I suppose it could be said that a jury system of sorts in England began during the final year of the reign of Henry II in 1189. A very interesting history of the jury as a legal instrument in England can be accessed here. In Scotland a jury consists of 15 members, believed to be the largest in the world. The system there of three available verdicts is also unique. Apart from the period of World War 2, an English jury of 12 is the norm and until 1967 a unanimous verdict was required. That was changed when majority verdicts were first introduced by Section 13 Criminal Justice Act of that year. Covid-19 has changed government thinking on the jury per se as it has changed thinking on many aspects of our lives and customs. The pandemic descended upon us when half the country`s Magistrates Courts have been closed since 2010 as part of a 23% cut in funding.
In the Crown Court there is a backlog of 40,000 trials owing, in addition to restrictions around Covid, to the government`s refusal to pay for judges to work what can be described as a normal working week. In other words the current scandal of those awaiting trial notwithstanding a backlog of 400,000 cases in the lower court is partly self inflicted. As a result various "temporary" changes to the jury system have been mooted. In recent days the Lord Chief Justice no less has suggested that juries could be reduced to speed up the trial process. Whether he meant that smaller juries would require smaller Covid secure rooms in which to deliberate or smaller juries would deliberate more speedily is unknown. Perhaps he had both outcomes in mind. What is not in doubt is that 1,600 defendants have been remanded in custody for over a year well in excess of the legal custody time limit of six months. However not only are defendants not facing due process within a reasonable time; witnesses and complainants who might be traumatised by their involvement in the alleged events will have to relive their experiences perhaps two years subsequently when their memories are less than clear and their mental health still less than perfect.
Other suggestions to ease the backlog have been suggested. Currently appeals against verdict or sentence at magistrates courts are resolved at the crown court with a judge presiding and two magistrates assisting. That bench construct could be applied at crown court for defendants who have chosen crown court jury trial for an either way offence instead of a summary trial at the magistrates court. The numbers of those electing crown court trial on an either way offence do not appear to be listed on any government statistics. In addition it is an anomaly in England unlike the rules in Scotland that a defendant on an either way charge can actually choose where to be tried. It is an anomaly that should be abolished even although there would be an anguished outcry from the legal profession perhaps more concerned with reduced fees than lack of choice for their clients. However many lawyers would be pleased if the numbers of District Judges (MC) were increased from the current 124 and they were to preside over all trials with or without assisting magistrates.
Notwithstanding all the above there is no doubt that flaws in the justice system overlooked for a decade are coming to the fore. Ancillary services especially policing and immigration control are also being questioned. There are no easy answers to difficult questions but my personal fear is that populism of either or both Left and Right will make increasing inroads into our less than perfect democratic system of governance suggesting that there are indeed simple answers just awaiting application. With our current prime minister and his team of toadies perhaps we are closer to that situation than we would like to believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment