. That list now includes Weymouth, Poole, Lincoln, Willesden, Westminster, York, City of London, Cambridge, Peterborough, Huntingdon, Milton Keynes, Maidstone, Stevenage, Taunton, Thames and Stratford. At some of those I was not only observing, but acting as a McKenzie friend.

Last week I borrowed the car and headed off to Yeovil to observe hearings in the Magistrates Court. This is situated in the Law Courts building on Petter Way in Yeovil. After negotiating a diversion in Yeovil and driving around to the back of the High Street and circling back round again, I arrived at the Court building and was able to park in a large car park opposite. Paying for 3 hours of parking (initially), I made my way over to the Courts.

The Court building looks rather grand from the front but the entrance, at least for the public, is situated at the rear of the building and there is a narrow(-ish) path which takes you around the edge of the private car park to a side door. Once inside this door you are in a small entranceway with the noticeboard with the list of hearings on your right and some steep stairs up to the 1st floor on your left. I have no idea how you would access the upper floor if your mobility was impaired - but there is obviously some disabled access as I later saw a claimant in a County Court hearing in a wheelchair.

It turns out that Yeovil is a combined court centre with Magistrates, Family and County courts all in the same building.

The building was clearly not designed for today's security needs as there is little space at the top of the stairs before you step through the usual archway scanner, leaving your belongings on the desk to your right. A quick scan with the wand, turn around for another scan, show the belt buckle and collect your belongings, and you are inside the court building and at the main Ushers reception desk.

There were two or three court Ushers waiting by the desk and I was asked what I was there for. I replied saying that I was a member of the public who had come to observe some court hearings. When asked which court, I replied - the Magistrates Court. And was asked to sit in the main waiting area and I would be called when the hearings began.

A young looking Court Usher chatted with me and told me that he was a law student. I smiled and replied that I, too, was a law student, studying with the Open University. Having been sitting in the car for about one hour, I decided to stand to wait but was asked to sit down until the first case was called, so I sat in the main waiting area, along with around 20 other people. The cases in the Magistrates Court that day were being heard by a District Judge sitting as a Magistrate - District Judge (MC) Brereton.

As I walked in to the Courtroom with my notebook in hand I was told by the Usher that I was not allowed to take notes. I queried this and was told that this was the Judge's decision. So I asked the Usher to refer my request to take notes to the Judge. He seemed a little reluctant to do this, but went up to the Legal Advisor and whispered to him. The Legal Advisor spoke to the Judge who nodded - I could not hear what she said. The Legal Advisor nodded to the Usher and the Usher nodded a "Yes" at me.

And so I sat down towards the rear of the court and started to take notes of the hearings before me.

What I noticed in this Court and have noticed in other Courts too, was that very few people had their own representation. Most were unrepresented but were entitled to legal advice from the Duty Solicitor. But the Duty Solicitor (often referred to as "Duty") could not be in Court representing his clients and out in the waiting area and consultation rooms getting instructions from all the other clients waiting to see him. So this Court, in common with many others, were managing the hearing list around the work of the Duty.

I made copious notes as the Judge heard the first three cases. [But I will not describe those cases here].

Having dealt with an initial 3 cases, the Judge then turned at 10:36 to deal with the non-attenders. "So, who is not here and we can start issuing some warrants?"

At this stage I decided to take a break and speak with the Usher about the "no notes" instruction he had given me. I asked the Usher whether he had seen to HMCTS guidance - How you can attend or access Courts or Tribunals - a guide for members of the public - published February 2024. He said, No - he had not, and in any case they would always refer to the Judge, which is why he told me not to take notes. I pointed out that the Guide published by HMCTS explicitly states that permission is NOT needed to take notes.

I wonder how many people have been deterred from observing hearings and / or taking notes by this attitude? It was not a case of - oh, you want to take notes - let me just check with the Judge first. It was - you are not allowed to take notes - and start to walk away. I had to know that this was not correct that a Judges permission was not needed. It was left to me, a member of the public, insist that the Usher check his understanding with the Judge and, if permission was needed, that the request was placed before the Judge. I wonder what District Judge (MC) Brereton thinks about HMCTS staff acting in this way and impeding Open Justice?

I needed a break from observing the sort of cases that come before a Magistrates Court. Quite a few of the cases that I hear sadden me. And sometimes the mitigation placed before the Court is heartrending. I spent around 50 minutes in the waiting area writing up some notes and submitting a complaint through the HMCTS complaints system about the wrong information provided by the Usher.

