The right to trial by jury is indispensible By Bob Marshall-Andrews QC MP. January 2000 The government’s Mode of Trial Bill will abolish the automatic right to trial by jury in so-called ‘either way’ offences. Either way means that the defendant has the right to trial by jury but may, by consent, elect to have their case tried by magistrates. As Shadow Home Secretary, Jack Straw rejected this proposal, saying: ‘surely cutting down the right to jury trial, making the system less fair is not only wrong but short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective. I therefore urge the Secretary of State not to accept the proposal.’ The present Bill is a serious attempt to withdraw important civil liberties, based on partial statistics and will inevitably cause very substantial delays in the criminal justice system. It will be immensely expensive. The right to jury trial (trial by one’s peers) extends back to the Magna Carta. Although here have been changes in its administration and some very limited restrictions on the right, it had been a fiercely guarded precept of British justice. In particular, it has always been seen as the principal safeguard for minorities and dissidents likely to be unpopular with judges or appointed magistrates. In virtually all offences likely to result in serious punishment or loss of reputation, the accused retains the right to jury trial unless he consents to surrender that right. All groups concerned with civil liberties such as Justice, Liberty, Legal Action Group, Society of Labour Lawyers, are opposed to this right being removed. The number of people who elect trial by jury in either way offences is very small. In broad terms, 280,000 cases could be tried in crown court. The overwhelming number of defendants elect, instead, to have their cases dealt with by magistrates. The vast majority plead guilty and sentences are far higher than at the crown court. In total 47,000 cases are sent to the crown court by magistrates themselves, and approximately 18,000 cases arrive at the crown court by reason of election by the accused. It is these 18,000 which will be affected by the Bill. These defendants will now have no right to a jury trial in the absence of agreement by the magistrates. Prosecution and defence, will have the right to make representations to the magistrates. Research indicates that magistrates follow prosecution submissions in over 90 per cent of cases. According to the only available research the overwhelming majority of those who elect for jury trial intend to plead not guilty before a jury. The overwhelming reason for doing so is the chance of receiving a fairer trial. This view is well founded for the following reasons: • Juries come to cases with ‘fresh minds’. They do not, like magistrates, preside over the same area and, ipso facto, the same police officers week after week, year after year. • Prejudicial and inadmissible evidence is denied to juries by the intervention of the judge. No such intervention takes place before magistrates. • The standard of disclosure of documents as ‘unused material’ is far higher at the crown court and during the progress of cases between the magistrates and jury trial. • There is strong evidence to suggest that black defendants elect trial by jury because they believe they will otherwise not receive a fair trial. Statistical evidence appears to support this. At the Leicester magistrates court, research showed that 13 per cent of black defendants were sentenced to immediate custody for theft offences, compared to 5 per cent of whites. White defendants were granted unconditional bail at the rate of 60 per cent compared with 44 per cent for black defendants. • This perception of greater justice in the crown court is amply borne out by the statistics. Of cases commencing as contested trials, 62 per cent result in acquittals in the crown court against 24 per cent in magistrates court. By simple extrapolation, it becomes obvious that between 2,000 and 3,000 people every year would be convicted in magistrates court under this new legislation, who would otherwise have been acquitted in the crown court. Of these, the overwhelming proportion will be black or poor or both. These arguments were implicitly accepted by the present Home Secretary in 1997 when he said: ‘If a police officer, a member of parliament or even a secretary of state, were charged with an offence of dishonesty, would they not insist on being tried by a jury? If that is the case, why should others be denied the right to election?’ The government’s proposals will result in greater delay and expense. Why? The government proposes that defendants who are denied the right to jury trial by magistrates should have a compensatory right of appeal to the crown court. It is reasonable to suppose that this will be exercised in the majority of the 18,000 cases where the magistrates refuse to commit for jury trial. If a crown court sitting on appeal deals with 10 such ‘mini trials’ a day, a total of 1,500 court days will be employed on this exercise alone with huge additional legal and court costs. In cases where the crown court agree with the magistrates, the trial will be remitted back to a different bench for trial. Where there is a conviction there will, as now, be an appeal to the crown court. It is therefore likely that there will be four hearings in every case instead of two as at present. The delay will be incalculable. The government’s Bill provides that magistrates, in deciding whether the right to jury trial should be given to an accused, may consider the accused’s reputation and criminal convictions. This creates a two-tier system of justice. Those who have previous convictions are likely to be denied the right to a jury trial, a fact which will not be unnoticed by zealous police officers. The right to jury trial in British justice is completely indispensable. Our system is based upon proof by the state, not inquisition as in other jurisdictions.
Posted on: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 02:02:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015