UK Law Articles
These articles are reproduced from old newspapers. Whether you are looking for old articles about the Lord Chancellor's Department, or trying to find stories on solicitors, judges or courts, the law teacher article database is here to help you. You will find these articles useful for writing your law essays, law dissertations and law coursework.
The Times
September 17 1998
Lawyers unite on right to jury trial
BY FRANCES GIBB, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT
A GRAND alliance of groups from across the legal profession urges the Home Secretary today not to go ahead with "ill-considered" plans to scrap the right to trial by jury.
The Bar, the Law Society, Liberty, Justice and the Legal Action Group, express concern that the proposals may sacrifice a fundamental right in the interests of "justice on the cheap".
Their comments are contained in a letter to The Times in which they remind Jack Straw that while in opposition he had described the idea of removing the right to jury trial for a swath of middle-ranking offences as "not only wrong, but short-sighted, and likely to prove ineffective".
Mr Straw has issued a consultation paper inviting comments by the end of this month on plans to remove the right to jury trial for some 21,000 defendants a year accused of offences including grievous bodily harm and theft. Instead, magistrates would decide where they should be tried after hearing legal argument from both prosecution and defence. The change would save millions of pounds a year: the average cost of a contested jury trial is £13,500 compared with £2,500 for a magistrates' hearing.
But the legal groups writing to The Times say that the removal of the right to elect could lead to delay and expense, with "mini-trials" to determine where a defendant should be tried.
The Home Secretary is also likely to face tough questioning at a Fabian fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference. Rank and file MPs have expressed concern about the removal of what they see as a fundamental right.
Although Mr Straw originally opposed the idea, he has since said that a Home Office review had found there was support for change. Home Office research has found that a main reason for opting for jury trial is defendants' belief that they stand a better chance of acquittal. Research has also shown, however, that they are mistaken if they think they are likely to obtain a lighter sentence.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Option of trial by jury under threat
From the Chairman of the
Bar Council and others
Sir, The Home Office is consulting on plans to remove a defendant's right to choose trial by jury for certain serious offences, including grievous bodily harm and theft (article by Roger Ede, Law, September 8); its consultation paper, published in July, claims not to be concerned with the merits of jury trial, but only with the right of the unconvicted to choose it in so-called "either-way" cases.
We represent five organisations involved in the delivery of justice who are collectively fearful that such a fundamental right is to be dismissed in the interests of justice on the cheap.
Of course jury trials cost more - but the public puts a value on justice and delivering the right result. The financial impact of injustice on wrecked lives and careers is far more costly, and near impossible to remedy.
The Conservative Home Secretary proposed abolishing a defendant's right to jury trial some 18 months ago (report, February 28, 1997). At that time, the present Home Secretary, Jack Straw, said the idea was "not only wrong, but short-sighted, and likely to prove ineffective". We believe his analysis was correct.
The Government's current plans are inadequately researched as to their impact. They rely on a mistaken interpretation of outdated Home Office data gathered before far-reaching changes in the justice system brought in under the 1996 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act.
The main reason for electing jury trial is that people quite rightly see their chances of obtaining fairness in the Crown Court as significantly higher. Having a professional judge to oversee the case is as important as having the facts decided by a jury.
Electing jury trial brings with it important safeguards for defendants. The removal of the right to elect would lead to further delays, with mini-trials about venue; lawyers would be put in the invidious position of having to submit to magistrates that they lack the qualities to reach a fair decision; and, in practice, any defendant anxious to secure a jury trial would seek to challenge the justices' decision by way of judicial review, which would cause further delay and expense.
The consultation period for these ill-considered proposals closes at the end of this month. All who value people's justice should make their views known to the Home Secretary as a matter of urgency.
Yours etc,
HEATHER HALLETT,
Chairman, Bar Council,
VICKI CHAPMAN,
Head of Policy, Legal Action Group,
MICHAEL MATHEWS,
President, The Law Society,
ANNE OWERS,
Director, Justice,
JOHN WADHAM,
Director, Liberty,
General Council of the Bar,
3 Bedford Row, WC1R 4DV.
September 14.
