Drop Plans to Scrap Juries, Bar urges Ministers
25 November 2005
Ministers backtracking over plans to scrap juries in serious fraud trials were today urged to drop their controversial plans altogether.
A last-minute fix during the passage of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act gave Ministers reserve powers under Section 43 to abolish juries in such cases, subject to regulations being approved by both Houses of Parliament.
But the Government is now reportedly fearful of defeat in the House of Lords on the issue, and is said to be considering alternatives to abolition, including mini-juries of lay assessors.
Guy Mansfield QC, Chairman of the Bar Council, said today:
'People trust juries, and half a million are called to serve on them each year.
'There is no other part of the justice system which enjoys such public confidence.
'Ministers should drop their controversial plans once and for all.'
He added:
'Trial by jury should be retained for the trial of all serious criminal offences.
'It has been shown to be a flexible process. It has adapted to change - in the composition of juries, in procedural changes, in evidence, in offences juries have to try.
'Now is the time to take radical steps to shorten all potentially long cases, including serious and complex fraud cases. It is not the time to remove trial by jury.
'Trial by judge alone is wrong in principle and unnecessary. The other option of trial by judge with lay assessors, a 'mini-jury', is equally wrong in principle and unnecessary. The Fraud Trials Committee Report (the Roskill Committee, 1986) recommended something different, trial by judge sitting with expert assessors. But it has never been implemented because, as with trial by judge sitting with lay assessors, it is fraught with problems of selection, procedure and decision-making.'
The Bar Council has sent a new briefing to Peers this week, it said:
'Section 43 is controversial but not just because it removes trial by jury for serious cases for the first time in the history of criminal justice in England and Wales. It is also controversial because of the "too burdensome" test.
'In practice, it is likely that this vague test will be applied unevenly and with apparent injustice. What about borderline cases? Why should one man be allowed trial by jury and another in similar circumstances be denied it? Is a two month trial with banking documents too burdensome? Is a three month trial without banking documents too burdensome?
'Many trials are a real burden, because of the subject matter involved, as in the Soham child-murders case, but that is no reason for relieving jurors of their duty. Or will burdensome murder cases be next?'
The briefing adds:
'The real problem here is long trials. The answer is not to scrap jury trial but to de-burden long cases. If the trial is "too burdensome" for jurors it is probably too burdensome for everybody else.
'The jurors who spoke out after the collapse of the Jubilee Line case said that they were quite able to understand the issues in the case. Their problem was the length of the trial. Unduly long cases never make good justice.'