After a couple of minutes packing my rucksack and slinging it on my shoulder I headed down the stairs towards the exit for some fresh air. As I approached the bottom of the stairs I glanced at the Magistrates Court list again. Whilst I had been in court someone had taken a black felt marker and obliterated the details of the three cases that were subject to "Press / reporting restrictions".

Returning to the Courthouse, at 11:30 I decided to do some observation in the County Court which was sitting in Court room 3 before Deputy District Judge Payne. The cases listed for hearing were a Third Party Debt Order (listed for 10:40 with time of 15 minutes), and then two entries for the next case. This had been listed online as simply case L2QZBQ57 - On the papers (listed for 11:00 with time of 30 minutes) and then the same case number L2QZBQ57 - Application (Civil) - In person (listed for 11:30 with time of 1 hour 30 minutes). I had taken the opportunity of going back down the stairs to look at the noticeboard to find the listing for these cases. Unlike the online list which did not have any other case details, the list posted on the noticeboard gave me the parties names - Redfearn v King - for the last two cases.

What I gathered from listening to this case was that Mr King was the director of a company who had constructed for Mr and Mrs Redfearn a swimming pool. Mr Redfearn was present sitting to the right of his wife in a wheelchair. It transpired that Mrs Redfearn has a Lasting Power of Attorney for her husband, and had issued a claim against Mr King personally for a problem with the swimming pool. At some stage during the contract it would appear that there was a change in legislation such that the completed pool did not get approval from the building inspector. There appeared to be other problems that Mrs Redfearn was concerned about.

Mr King had made an application to the Court for the claim to be struck out as it had been brought against the wrong party. Mrs Redfearn had issued against Mr King personally and not against the limited company, Aqua King Construction Limited. Mr King had also objected because he believed that the contract was made between the limited company and Mr Redfearn. Mrs Redfearn was not a party to the contract.

Mrs Redfearn had not responded to the Application to strike-out. This was because she said that she did not know what it meant.

Deputy District Judge Payne heard from both the parties, Mr King and Mrs Redfearn, and then gave his decision. Turning to Mrs Redfearn he explained that it was clear that she had issued the claim against the wrong party. The quotation and the other documents were clearly on headed notepaper with the name of the company on them and the Judge found that the contract was with the limited company. He advised Mrs Redfearn that she needed some legal advice. A claim could be issued against Aqua King Construction Limited. But the Judge had more to say to Mrs Redfearn.

When she told the Judge that she had an LPA (lasting power of attorney) for her husband which she had shared with the Court, the Judge advised Mrs Redfearn that "you do not become the claimant just because you have a power of attorney". "You cannot succeed against the individual but you may success against the limited company".

The Judge went on to advise Mrs Redfearn that there were a number of problems with her claim. He noted the amount of the claim - some £27,000. It does not stop you putting them right. The particulars of claim need to be set out clearly. He suggested that she consult a solicitor - not necessarily to instruct them - but at least to get a steer on the claim. They could help draft the particulars of claim. "You say that you do not need expert evidence - I think you might. You need a chartered surveyor."

The Judge went on to explain to Mrs Redfearn that the onus was on her to prove that he (Mr King - presumably Mr King's firm) has done it wrong. "Go back to go - start again. The LPA does not make you the contracting party. Have a word with a solicitor - get it right."

The Judge giving his ruling told the parties - this is the end of this case. The only issue is the application fee. Mrs Redfearn - you are going to have to pay £303.

"The claim is dismissed as brought against the incorrect party and claimant do pay defence costs of £303."

Mr King then spoke saying, I have ad-hoc legal fees as well, but I am happy to waive those. The Judge acknowledged this and thanked him.

The Judge then spent quite a long time talking to the parties about ADR - alternative dispute resolution and whether they would be happy to mediate the issue. Both parties indicated that they were open to that. The Judge explained (probably for the benefit of Mrs Redfearn) how mediation worked, who paid for it, and what it could and could not achieve. He reminded Mrs Redfearn that if it came back to court then the Judge would decide on the evidence. Cases go on the evidence.

The Judge wished both parties the best of luck. It may pay you to take a little pause. Get your case more considered. Thank you both very much.

