{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02440884820747521, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007627765064836003, 'mean_word_length': 5.046082949308755, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Managing the List in the Lower Criminal Courts: Judgecraft or Crafty Judges?

In a recent special journal issue, the concept of judgecraft was explored and applied by several writers as a framework for analysing the work of judges. One of these contributions (K. Mack and S. Roach Anleu, ‘“Getting Through the List”: Judgecraft and Legitimacy in the Lower Courts' (2007) 16(3) Social & Legal Studies 341) focused in particular on the judgecraft deployed by magistrates seeking to ‘get through the list’ in the lower criminal courts of Australia. It is argued here that their evaluation of magisterial behaviour was predominantly, and perhaps unduly, positive and that this may be attributable to their use of the judgecraft concept itself. The advantages and disadvantages of using the judgecraft concept are examined both theoretically and by reference to empirical observations of how Resident Magistrates ‘manage the list’ in the lower criminal courts of Northern Ireland. Much of this management can aptly be seen as demonstrating judgecraft, but some involves an element better captured through the more negative concept of craftiness. It will be argued in conclusion that the value of a craft-based framework of analysis would be enhanced by making explicit the potential for judges to act in crafty ways.