‘No TV programme is made about boring magistrates’ cases’: Revisiting the ‘ideology of triviality’ in magistrates’ justice

Abstract Magistrates’ courts in England and Wales deal with around 95% of cases from start to completion, with many cases heard by lay magistrates. Despite this reliance on both the lower courts and decision making by lay adjudicators, it has been repeatedly argued that magistrates’ justice receives little attention. McBarnet (1981) argues that this is due to an ‘ideology of triviality’ in which the work of the magistrates’ courts is constructed as ‘trivial’, when in fact the cases heard are serious in nature and consequence. This article draws upon the framing of the ‘ideology of triviality’ to present findings from a qualitative study which examined contemporary workings of magistrates’ justice through court observations and interviews with lay court users. The findings suggest that the fallacy of ‘triviality’ continues to pervade magistrates’ justice. This has consequences for both those with personal experience of the magistrates’ courts and wider society.