Master Law Tutors' view on the proposed abolition of jury trials

Arguments for abolishing jury trials: backlogs in the court system

There are exceptional backlogs in the court system, the causes of this are multiple and include the closure of Courts during Covid. The backlog has led to some defendants and victims waiting years for trials. There is a very pertinent maxim which states, “justice delayed is justice denied”.

As a result of the concerns about the delays in justice system David Lammy, Justice Secretary, has outlined plans for the abolition of jury trials for either-way offences and even some indictable-only offences where the likely sentence will be less than 3 years. He believes this is an essential move to try and reduce the court backlog.

Arguments against the abolition of jury trials

However, the solution given by Mr Lammy is extreme and is likely to undermine justice in another way. In my view, juries are an essential part of a fully functioning democratic state that has reverence for the rule of law.

The reason that we have juries is that people charged with more serious offences where their liberty is at real risk have the opportunity to be judged by their peers. Juries are made-up of a cross section of society as they are made up of individuals randomly selected from the electoral register of that local area. Therefore, the people that serve on juries are demographically diverse. Hence, jury members may well identify with defendants, as at least some of those on the jury are likely to share some of the defendants' characteristics. This is important especially when considering things like marginalised communities.

Unfairness to minorities

It is well documented that the black community have historically had a strained relationship with the Police. Young black men are often viewed and treated by the Police with more suspicion than their white counterparts. This demonstrates itself in terms of young black men being subject to more intense Police intervention, including being the subject of more frequent stop and searches.

Therefore, having members of the jury that are reflective of the defendant’s demographic are important because when it comes to hearing evidence, from police for example, those on the jury may be more willing to accept the possibility that the police, as the defendant states, acted in a malicious and malign way.

Additionally, jury members who share characteristics with the defendant may identify with how the defendant speaks, his posture, his use of language and conclude that this is just part of his background and are not in any way indicative of guilt.

More like magistrates trials

Lammy’s proposals are that certain Crown Court trials will take place with a single judge in the absence of a jury. Thus, the judge will be responsible for judging the facts and law and deciding on whether the defendant is guilty of the crimes on the indictment.

This proposed system is more akin to a Magistrates trial where the tribunal of law and tribunal of fact are the same persons. Crown Court judges are ultimately legal experts with extensive legal knowledge, however, in terms of becoming the decider of facts they are, arguably, no better equipped than lay magistrates. It may even be argued less equipped given that judge’s lives and backgrounds are much further removed from the everyday person.

Nothing to counter judges' unconscious biases

The conviction rates in the Crown Court are significantly less than the conviction rates in the Magistrates Court. Part of the reason for this appears to be that lay Magistrates have historically been made up of an extremely limited demographic. I remember being taught the phrase, “male, pale and stale”. Meaning that many lay Magistrates were older/retired white men. I have to say that my experience in many Magistrates Courts across London and the Southeast would seem to give credence to this rather crude phrase.

Jury trials ensure fairness for minorities

The problem with having Magistrates from the same demographic is they provide an echo chamber and rather than challenging each other on potential biases of a person they are more likely to fundamentally agree with one another. A young black male from a low social economic background is unlikely to present himself in the same manner as the magistrates judging him. Having people that are different to you and who present in a different way does often lead to a level of distrust and suspicion.

Additionally, when authority figures, like the Police, are giving evidence against defendants, magistrates are much more inclined to believe the authority figure because they are more likely to have had positive experiences with those in authority and will as a result be more trusting of them.

A greater threat to justice

The whole point of having juries is that, they are an important safeguard of justice where those facing the most pertinent loss, that of their liberty, are given the chance to have the case heard and judged by their peers. I understand the problems with delays in justice but scrapping juries as suggested is unlikely to have a significant impact on reducing delays. More fundamentally perhaps is that this purge on jury trials creates a greater threat to justice in that justice needs to be seen to be carried out robustly and in a fair manner across communities.

Post written by Laura Webb, Barrister, Director and Senior Tutor