Government slashes rights to trial by jury in court shake-up
Justice secretary David Lammy has confirmed his controversial plans to scrap some jury trials to tackle the nearly 80,000 criminal cases backlog.
Speaking in the House of Commons, after a week of outrage following a leak of the plan, Lammy told MPs that he will “follow Sir Brian [Leveson]’s bold blueprint for change”, by creating “new swift courts within the Crown Court with a judge alone deciding verdicts”.
He explained that this will apply to cases with a sentence of three years or less, quoting the report, which claims this move will “deliver justice at least 20 per cent faster than jury trials”.
“I will limit appeals for the Magistrates’ court so that they are only allowed on points of law to prevent justice being delayed further.” He added that he “will increase Magistrates Court sentencing to 18 months so they can take a greater proportion of lower level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown Court”.
Lammy told the Commons that there are “misconceptions”, explaining that Magistrates hear about 90 per cent of criminal cases and that only 3 per cent of trial cases in England ever go before a jury. “Almost three-quarters of all trials that go into the Crown Court will continue to be heard by them [juries] under our changes.”
Lammy added, “We must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up. It will take years to fix [with] the changes I propose, which will require legislation that will take time to implement.”
Lammy’s speech today follows a statement from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) announcing a £550m three-year package to support victims and witnesses.
The Law Society vice president Brett Dixon explained that Lammy’s proposals go beyond Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations.
He explained the blueprint included two magistrates sitting alongside a judge in the new court, but the government’s proposals remove this.
“Allowing a single judge, operating in an under resourced system, to decide guilt in a serious and potentially life changing case is a dramatic departure from our shared values,” he added.
‘Restriction of democracy’
Nick Brett, partner at Brett Wilson, stated: “The proposal to restrict a trial by jury is likely to meet stringent objections from the legal profession.”
Claire Anderson, criminal defence solicitor and CEO of Church Court Chambers, said: “The restriction of trial by jury is a restriction of democracy itself”, adding that “juries safeguard collective, transparent and independent decision making, free from state influence.”
Abigail Ashford, solicitor advocate at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said the move “strikes at the heart of open justice”.
Emma Brooks, a partner at PCB Byrne, added: “Even during his announcement abolishing a fundamental right to a jury trial for many, Lammy could not quite bring himself to confirm that this would solve the backlog of criminal cases.”
“These changes will do irrevocable damage to both the public’s confidence in the system and the UK’s enviable reputation for fair trials,” she noted.
Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, warned today’s proposal “brings 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.”