The Bar Council has urged the UK Government to abandon proposals that would restrict the use of jury trials in England and Wales, warning that such changes risk undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Justice Secretary David Lammy’s plan will restrict jury trials to cases involving “indictable-only” offences such as murder or rape, with a likely sentence of more than three years in prison. He says this will reduce the backlog of cases, set to hit 100,000 by 2028. While most commentators are focusing on what this will mean for victims and defendants involved in less serious crimes, there is good reason to believe that the government could further manipulate the system, to prevent jury trials for some of the most serious cases too.
The need for speed and cheapness
During the 1980’s, the Tory Government operated a policy which ensured that some serious charges against the ‘peace women’, in order to prevent them from being tried by jury. Instead of an impartial jury deciding whether the nuclear threat, posed by stationing American cruise missiles in the middle of Greenham Common, was a lawful excuse for committing criminal damage, the women were tried by a magistrate, who invariably sent them straight to prison. This was said to be “in the interests of speed and cheapness”. I know because I was one of those women.
Political interference
During the early hours of 31 October 1983, I joined a group of 10 women who threw paint on the Greenham Common runway in an attempt to prevent US Galaxy transporter planes, carrying cruise missiles, from landing. We were charged with “criminal damage” and “going equipped with intent to cause criminal damage”. This meant that we were entitled to trial by jury. I had an expert witness from the United Nations Association who was willing to confirm that my action was to prevent the greater crime of genocide from being committed. But prior to the trial, we were told that the second charge had been dropped so we would be tried by the Newbury magistrate instead. It was suggested by Paul Brown (The Guardian, 23.01.1984) that this was a sign of political interference. In the event, and to our astonishment, we were acquitted of all charges when our lawyer proved that some of the police’s evidence against us had been fabricated. Nevertheless, this experience taught me that political manipulation is never far from the justice process.
The Scottish courts also have a back-log of cases, but so far the Scottish Government has avoided copying England’s move towards authoritarianism, where justice is in the hands of the establishment, rather the people.
More on politics:
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
