The government is reportedly considering new changes to criminal justice which would restrict the right to jury trial by giving judges the power to decide which cases go before a jury.
The Times reported that a panel of judges would decide on a case-by-case basis which 'either-way' offences trials would take place before a jury and which would be before a judge. Currently a defendant can opt for their case to be heard in either a magistrates’ court or Crown Court.
The Bar Council reiterated that the Bar stands firm in its objection to any restriction of jury trials.
Bar Council Chair Kirsty Brimelow KC said: “Whilst it is encouraging that this government is looking at ways of not continuing with the reduction of juries, it should move away from wasting further parliamentary time and resources on other jury restricting experiments.
“In fact, introducing a panel of judges and a new court may lead to more appeals and more delays. It’s also unclear where extra judges will be found.
“There’s no need for the government to tamper with jury trials; it poses little practical benefit and carries serious risks to public confidence and trust in justice. The latest data shows that investment and opening courts reduces backlogs. The Bar remains completely opposed to restricting jury trials.”
In July, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said he had "concerns" about the restriction of jury trials proposal within the Courts and Tribunals Bill and that he wanted to look at it "in detail".
That same month the second part of Jonathan Fisher KC’s fraud review examining fraud in the digital age was published, despite Fisher submitting it in December.
Fisher found that jury trials were not a barrier to the investigation and prosecution of fraud and warned against government proposals to restrict trial by jury, including in fraud cases and other serious offences.
Kirsty Brimelow KC responded to the findings and criticised the delay of the report and said: “No reason has been given for the seven-month delay in publication. It’s hard to accept that it is a coincidence that the delay prevented this powerful argument against removal of juries in fraud trials at committee stage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
"The Bar Council agrees with Fisher KC that juries are a constitutional guardrail and that preserving them for the most serious and complex cases must include fraud.The argument that a single Judge would be more efficient was found not to have been made out in Fisher’s analysis. Perpetrators of fraud can seem to be untouchable and it is right that they are not seen to be singled out for the special treatment of a single Judge rather than a jury.
"We hope that this report is the final nail in the coffin for the previous administration’s attempts to reduce jury trials. “