I’m alarmed by pressure from senior legal figures to scale back the defendant’s right to jury trial from intermediate offences carrying a maximum sentence of less than two years. Yes-I know that there is a two-year crown court backlog. But whose fault is that? If the State really wants to do justice to defendants as well as victims, it should appoint the judges and make court-space available to reduce that backlog, instead of closing courts.
As is apparent from the stepping down of former Transport Minister Louise Haigh, the real damage of a criminal conviction is not the derisory penalty handed down by the judge or magistrate but the damage to future life-prospects. We have already seen proposals by the Scottish Government to remove juries in alleged sexual offences in an effort to improve conviction rates. Is that really what it’s all about?
I have always been a supporter of jury trials, not only in criminal cases but also in some civil cases, where there are major issues of fact (such as libel or slander), or where an individual is facing the might of the State. Though as a conveyancer, it is hardly likely that I will be addressing a jury any time soon. But if ever I was at the wrong end of the criminal proceedings, I would certainly want my guilt or innocence decided by a jury instead of a handful of State-appointees. We have already seen in the Northern Ireland legacy cases, what happens when an ex-serviceman’s right to jury trial is taken away. Of course, it is not for me to say whether those ex-servicemen would have been convicted or acquitted if their cases had been tried before a jury. Only that, without a jury, they didn’t have a chance.
BRUCE AND HOLLY 