Trial by jury: why Falconer and Goldsmith are wrong
Posted on Friday 26 January, 2007
Filed Under Civil Liberties
Sometimes it almost seems like we are running out of civil liberties for New Labour to crack down on. Last night saw the Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill pass its third reading in the Commons, on a vote of 281 to 246.
This is the fifth attempt since 2003 to get this particularly noxious piece of legislation onto the statute books. The Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General are clearly ‘never say die’ kind of guys.
Fortunately, the Lords – that standing insult to democracy that most of the left would either put on an elected footing or scrap altogether, remember? – will almost certainly curb yet another authoritarian initiative from the government and throw the damn thing out.
And then? And then Lord Falconer – pictured left – and Lord Goldsmith will wait until just before the summer recess, invoke the Parliament Act, and impose the law anyway.
The justification for the move is that the average random selection of 12 good men and true are too thick to understand the complexities at issue in a major fraud trial.
Supporters point to such fiascos as the acquittal of the Maxwell brothers, the three Guiness trials, and most recently – in March 2005 – the collapse of the Jubilee Line fraud trial after two years.
But it is clear in the latter case that the ability of the jury to grasp the essentials at stake were not the issue. The blame can largely be laid at the door of the defence team and the way it presented the evidence, as a subsequent investigation by the Crown Prosecution Service admitted.
You can read a summary of the findings here. In no way does the evidence offer any justification whatsoever for curtailing the vital protections the government is manifestly so keen to take away.
Of course, defendants in major fraud trials will be – almost by definition – major league businessmen and women of the fat cat stripe. It’s tempting to argue that the left should favour anything that makes it easier to bang up suits. After all, they have to be guilty of something.
Tempting, but wrong. If New Labour succeeds in abolishing trial by jury for one class of offences, the only question is which class of offences will be next, and which class of offences will be the next after that.
<<Go back
Comments
7 Responses to “Trial by jury: why Falconer and Goldsmith are wrong”
Yes, I think that is true and it is most certainly ridding trial by jury for majority of cases. What will be next? Minor offences that could be added to the magistrates court, terrorist offences (similar maybe to the Diplock courts)and anything else New Labour considers expedient.
But without a jury you can get more convictions and quicker. Pressure can be applied to court officials and judges can appointed. You just pick the most “prosecution” minded judge and who will toe the line and hey presto, your conviction rates go up. The vital importance of a jury is that they are randomly selected and they don’t have an axe to grind.
The court system will become “railroad justice”… and the destination is prison.
Yes, I think that is true and it is most certainly ridding trial by jury for majority of cases. What will be next? Minor offences that could be added to the magistrates court, terrorist offences (similar maybe to the Diplock courts)and anything else New Labour considers expedient.
But without a jury you can get more convictions and quicker. Pressure can be applied to court officials and judges can appointed. You just pick the most “prosecution” minded judge and who will toe the line and hey presto, your conviction rates go up. The vital importance of a jury is that they are randomly selected and they don’t have an axe to grind.
The court system will become “railroad justice”… and the destination is prison.
Under s43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the courts already have a wide discretion to grant the application for a non-jury hearing by the prosectution if they are satified that “the complexity of the trial or the length of the trial (or both) is likely to make the trial so burdensome to the members of the jury”.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30044–h.htm#43
The ammendment to this section that John Reid is trying to pass is this:
‘At the end of section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) insert—
“(8) Before the commencement of paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 so far as it inserts section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the reference to that section in subsection (1)(b) is to have effect as if it were a reference to section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.”.’.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/006/rs62501.63-69.html
Perhaps a lawyer could sum up what the fuck this ammendment means???
““(8) Before the commencement of paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 so far as it inserts section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the reference to that section in subsection (1)(b) is to have effect as if it were a reference to section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.”.’.”
Simon: You will need to look up all of these statutory provisions on the HMSO website because you can’t tell just by reading it.
In general, when you see bits of opaque legislation (i.e. refering to bits of existing legislation) like the above, be on your guard as they are hiding something.
Since I did A-level law at 18 I’ve avoided legal-type issues like the plague. But what I do know curtailing trial by jury is very bad. Period.
In Guernsey we have Jurats: 12 senior ex-lawyers who are a permanent jury. Maybe for trials too complex for the public we could at least have that safeguard?
John: Isn’t having a panel of ex-lawyers useless as an alternative to having a jury? It Sounds to me like an expensive way of ensuring guilty verdicts for all but rich/powerful people who would be confident of a not guilty verdict.