Save trial by jury
Trial by jury is "the lamp that shows that freedome lives". Every few years civil servants in the Home Office persuade politicians to have another go at it. Why? The stated reason is always cost, but it is never stated truly. The actual saving for removing the right to elect jury trial is insignificant. The real reason is that tyrants don't like juries. And civil servants and politicians always have an element of tyranny in their body corporate. The arguments for and against are as old as the hills. This quote from Lord Blackstone writing in the 1760s is as true now as it was then:
"the liberties of England cannot but subsist, so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolate, not only from all open attacks, (which none will be so hardy as to make) but also from all secret machinations, which may sap and undermine it; by introducing new and arbitrary methods of trial, by justices of the peace, commissioners of the revenue, and courts of conscience. And however convenient these may appear at first, (as doubtless all arbitrary powers, well executed, are the most convenient) yet let it be again remembered, that delays, and little inconveniences in the forms of justice, are the price that all free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters; that these inroads upon this sacred bulwark of the nation are fundamentally opposite to the spirit of our constitution; and that, though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and spread, to the utter disuse of juries in questions of the most momentous concern."
Flora Page
shared this idea
9 comments
-
Flora Page
commented
As suggested by A Biggs, I've given a brief overview below of recent history and current proposals on trial by jury. For debate on the subject you can do no better than to look up what has been said in the Houses of Parliament. You will find specifics and generalisations, dramatic language and more cautious language. It is a matter for each of us whether we find the dramatic language childish or true. See, for example www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo030715/text/30715-04.htm#30715-04_head1
Brief recent history:
1998 - Jack Straw as Home Secretary consulted on whether juries should continue to hear serious fraud trials. Consultation responses largely suggested that fraud trials faced other problems, and juries were not the main concern.
1999 - Jack Straw introduced the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. It was defeated in the House of Lords. It aimed to abolish the defendant's right to choose trial by jury in "either-way" cases. "Either-way" cases are crimes which can be tried in the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court, because they can be very insignificant or very serious, depending on all the circumstances of the case.
2000 - Jack Straw introduced the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) No 2 Bill. This was essentially the same as the first Mode of Trial Bill. The difference was that the first Bill had begun life in the House of Lords, and was defeated immediately, and therefore the Government was unable to use the Parliament Act to override the Lords. The No 2 Bill began in the Commons, and although it passed there, it was duly defeated in the Lords. The Government threatened to use the Parliament Act but in the meantime, developments came from a different direction:
2001 - The Auld Report was published, which recommended sweeping changes to the criminal justice system, much of which came into being in the monumental Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Mode of Trial Bill proposals were absorbed into more wide-reaching reforms to allow the Magistrates' Courts to hear many more cases by extending their sentencing powers. (Although this came into law it has yet to come into force - watch that space, as apparently this Government may yet bring those provisions into force.) Meanwhile the Auld Report also recommended that serious fraud trials should be heard by a judge alone.
2003 - the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was hotly debated in both Houses, and section 43, which dealt with juries in fraud trials, came under intense scrutiny. By this time it was David Blunkett, as Home Secretary, who was backing the proposals, but both the Commons and the Lords heard strong opposition to it. A compromise was reached: section 43 of the Act would only come into force if both Houses passed an Order bringing it into force.
2005 - Lord Goldsmith, as Attorney-General, suggested that an Order should be passed to bring section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 into force. It became clear it would be opposed so the plan was shelved.
2007 - John Reid, as Home Secretary, proposed the Fraud (Trials Without Jury) Bill. It was a short Bill to give effect to the stalled section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The point of introducing it as a new Bill was to enable the Parliament Act to be used. Again the Bill passed through the Commons, but the House of Lords frustrated it by voting in favour of a delay, thus ensuring that it would not be passed during that Parliament.
The issue was not re-visited in the years immediately leading up to the 2010 General Election, perhaps because the Labour Government had run out of political capital to spend on controversial issues.
2012 - In January the Magistrates' Association reported that Ministers were once again considering whether to remove the right for defendants to choose trial by jury in "either-way" cases. This was picked up in the Times, the Guardian and the Mail. No Ministers have been quoted with definitive views or positions on the subject, but evidently it has been discussed again in Whitehall, and we may hear more on the subject soon.
-
A Biggs
commented
Flora’s broad generalisations and dramatic language are not helpful. I agree with the basic premise (we need to safeguard our justice system). However, by reverting to childish language, I think we do more damage than good to our cause. Why not create a new post with a summary of the times our jury system has come under attack and an overview of the current situation? We need to be serious if we want serious debate.
-
Louise Darnborough
commented
The business of being in a jury seems to provoke the best in individuals — people listen carefully when in court, air their prejudices more cautiously, if at all, when in conclave, and conclude without rancour. Long may this decision-making by "lot" — random selection from among the citizens continue. Indeed it could expand to seats in Parliament...
-
jean donovan
commented
It was not so long ago that I was on a jury and I am sure that this method of trial must be maintained. Some parts of the process seemed archaic and perhaps modern technology could bring it into the 21st century.
-
Pitz
commented
Once sharia law is fully implemented and our judges are trained clerics there will be no need for expensive jurys, or legal representation. The accused being guilty because they were accused will be sentenced to death by stoning with rrocks that can be recycled. This will prove to be a massive cost saving. And an end to the private prisons people have complained about.
-
Keith Harris
commented
If £3000 a day seems like lot of money to convict a guilty person of a £200 theft, does it also sound like too much to spend acquitting someone who is innocent? It is alarming to see arguments for changing the system that focus exclusively on cost and efficiency. Nobody doubts that judges are more cost effective at convicting the guilty, but we would save even more money by allowing police officers hand out a sentence on the spot. The less we spend on the judicial process, the more innocent people we will convict. I'd encourage anyone in favour of this proposed change to conduct this simple thought experiment: you find yourself falsely accused on a trivial theft. Your entire reputation and career are at risk. How much would you like society to spend deciding your fate?
-
juliet johnson
commented
jurors are selceted randomly from the voters register, judges are appointed by the state.
-
Tanvi Desai
commented
Trial by jury should be the right of anyone living in a civilised, developed society.
-
Flora Page
commented
Details of the latest attack: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087212/Trial-jury-faces-axe-thousands-cases-courts-try-cut-costs.html. See also stories in the Times on 15 Jan and 17 Jan.