Costs of £303 is payable within 14 days. Do not pay to the Court. This is the fee Mr King paid, so pay to him.

And at 12:04 I found myself back out in the waiting area. Mr King stopped to speak with me as he left and told me that "there was a legislation change part-way through". I thanked him for that clarification and wondered to myself just what legal principles would apply. Thoughts of the Building Act and applications to Building Control for permission, and then getting the work signed off. What happens when legislation changes? Something I would need to look up later.

I spent the afternoon back in Court 1 listening to District Judge (MC) Brereton get through a large number of cases, usually with the Duty representing the defendant although a couple of other solicitors were acting for their clients. At 5pm I decided to head off but I think the Judge still had a couple more cases on her list and looked as though she was determined to complete the list before rising.

The Magistrates Court Usher was in the waiting area and I enquired about the redactions on the hearing list. I was able to show the Usher the Courtserve entry which showed the full details of the cases - defendant's name, the offence alleged and the stage of the case and time of the hearing. Why, I asked, had the entries been obliterated? The Usher rather sheepishly admitted that he had done that - out of an abundance of caution. I suggested that it might be a very good idea if the Ushers were trained to some extent about Open Justice, so that they understood about Press and Reporting restrictions and why they were there and what exactly it was that was restricted. I pointed out to him that, if these were Youth or any other cases that should not have been published, then it would be the listing team that would be responsible for deciding whether to include them on the hearing list. Just because a case had reporting restrictions did not mean that it should not be included on the public lists - in fact, quite the opposite - such cases ought properly to be included. But Court staff should be able to advise the public, at the very least, where to find details of what the reporting restrictions meant (for a member of the public).

As I headed back to the car park I noticed a Serco transport van waiting outside on double yellow lines. In all of the Judges cases that I had heard Judge Brereton had usually handed out a financial penalty but in the odd case where she had given someone a custodial sentence, this had been suspended. So it looked as though the Serco van was not going to get any customers that day.

Another week - another Magistrates Court visit

This week I ventured out by train to Exeter arriving at Exeter St Davids at 9:30 am after an early start, and caught a bus up to the High Street. My notebook records that I arrived at the Law Courts at 9:52 am.

And, as they say - that is when the fun began!

Searching of my rucksack was very thorough before I entered the ground floor area of the Courthouse. Exeter is another combined court with Magistrates, Crown Court and County Court hearings all in the same building.

The Court that I had come to observe was the Magistrates Court sitting in Court 5. The night before I had downloaded from Courtserve the two hearing lists - the Libra list and the Common Platform (CP) list. There were 25 cases listed on the CP list and just 2 cases on the Libra list but these were listed for Court 69 and one of the security guards had confirmed that there was no Court 69, so I guess these were cases heard on the papers. Neither list showed the names of the Magistrates who were hearing the cases and there were no notices anywhere outside Court 5 giving their names.

At 10:03 the Court Usher walked in to Court 5 where I could see through the glass a number of professionals in dark suits were talking. But the Usher told me that I could not enter, even though the Court was open, because the Legal Adviser was not present, so she could not let me in. Court staff ought to know that whenever Courts are open the public are allowed in to observe. Only when a Court goes in to private session are the public required to leave. But staff will often use their position of power (abuse?) to deny access to the public. I decided not to make an issue of it, but just noted in my notebook and took a seat.

At 10:11 a woman in a dark suit entered the Court commenting at the doorway, as I asked if the Court was in session, that yes, the Court is already on. I debated whether to follow her in to the Court room but decided to continue waiting just outside the outer Court door, so that I could be seen waiting there by anyone who looked that way from inside the Court. I noted that at 10:18 a blond female left the Court, followed at 10:19 by a grey haired male. Then at 10:22 a brunette female entered the Court and at 10:24 left again with the Court Usher.

At 10:25 the Court Usher returned and I asked if she could tell me the names of the Magistrates. She said that she did not know, but it should be written on the notice board. When I advised her that the names were neither on the noticeboard nor published online as they ought to be she agreed to find out the names and to tell me. I also advised for the name of the Legal Advisor to the bench.

