Forum Topic

End of Trial by Jury

I am surprised that there has been no comment on the Forum on David Lammy’s bill to break with a 1000 year tradition and end trial by jury in England and Wales for all but the most serious crimes, such as murder, rape and manslaughter. The justification for this step is the present backlog of criminal cases. A less radical solution might be to extend the time when the courts are in sitting, which at present is 10.30 to 4.40 Monday to Friday for around 30 weeks of the year.

Steven Rose ● 35d20 Comments

"My view is that juries should continue to have the right to decide on their consciences, not just the facts, and efforts to deny them that should be resisted, however uncomfortable we might be with some of the resulting decisions."Well said. The jury system is imperfect but the alternatives are far worse. A bit like democracy.

Ed Robinson ● 25d

Yes, many cases are taking too long to get to court and so there are too many people on remand in jail.Interesting to hear an explanation today on More or Less of why there are confusions and miscalculations over the lengths of sentences given and served - reasons why prisoners are let out too early or kept inside too long:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002nhk1

Philippa Bond ● 25d

That is a very good point, Jonathan, regarding the Palestinian protesters who were arrested and may well clog up the system further, I hadn’t considered the impact that removing juries would have on the likely outcome of their cases. I think that makes a compelling case for opposing the removal of juries. I would add that I served on a jury which was involved in a case of child sexual abuse; a harrowing case. I suspect, like many of these cases, the abuse happened when the victim was extremely young and had no real ability to accurately describe what happened; from her behaviour immediately after the abuse, her family knew something had happened and contacted the police, but no hard evidence or coherent statement was provided at that time.Many years later, when the victim had a child herself, she got enough courage to go back to the police and describe what happened, she did this to protect her child.Anyway, the case was a good example of why a jury is so important, in the absence of hard evidence, then circumstantial evidence, the credibility of experts, the people involved and how believable they are etc, all become matters that the jury need to consider. I think these cases could only be decided by juries which consider the facts of the case but also can go further in order to, hopefully, arrive at the truth. We found this guy guilty after two days of serious, focussed and forensic deliberation.

Gerry Boyce ● 28d

What I was trying to say was that in my view juries should continue to be free to decide cases based on their consciences (as they have been since 1670) but this should be only in conjunction with consideration of the facts of the case.  Both, not one or the other.  Of course, juries, unlike judges, do not have to give reasons for their decisions, so we cannot always be sure how they approached an individual case.With protesters now likely to use the same defence as in the Stonehenge case it will be interesting to see what happens at the trials of the hundreds (or possibly thousands) of people charged with terrorist offences for showing support for the now proscribed Free Palestine movement.  Those cases alone could clog up the courts for years (as was one of the avowed intentions of the protesters) and may have been a motivating factor in the government's new desire to restrict jury trials.

Jonathan Callaway ● 28d

I believe in the right to trial by jury, Jonathan, but I am not sure that I agree with the view that juries should be free to base their verdicts on their convictions rather than on the facts of the case. This, if regarded as a principle, would undermine the system of justice in the country. Clearly juries sometimes acquit when the facts suggest that they should convict, either because they don’t agree with the law in the first place or because they think the penalty of a conviction is likely to be too harsh or because they sympathise with the defendant’s cause. Sometimes their bias in favour of the defendant is misplaced. The acquittal, despite the judge’s direction, of the Extinction Rebellion protesters who sprayed graffiti and smashed windows at the Shell building in 2021 is an example. But I think occasional miscarriages of justice of this kind can be offset against those occasions when juries acquit individuals such as whistleblowers who are unfairly targeted by the state.

Steven Rose ● 28d

A further thought on the value of the jury system.  There is an interesting article in Prospect magazine  https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/71791/is-it-criminal-for-jurors-to-act-on-conscience?utm_campaign=Lightbulb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter which may or may not be behind a paywall.  The article asks "Do jurors have the right to apply their conscience when giving a verdict? This centuries-old principle of our jury system is at stake after a landmark hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice".  The answer is that the jury's still out!  The case in question is being appealed. A relevant recent case highlights the issue: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjekdqj7529o Here, three Just Stop Oil activists were cleared by a jury after a 10 day trial and 6 hours of deliberation by the jury of causing a public nuisance.  The facts of the case were quite clear and were not contested, but they pleaded not guilty and insisted their right to protest and right to freedom of speech were a "reasonable excuse for their actions", citing the EHCR.  The jury eventually agreed. My view is that juries should continue to have the right to decide on their consciences, not just the facts, and efforts to deny them that should be resisted, however uncomfortable we might be with some of the resulting decisions.

Jonathan Callaway ● 29d

An interesting first hand perspective, Jonathan.

Steven Rose ● 33d

"The real solution inevitably involves serious long term investment in just about every aspect of the system.  I doubt that is going to happen so we will continue to stumble from crisis to crisis just as we have been doing for the last 20 years or more."Thank you very much. As you say, it is most likely that we will "continue to stumble from crisis to crisis just as we have been doing for the last 20 years or more."However, I think that the crises will worsen over the years, and what that may lead to in this country is frightening and saddening, even for one who* is unlikely to see it.* me.

David Ainsworth ● 33d

Incidentally there are far fewer magistrates today than even 20 years ago.  When I signed up there were about 27,000 in England and Wales, today there are only 14,000, though that is higher than a few years ago when the government started a new recruitment campaign.  The numbers were allowed to run down in parallel with the court closure programme (in 2010 there were 320 magistrates courts and by 2020 some 164 had been closed).Magistrates are unpaid but can claim (modest) expenses. So the savings were in building maintenance and staffing costs while the closures focused on buildings actually owned by the MoJ so they could be sold off.  Not necessarily the most logical from the perspective of those within the system, or indeed the "court users" (aka defendants) who could find themselves travelling long distances for their court appearance.

