In response to the recent suggestions of trial juries being removed in favour of lay magistrates, Kent Law School's Darren Weir said:
‘The right to trial by jury is once again under threat. This has come about as a result of the Lord Chancellor’s appearance before the Justice Committee on 22 June where he said he is seriously considering removing jury trials for certain Triable Either Way (TEW) offences and replacing them with a Crown Court Judge sitting with two lay Magistrates. This proposal was proposed in Auld LJ’s review in 2001, then branded “an assault on jury trial” by the Bar Council and rejected by Parliament.
‘Society is at a crossroads in many ways, notably in relation to the #blacklivesmatter movement.
‘Government statistics still show that Black, Asian and Minority Ethic (BAME) groups are disproportionately stopped and searched, arrested, charged and in prison. Two independent studies have shown that there is one stage in the criminal justice process in England and Wales where members of BAME groups appear not to be treated disproportionately and that is when a jury reaches a verdict by deliberation.[1] To limit the one part of the criminal justice process that appears to be working vis-à-vis ethnicity and fairness, is foolhardy.
‘Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) would have us believe that the COVID-19 situation has caused an unprecedented backlog in the system. CEO of HMCTS, Susan Acland-Hood, reported that before COVID-19 the baseline Crown Court backlog was 39,214 cases. As of 24 May that figure had risen to 40,526 cases. That is an increase of just 3.35%. In 2014 the Crown Court had a backlog of 55,116 cases (over 30,000 were trials). So, you could argue that the backlog is not yet at “unprecedented levels”; I do not recall cries of “abolish juries” in 2014.
‘The current backlog was already increasing before COVID-19 due to the successive cuts to justice department budgets and selling off of the Court Estate. Resident Judges at courts were being set targets to reduce the number of sitting days and so our dilapidated court buildings were not running at full capacity long before COVID-19 came along. The justification proffered does not bear scrutiny and it is for that reason that someone independent should be overseeing the COVID response.
‘There is more that could be done to avoid the removal of this fundamental right. We could have juries of 7 rather than 12 as the country did during WWII. We could make better use of technology for ALL other administrative hearings and use court rooms only for trials (save for defendants on bail facing custody). We could create a system whereby defendants (in appropriate cases) can re-open mode of trial at their first Crown Court hearing and have a Crown Court judge (sitting as a District Judge) with two lay magistrates, but only if they choose it over a jury trial. Limiting jury trials under the guise of COVID is indefensible, and a subtle means of trimming costs at the expense of citizens’ rights.’
[1] Thomas, Cheryl: “Ethnicity and fairness of jury trials in England and Wales 2006-2014” Crim LR 2017, 11, 860-876