At 10:30 the Court Usher indicated that we could go in to the Court, but as I entered told me that I could not write down the name, address or date of birth of the defendant. "I beg your pardon?", I said, looking puzzled. She showed me to the "public gallery" which was a row of 5 seats fixed to the right hand wall facing at right angles to the bench. Up on the bench were 3 male magistrates. In front of them sat a female legal advisor (who I later found out was Ms Jessica Ellis) and facing Ms Ellis, all in dark suits were: - a man on the left of the front row with a woman on the far right, and in the row behind them another four women. The woman on the right at the front turned out to be the Crown Prosecution solicitor. The man was a defence solicitor. Another woman in the ow behind was a Probation Officer.

To my right as I sat facing across the Court room was the dock - where the defendant was asked to stand, locked in the dock behind a perspex screen. There was a microphone in the dock and speakers so that the defendant could hear the Court and the Court could hear the defendant. I balanced a notebook on my knee, crossed my legs to support it so that I could write, and started making notes.

The Court dealt with a number of cases which were not on either of my lists - they all appeared to be applications for Domestic Violence Prevention Orders (DVPO). Later on, during a break, I went to have a look at the noticeboard again and found that a new Libra list had been posted up, and when I checked on Courtserve, a new Libra list was published on there as well. I downloaded a copy quickly. This gave me the names and case numbers of these DVPO applications which had been added since the list was published the night before.

After these DVPO applications the Court started to work through the CP list of cases - not in the order printed but according to whether the defendant was represented or needed to speak first with the Duty solicitor. The Legal Advisor spoke very softly so it was difficult to hear what was happening next. Fortunately, since I had the hearing list on my computer and had by now opened it up to look at the list (as I could not hear the case being called by either the Usher or the Legal Advisor), I could quickly scan the list to look for a match when the defendant confirmed their name.I am afraid that I ignored the Usher's instruction not to write down the name of the defendant, although I did comply with the instruction to not record the date of birth or address of the defendant.

As the Magistrates worked their way through the list I made as good a record as I could of what was said by the various people in the Court and what the case outcome was.

After completing a case around 12:16 the Legal Advisor asked the bench if "we could have 5 minutes?". We all stood and the bench retired. I took the opportunity to approach the Usher who was seated at her desk at the side of the Court room near to the door. I asked for the Usher's name, but she refused to give it to me. She did however hand me a post-it note with the names of the three Magistrates - Mr Moore JP, Mr Whittle JP and Mr Brown JP. She also provided the name of the Legal Advisor.

I asked the Usher if she would refer my question about recording name, address and date of birth to the Legal Advisor for a decision and pointed out that the Crime and DIsorder Act 1998 s52A specifically dealt with what information COULD be published, and this included name, address and date of birth. I could hardly publish this information (if I wished to) if I was not allowed to record it. The Usher said that all of the Ushers had been told to say the same thing to anyone with a notebook.

At 12:27 were were all asked to leave the Court room. No reason was given. And after we left the door was locked form the inside.

I went to look for the Court office. A sign above the stairs showed an arrow up on the 1st floor so I climbed the stairs and went in to what was clearly a public counter with 3 windows marked Family, County and Crime. All had blinds down and there was no bell to ring. I spotted a notice on the wall - by appointment only. Make an appointment from the phone in the entrance lobby.

So back down the stairs and enquire of the security staff. Yes, the phone is over there and they pointed to a telephone handset on a counter the other side of the security barrier. May I go and phone?

Button M3 on the handset was speed dial to the "Crime" office and a voice answered. I explained what had happened with the Usher instructing me that I could not make a record of name, address and date of birth of a defendant and quoted the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s52A . I asked if the Office could refer the question to the Legal Advisor in Court 5, Jessica Ellis. The person on the other end of the line agreed to send a Teams message to Ms Ellis from me.

Whilst I was speaking on the phone one of the security guards had come up towards me and was quite close to me. He had has hands tucked in the sides of his stab vest. I notice that he was not particularly tall but well built and had a beard but little hair on his head. He said to me, "Be nice". "I beg your pardon?" He repeated, "I heard what you were saying about the Usher. Be nice." "Do you think I am not being nice?", I asked. "I am just trying to exercise my rights to observe a public hearing. Is there anything wrong with that?"

He then asked me why I had to go to the first floor. Where did I go on the first floor. I explained that I had been looking for the Court Office and a sign pointed up to the first floor, so I followed the sign. "Well, you are not allowed up there. Why did you not ask us?" I felt quite intimidated by this person. (I have subsequently submitted a formal complaint about this).

It was a relief to get back in to Court room 5 and away from this passive, aggressive person. I could imagine how someone with that sort of attitude could escalate an issue very quickly.

