Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Ministers have proposed to end the right to a jury trial for a vast range of criminal offences in England and Wales, as they grapple with a huge backlog of cases that is delaying hearings by more than a year in many instances.
Under the shake-up, juries would be scrapped for all cases expected to attract a prison sentence of five years or less, with defendants barred from asking for a jury trial, as they can at present for many offences.
Cases that can currently go before either a judge sitting alone or a jury would all be heard in a new “bench division” of crown courts, with a judge sitting alone.
Juries would also be scrapped in lengthy or complex trials such as fraud cases. However, lengthy and complex trials involving rape, murder or manslaughter or where there was a special public interest element would still go before a jury.
The proposals were set out in a memo by justice secretary David Lammy, seen by the Financial Times.
Lammy’s plans go far beyond proposals set out in July by retired High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson, who called for the end of the right to jury trial for a far more limited range of offences.
The Ministry of Justice said no final decision had been made.
But it added: “We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims — with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising — which will require bold action to put right.”
The memo, first reported by the Times, described the planned changes as the “DPM’s decision”, referring to Lammy, who is also the deputy prime minister.
Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, called the proposals “extreme”.
“This is a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates and it goes too far,” he said.
Leveson had suggested limiting trial by jury to cases likely to result in a prison sentence of three years or more. He also proposed ending the use of juries in fraud and other serious and complex cases.
His report noted that the average amount of court time taken up for cases heard before juries had doubled from about 11 hours in 2001 to more than 22 hours in 2024.
But rather than having one judge hearing non-jury cases alone, Leveson recommended that two magistrates sit alongside them.
The memo said that Lammy had decided to increase the maximum sentencing powers of magistrates — the lowest rung of criminal courts — from six months’ imprisonment to 24 months. Magistrates remit cases that they believe warrant sentences beyond their powers to crown courts.
It said Lammy had decided to remove the right for defendants to seek a jury trial for “either way” offences, triable either before a judge alone or before a jury.
It also outlined how he had decided to set up a new “bench division” in crown courts, with judges sitting alone, for cases attracting sentences of up to five years.
There would be no juries for complex and lengthy trials — even those involving sentences of potentially longer sentences than five years — except in exceptional circumstances. Those were for cases of rape, murder, manslaughter or where there was a special public interest, the memo said.
England’s most senior judge, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, on Tuesday warned any reforms would need to be “properly resourced” — otherwise the proposals would not have the “desired effect”.
When it comes to funding, the justice system was “nearly bottom of the list of priorities in the current spending ladder”, Carr said.
There were 78,329 cases awaiting completion in crown courts in England and Wales at the end of June, more than twice the 38,070 at the end of 2019.
The median waiting time for a trial where the defendant has pleaded not guilty was 44.7 weeks in the April to June quarter, according to official statistics. Before the coronavirus pandemic, the median wait was 27 weeks.
The Serious Fraud Office, which investigates complex financial crime, declined to comment on the proposal.
However, Gideon Cammerman KC, who has acted on some high-profile fraud cases, said justice had meant a jury trial “for many hundreds of years”.
“It is not efficient to remove our justice system’s living purpose,” he added. “It is an act of cultural vandalism.”
Credit: Source link