Jonathan Callaway ● 33d

StevenAs a former magistrate the only way I can support the current plans is if they are strictly temporary, to enable the backlog to be cleared, or at least reduced to an acceptable level.  The proposed changes appear to be permanent, however.Trial by magistrate is a common way to deal with most low level crime and while that it not a full jury of 12 good men and true it is still a bench of three magistrates, all lay members of the public with some training in court practice (but not the law - there is a legal adviser to guide us on legal technicalities).The issue of jury trials for so-called either-way offences is at the heart of the problem.  These include day to day crimes such as theft and the defendant has the right to elect for a full jury trial however trivial the offence might have been.  This is often seen as a way of not only delaying the final verdict but sometimes a way of getting off or at least getting treated more lightly.  A moot point, I would say, though some defendants were just keen to put off the evil day for as long as possible.Magistrates also have the right to send an either way case upstairs if they deem the likely result to be a sentence beyond their powers.Summary offences are ones only magistrates deal with while indictable offences are always reserved for the Crown Court and require a trial if the defendant pleads not guilty.  Indictable offences form a tiny part of the overall backlog but include murder, rape, terrorist offences and treason.Magistrates do still play a role even here - they preside over the first hearing and can decide on bail applications.  That is more than a formality, by the way.The problems of the justice system go back many years.  I was appointed back in 2005 and even then it was clear the system was underfunded, courthouses had maintenance backlogs, there were staff shortages, etc etc. Today it is infinitely worse and it is not just the courts, the probation service has never recovered from the disastrous Grayling reforms when he insisted on privatising parts of it, destroyed morale and caused large numbers of experienced probation staff to leave.  And we have all read about the crisis in our prisons, already evident back in the early 2000s but also infinitely worse today.  The austerity years did enormous harm.  Magistrates had to visit prisons - to see where we might be consigning defendants - and I saw the inside of Wandsworth and Brixton prisons as well as Feltham YOI. Grim, even then.  In fact so grim I wrote to the Chief Inspector of Prisons to share my views, not that led to anything!So I agree with you - extended court hours would certainly help but it would only be a partial solution as there is a shortage of judges and despite common perceptions they do work long hours already. The real solution inevitably involves serious long term investment in just about every aspect of the system.  I doubt that is going to happen so we will continue to stumble from crisis to crisis just as we have been doing for the last 20 years or more.

Jonathan Callaway ● 33d

"As far as juries themselves are concerned far too many people are either too uneducated* or too bigoted to ever be allowed anywhere near a jury room!"But should they have a vote in elections then?

David Ainsworth ● 33d

They don't Martine. What has worked for so many years here is no longer the case sadly. Even if, as suggested,  trials took place during a full working day instead of 10 - 4, we'd still not clear the backlog in a timely manner.I'm ambiguous about the situation - it is absolutely disgraceful that  people (especially victims of a crime) have to wait years for justice to be done. As far as juries themselves are concerned far too many people are either too uneducated* or too bigoted to ever be allowed anywhere near a jury room! But would I want a single person (usually male)to judge my  misdemeanor instead? The jury is out as far as I'm concerned.* all their news and views coming from TikTok, X/Twitter and Chat GPT, for example!

Lucille Grant ● 33d

If only there were public buildings everywhere which were in such a good state of repair that they could actually be used.  Without constant maintenance or replacement buildings and other infrastructure can't be.  There are so many stories of those people who have been called for Jury Service sitting around waiting to be called - but worse than that having to go home because for example the heating was not functioning and the building was too cold to work in. There also just aren't the number of Courts that there used to be as so many were sold off - I remember searching for information on the history of a particular building years ago and finding whole lists of Council buildings being sold off.  It was part of the Neo-Liberal reduction of the state - ie the moving of public assets into private hands. I now read that Bow Street Magistrates Court was sold for £17M and then resold not long after apparently without being refurbished for £75M.  There's an eye-opening account in the  article below but Hansard has the lists of buildings sold off.https://www.lag.org.uk/article/206681/selling-off-our-silverAdmittedly some things may be done online but many others can't.  It's not just the buildings though you calso have to find the trained personnel.  Not everyone has the Latin for the judging.

Philippa Bond ● 34d

One could make an operetta from this ...

Michael Ixer ● 35d

'It would be wrong of the government to abandon this valuable tradition for short term benefit.'(David Lammy, 2020)

Steven Rose ● 35d

"I don’t think all countries have a jury."True. Many don't.And magistrates' courts in UK don't have a jury.

David Ainsworth ● 35d

An apt analogy, Michael.

Steven Rose ● 35d

Japanese friends of mine said they were amazed that the U.K. had a jury service, and said that judges made the decisions in Japan.  This was back in the 1980s and things may have changed.  I don’t think all countries have a jury.

Martine Guy ● 35d

All I can currently add is my recent experience on a jury in spring 2022. The trial was taking place then for quite a serious crime that had occurred in later 2019. So rather a delay. There was decent video equipment for display of police and security camera video evidence. On the other hand, some of the toilets for us to use were appalling (and I've seen some). The court building had obviously been rather neglected.That aside, as is often said "Justice delayed is justice denied". It seems that the current choices are long delays before trial by jury or quicker non-jury trials.

David Ainsworth ● 35d

If this manages the reduce the backlog perhaps the government will also consider forced euthanasia as a way to reduce hospital waiting lists?

Michael Brigo ● 35d