Petty sessions were, until 1971, the lowest level of the criminal justice system in the country. They evolved out of the increased workload of magistrates at Quarter Sessions during the 18th century, which led to extra sessions being held in the magistrates’ local area to deal with minor offences and local administration by way of summary jurisdiction – meaning that cases could be determined by two or more magistrates without a jury.

The sessions were held for a particular ‘hundred’ in England, Wales and Ireland – a hundred being the division of a shire for administrative and judicial purposes, akin to a district today. They dealt with petty crimes as common assaults, drunkenness and vagrancy – as well as issues such as licensing and bastardy. Presided over by two or more unpaid magistrates, or by a single stipendiary (paid) magistrate, they had their own clerk who would keep the records of the court, collect fees from those involved in cases, and deal with the administrative work of the court.

Up until the early 19th century, sessions were fairly informal, often held in local inns, and with a great variety in how clerks and magistrates recorded their business. However, the early to mid 19th century saw a raft of legislation passed to make these sessions more uniform and organised. Peel’s Larceny Acts in 1827 had the purpose of simplify the criminal law by consolidating earlier acts. There were two acts – one for England, one for Ireland – that gave magistrates at Petty Sessions the right to try some minor offences. The 1848 Summary Jurisdiction Act, often known as Jervis’s Act after the then Attorney General, Sir John Jervis, enabled magistrates to issue summons and warrants for indictable offences both if an offence had been committed within their area, or if the suspect in a crime had entered the area. The 1855 Criminal Justice Act then gave magistrates the power to deal with thefts under the value of ten shillings – previously, they had only been able to look at thefts under the value of twelvepence. Historian John Hostettler has described this act as having paved the way for a huge expansion of the public judicial work of justices during the 19th and 20th centuries .

Victorian press reports shed light on the variety of issues that were dealt with at Petty Sessions. In 1841, in Bristol, one session dealt simply with several cases of turnip and potato thefts. However, the same year, the Eton Petty Sessions dealt with a more serious case of assault – an accusation of cruelty against the master of the Eton Union workhouse towards one of its inmates. The master, Joseph Howe, was accused of having dragged pauper Eliza Wise out of the workhouse nursery, where she had been visiting her child, and locking her in a small, unheated cell. Howe argued, in his defence, that he was doing no more than my duty and that Eliza had tried to kick and bite him. But he was found guilty, fined £10, and told that if he did not pay the fine, he would be sent to Aylesbury House of Correction for three months. (London Standard, 4 January 1841)

This case shows how men of all backgrounds could find themselves appearing before the magistrates at petty sessions. At the Cambridge county petty sessions in 1846, a senior fellow of King’s College Cambridge, Reverend Lionel Buller, was charged with trespassing on various people’s lands in search of game, despite not being qualified to game. He was convicted, and fined five shillings for each of the three charges, plus costs, and 40 shillings plus costs for the fourth charge. These fines were levied despite the magistrates knowing that Buller was destitute of funds from his property being locked up by a Chancery suit in court, and that his inability to pay fines would result in his being sent to prison. However, the magistrates’ hands in such cases were tied. The fines for gaming offences were clearly set out in law, and in addition, landowners often pressurised the magistrates – men from their own backgrounds – to apply the law strictly. (The Preston Guardian, 10 Oct 1846)

Petty Sessions continued until 1974, when they were replaced by magistrates’ courts – three years after the 1971 Courts Act abolished Assizes and Quarter Sessions, replacing these with crown courts. However, magistrate courts still continue to deal with the least serious offences, that can be heard without a jury, and magistrates can still only issue certain punishments, just like their predecessor, the Petty Sessions.