The jury trials decision is appalling and I will break the whip for the first time to oppose it
3 min read
The Lord Chancellor’s announcement this week that he will restrict jury trials is both a dereliction of duty and an ineffective way of dealing with a crippling backlog of cases.
It is an appalling decision, and it risks undermining his legacy. The erosion of jury trials not only risks undermining a fundamental right but, more importantly, will not reduce the backlog.
The primary cause of the backlog is the restriction on ‘sitting days’, the number of days the Crown Court sits in a year. Around 130,000 sitting days are available to the courts, yet, despite a capacity crisis, sitting days are restricted by around 20,000 a year. While the government has rightly announced that it is increasing the number of sitting days by 5000, this is still a substantial shortfall. This inexplicable misuse of court time needs to be rectified.
Alongside the welcome £34m commitment to increasing legal aid funding, the government needs to heavily invest in the number of judges, particularly recorders (part-time Crown Court judges). An increase in the number of recorders available to the courts will have a significant impact on the court’s ability to utilise all available sitting days. Presumably, the government has already committed to doing so by virtue of the announcement that it will introduce an entirely new type of court, which will be staffed by judges rather than lay magistrates. The government should invest that money into the recruitment of new judges.
Many cases within the backlog will almost certainly have their pleas changed to a lower charge. The Crown Prosecution Service needs to be empowered – through the utilisation of the self-employed Bar, if necessary – to go through the cases and work out which ones could acceptably be dealt with a lesser charge. This will have the dual benefit of keeping a case within the confines of the Magistrates' Court, while also increasing the chance of conviction, bringing some solace to victims. This should be done in conjunction with attempts to re-classify certain either way offences, which would ensure that more live cases can be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court.
One of the most appalling aspects of this whole crisis is the inefficiency of prisoner transport. Criminal barristers regularly email me to explain that case after case is delayed due to the problems associated with ensuring defendants arrive at court on time. While exact data on the number of days wasted by Serco’s inefficiency is difficult to come by, there are huge problems associated with Serco. A return to a fully publicly owned prison estate is clearly not feasible; however, heavy sanctions should be imposed on Serco for the late delivery of prisoners to court.
Numerous questions still arise. Will those who have opted for trial by jury have their rights respected? Or will that right be removed? If the government removes that right, courts face being overburdened with numerous appeals, becoming more inefficient as a result.
This House and the country more broadly will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given that there are numerous options available to this government to fix the backlog.
Sir Brian Leveson is a well-respected figure whose words carry weight. But the outcry from barristers, judges and others cannot be ignored; the government has an opportunity to rectify a problem that was not caused by jury trials. If this is put to the House as primary legislation, I will break the whip to vote against any such bill, and so will many more Labour MPs.
Karl Turner is Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull East.
