Roll on Friday report ( as do the rest of the UK press if you wish to dig deeper)
David Lammy, the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, has announced that the government will scrap jury trials for thousands of cases.
Lammy said that “bold” reforms are needed to “turn the tide on the rising backlog” of almost 80,000 cases and “tackle the emergency in our courts”, following a review of the criminal justice system by Sir Brian Leveson, earlier this year.
In an announcement in parliament, Lammy stated that cases with a sentencing range of up to three years will be tried by a judge-only in new “swift courts”, instead of a jury.
The Justice Secretary also said that defendants will no longer be able to “game the system” and choose between a jury or magistrate for “either-way” offences (such as burglary, ABH or possession of drugs), as those matters will be heard either by a judge or a magistrate.
There will be judge-only trials for particularly technical and lengthy fraud and financial offences. However, jury trials will remain for the most serious offences, such as rape, murder, aggravated burglary, GBH and serious drug offences.
The changes, which will need primary legislation, are a major shake-up of the system. Although they do not go as far as original plans set out in a memo, which were leaked last week.
Riel Karmy-Jones KC, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, told RollOnFriday, that the ‘chopping and changing’ by the government, made her question how well the measures had been thought through: “There has been no modelling, no costing, no piloting.”
The KC said that despite the “government’s climb down” on the extent of the proposals, she still described the plans as being “a wrecking ball to a system that is fundamentally sound and has been in place for generations. Juries work – they do their job superbly, and without bias. Juries have not caused the backlog.”
While jury trials may not be faultless, the Bar Council is also in favour of their preservation. Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar Council, told RollOnFriday: “We have continuously opposed proposals to curtail jury trials because there is no evidence that their removal would reduce the backlog nor has it been set out how an alternative system would be resourced.”
The Bar Council chair added: “We urge the government to reconsider pursuing radical changes under the mistaken belief that radical equals effective.”
The Law Society vice president Brett Dixon criticised the government for “going beyond” Leveson’s recommendations, which had suggested “two magistrates sitting alongside a judge in the new court,” thus retaining “an element of lay participation in determining a person’s guilt or innocence.”
Tom Franklin, the Magistrates’ Association Chief Executive, agreed that having magistrate involvement in the so-called ‘swift courts’ would “ensure that ordinary people are involved in both verdict and sentencing,” as recommended by Leveson.
However, Lammy’s proposals will mean that magistrates will have more work, as it will enable them to hear cases which carry a sentencing range of up to eighteen months’ imprisonment (up from one year, currently), with the option to extend it to two years.
Franklin said this was “a big vote of confidence in magistrates”, but noted that more resources are needed, including the ability to recruit and train enough magistrates and legal advisers, as well as repairing and maintaining the crumbling court buildings (some also come with maggots and rats).
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/jury-trials-scrapped-thousands-offences
