Jury trials could be scrapped except for serious crimes in bid to ease courts backlog
Trial by jury could be abolished - except in extreme cases for crimes like rape, murder and manslaughter - in a major overhaul to the courts system, it has been reported.
Listen to this article
Justice Secretary David Lammy has written in a memo seen by The Times newspaper that there was “no right” to jury trials in the UK and that the move would not compromise a suspect’s rights.
According to the paper, Mr Lammy wrote in a briefing note to other ministers and senior civil servants this month that rape, murder, manslaughter and “public interest” cases would be heard by juries, while other lower offences would be heard by a judge.
The move comes as the Government is yet to respond to recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson in a review of how to reform the courts system and cut the record-high crown court backlog.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of our justice system for the most serious cases.
“No final decisions have been taken, but it is right that we ask whether there are cases that need not be heard by a jury.”
Asked if the Prime Minister would be comfortable with a situation where the only cases that went before a jury were homicides and rapes, the spokesman added: “I think we’re slightly getting ahead of things.“We are looking at the review, no decisions have been taken, and we will respond accordingly.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson also said: “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.”
Under Sir Brian’s recommendations, juries would be reserved to hear the most serious cases while other cases would be diverted to magistrates’ courts or to the proposed Crown Court Bench Division for trials to be heard by judges.
Read more: 'Online trolls make me lose faith in humanity', Jay Slater's mum tells LBC
Last Thursday, the Guardian reported that the Government would seek to limit jury trials for thousands of cases.
Courts minister Sarah Sackman KC had told the paper: “For me, the priority is swift justice, fair justice, over prioritising a defendant’s right to choose where that trial is heard.”
Proposals to curb jury trials have faced opposition from legal professionals, including from the Bar Council, which argued “there is no need to curtail the right to a trial by jury – from both a principle and practical position”.
Nearly three quarters of solicitors surveyed by the Law Society of England and Wales were concerned about jury trials being removed.
In his review, Sir Brian said reform of jury trials was “merited” to address problems particularly with lengthy or complex trials.“Reform to address these concerns will be likely to have positive impacts in terms of efficiency, by reducing the open caseload, and, in addition, in terms of financial savings,” he said.
'Too far'
Commenting on the reports, Law Society of England and Wales president Mark Evans said the “extreme measure” on jury trials “goes far beyond” recommendations made by Sir Brian.
“This is a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates and it goes too far,” he said.“We have not seen any real evidence that expanding the types of cases heard by a single judge will work to reduce the backlogs.“With a sensible combination of funding and structural change, the Government can solve the criminal courts backlog without resorting to extremes.”
Elsewhere Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch also criticised the plans describing Labour wanting to “shred this basic right”, adding: “It is a short-term decision that risks fairness, undermines public trust, and erodes the very foundation of our justice system.”
Lib Dem justice spokeswoman Jess Brown-Fuller also described the reports as “completely disgraceful” and accused ministers of dismantling the justice system and failing victims.