Law Society criticises jury trial proposals as 'entirely wrong'
Should trial by jury be limited in only certain circumstances?
Britain, like the rest of the world, is facing hard times. The government is imposing major cuts in key sectors of the economy and it is even proposing to do so in the Judiciary. The BBC reported yesterday that there are proposals by the government to limit trial by jury for lesser offences. The key objective of this proposal would be to save money in the judicial system of England and Wales. In order to analyse whether this proposal will be effective or not, it is worth discussing the issues surrounging trial by jury and trial in a Magistrates' court.
First and foremost, a citizen's right to trial by jury is one of the main constitutional rights of England and Wales. In fact, it has been in existence since the days of the Magna Carta back in 1215. Therefore, if the government were to restrict this right, it would essentially be a clear breach of a constitutional right of England and Wales.
Secondly, the right to trial by jury comes as an option to an alleged offender. He or she has a choice of opting for a trial by jury or a trial in the magistrates' court. The offence here, as you may already know, must be one that falls within the category of an 'either way offence' . This would include offences such as: theft, bigamy, offences of deception and sexual activity with a child under the age of 16. However, according to the BBC and the late judge Lord Devlin, most people are bound to opt for the trial by jury. There are many reasons for this and the most significant or appealling in my opinion, is the fact that it is believed that Magistrates are unable to act as a true representation of a community. Even so, I am of the belief that, since Magistrates are sharp minded, intellectually brilliant individuals, could mean that impartiality is probably an issue and therefore, the right to a 'fair trial' is limited. Moreover, trial by juries enable police officers' evidence to be challenged and thus, allows a more favourable verdict to be reached for the alleged offender. Such an advantage is not available in trial by magistrate's court.
However, it must not be forgotten that critics have argued for a very long time that trial by jury is not an efficient means of ensuring justice is served as in most cases, the 'lay men' are unable to fully fathom the complexities of legal issues in question and thus, end up making the wrong decisions in agreeing to a final verdict.
On the other hand, in support of the proposals, it may be argued that limiting trial by jury may play a vital role in saving money in the legal system of England and Wales. Accordingly, Ms. Louise Casey (The Victims' Commissioner) has stated that such a proposal is bound to save as much as £30 million since cases would be be heard in the Magistrates' Court instead. The Commissioner has also stated that even if 80% of cases were sent to trial by Magistrates' court, as many as 50,000 cases sent to the Crown courts cost the Crown Prosecution Service £15 million. These cases proved to be a waste of time and money.
Although it is evident that there is undoubtedly a need for some sort of reform or proposal to re-structure the judicial system, there is a key disadvantage present. The fact that the Commissioner has acknowledged that trial by jury should not be allowed in either way offences is already signalling a recipe for disaster. After reading the Law Society Gazette, I fully support their views in that such a proposal is bound to have detrimental effects on a citizen's career and their life as a whole. If you are like me, an optimist, and you give a potential criminal, the benefit of the doubt, then the role of the jury is paramount in ensuring that justice is served properly. Juries are powerful and the importance of their roles cannot be stressed enough. They are normal individuals who do not have strong legal backgrounds (although some may do) but they ensure that there is transparency in the justice system and in doing so, promote the rule of law and commitment to the criminal justice system of the land.
Therefore, is it really worth imposing such a stringent reform to limit the right to trial by jury, at the expense of breaching a fundamental, key constitutional right? Is the state of the economy in England and Wales so dire that such a drastic proposal need to be implemented? Is it morally, legally and ethically correct to send cases to the Magistrates' Courts, Courts often criticized for exercising 'second class justice'? Will increasing sentencing powers for the Magistrates' going to solve the problem of limiting border line cases being sent to the Crown Court? Can't the Commissioner just be satisfied in imposing sanctions against guilty pleas to help with cost cutting? Perhaps no.
Nevertheless, it is clear that a proposal to limit trial by jury has been brought forward without proper thought as to the negative implications it would bring. Ultimately, I am of the view that the proposal should not be implemented and I fully agree with the Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson, that ‘...it is a dangerous attempt to cost cutting and there does not seem to be any' guiding intelligence to safeguard justice'.
For more information please log onto;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11683903
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/law-society-criticises-jury-trial-proposals-039entirely-wrong039
am also against the trial by jury.imagine taking the adjudicatory system into the hands of a non judge.
ReplyDeletei'm against it too, i posted some of disadvantages in my blog.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. Jury plays a vital role in legal system to prevail justice. There is no way the government can compromise justice for money.
ReplyDeleteBut there is always a presiding judge to direct them, its not just about saving costs. I quite like the idea of 'normal people" in the jury because they might be able to relate better to the situation at hand albeit not experts.
ReplyDeleteThis is true Michelle but do not forget as I had mentioned in the post, these normal people have a higher chance of misunderstanding the law and thus, tend to err in reaching a final verdict. In fact, there has also been arguments that what the Jury may decide may completely be the opposite to what a bench of magistrates in the High Court may decide. Take fore example the mens rea of theft; 1) Intention to permanetely deprive and 2) Dishonesty. In dealing with whether someone could be 'dishonest' s.2 of the Theft Act 1968 gives you 3 circumstances to determine whether a person IS NOT DISHONEST. If the 4 criteria given cannot be applied to the scenario, one must apply the Ghost test. This is a hybrid test with the first stage being objective and the second stage,subjective. Often times, different bench of magistrates will come with different interpretations of what 'dishonest' is. Since it is up to the discretion of the court, how can a bench of magistrates be relied upon for an accurate interpretation of the law when they often disagree?(For more information please read the case of DPP v Gohill 2007) More worringly, how can we trust a jury of normal people to get an accurate interpretation of the law since magistrates cannot seem to? Could Robin Hood have been 'dishonest' and be liable for theft? I imagine the answer would depend on whoever is hearing the case; a magistrate or a lay man/juror.
ReplyDeleteFor more information please read;
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_60_propety_offences/01_theft.htm
or
Martin J and Storey T, Unlocking Criminal Law (2nd edn Hodder Arnold, Oxon 2007)
or
McAlhone C & Huxley-Binns R, Criminal Law: The Fundamentals (Sweet & Maxwell, London 2007)
ReplyDelete