At 12:45 the Court room was unlocked again and the Usher announced that they were resuming again. I went back in to Court and resumed my seat, crossed my legs and balanced my notebook. After a couple more cases we are again asked to stand as the bench retired at 13:06 for their lunch. The Usher told everyone to come back at 2pm. At this point I was able to catch the attention of the Legal Advisor and asked about the Usher's instructions regarding noting the defendant's name, address and date of birth. We discussed s52A and the Legal Advisor agreed that this section was applicable to cases that had been heard that morning. She mentioned the Open Justice principle and confirmed that, Yes, you can record those details.

I left the Court building at 13:13 to go in to Exeter to find somewhere for a quick lunch!

I returned at 14:05 to the Court house and another very thorough search of my bag, finally gaining entry some 6 minutes later at 14:11. I noticed that above the door of the Court opposite Court 5 where I had been observing all morning, there was a TV screen which was obviously showing the Crown Court hearings in that Court. There was a listing and against one of the listings was a note - Reporting Restrictions - see Court Manager.

Now I am interested in how the public find out what these "Reporting restrictions" are - as they apply to the public as well as to the Press. So, having been told to "ask us first", I went over to security and asked where I would find the Court Manager. The security officer with the beard said, "You won't". But the sign over there says, to see the Court Manager. You have to email the Court. I asked the security guard if he would give me his name or his SIA badge number. He said he did not have to give either, and, if we go down that route you will be escorted from the building, and he called his "manager" over. I asked his manager the same question regarding the Court Manager that the sign said to ask. I got the same reply - there isn't one. When I asked whether I could have his name or his SIA badge number this too was refused.

I decided to seek sanctuary in Court 5 again.

I spent the afternoon in Court 5 listening to cases and recording details as best I could in my notebook. And left the Court House at 16:10 to make my way back to St David's station for my train home.

So, from an Open Justice perspective, what I have encountered so far in my Courtwatching?

At Lincoln Magistrates Court a delightful Usher welcome me as an observer to the Court and even said, there is a free seat inside the Court on the right. If there is anything you want to know, please just ask.

At Lincoln County Court in a building annexed by a walkway to the Magistrates Court the two staff in reception were less than helpful. The initial response from them when I asked to observe a case was - no, they are private. Yes, there were some family cases being heard, but I could see from the listing that some ordinary County Court cases were being heard that day. What about this case here, I said?

Neither of the staff knew whether I could observe that hearing, so they asked me to take a seat and they would find out. Both disappeared behind a door - never to return. In the end, after waiting a considerable time, I just walked over and entered the Court room and watched an interesting small claims case.

At Taunton Magistrates Court, after security staff took 10 minutes to examine a notebook, pen and mobile phone, I was finally allowed up the stairs and went over to the noticeboard. No sooner had I opened my notebook than a Court Usher came over and said, "You cannot copy names down from that list". I turned to her in surprise. I thought this was public information. I was just checking to see if it was the same as the information published online. "Well, I don't think you are allowed to write it down. I am going to check with someone" and she returned to the desk and picked up a phone as one of the security guards appeared and walked over to me. I decided not to bother waiting for whatever advice she was going to receive. I had my notes and that was enough. What would have happened if I had actually asked to observe a hearing, I am not sure!

At Weymouth Magistrates Court I had a legal advisor bark at me - switch that mobile phone off! when I was using it to look at the hearing list for the Court. After a formal complaint about that episode, I am now addressed by my name by Court staff, Judges and Legal Advisors and usually offered whatever assistance I need. And have been spoken to several times in a friendly manner by the District Judge who usually sits in the County Court there.

At Hereford Justice Centre we had another episode of "you cannot copy from that list" but this time from a security guard who admitted she was new to the role. The Court Usher undertook to provide some training to the new staff when we discussed this issue.

And from the report above we have Yeovil Combined Court where an Usher told me that I needed a Judge's permission to make notes in Court followed by Exeter Combined Court where an Usher forbade the noting of Defendants name, address and date of birth (because she and all the other Ushers had been told [by someone] to tell everyone with a notebook that; the names of the Magistrates were not published (but were provided when requested) and at no Court did any member of HMCTS staff know about Reporting Restrictions and how to advise the public about them.

Quite a depressing summary of Open Justice not really being a priority for HMCTS - based on my limited experience.