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.
Home Office
Press Release
19 November 1999
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MODE OF TRIAL) BILL
MAGISTRATES
TO DECIDE ON JURY TRIAL
The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill published today would give
a Crown Court judge rather than defendants the final power to decide
on whether offences like theft, burglary and handling ('either-way
offences') should be tried in the Crown Court or in magistrates'
courts.
Reform of this kind was a key and unanimous recommendation of the
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice under Lord Runciman which
reported in 1993, as well as the Narey Review of Delay in the
Criminal Justice System in 1997. Both proposed that the final
decision on mode of trial should rest with the magistrates. The
Government has proposed an additional safeguard - a right of appeal
to a Crown Court judge.
Home Secretary Jack Straw said:
"Trial by jury is a key freedom in our democracy. But giving
defendants a choice of courts is not. It is frankly eccentric which
is why we in England and Wales are almost alone in allowing this
arrangement to continue. This Bill does not abolish jury trial. It
does however ensure that the decision whether the magistrates or the
Crown Court should try 'either-way' cases is made objectively by the
court on clear criteria. This was a key recommendation of the Royal
Commission on Criminal Justice chaired by Lord Runciman. But we are
adding a safeguard, which is an interlocutory right of appeal to a
Crown Court judge against a decision by the magistrates that they
should hear the case.
"I readily acknowledged that I have changed my mind on this issue
over the last three years. I hope others do too. This is one of
those issues where the more one examines the case, the more
persuasive is the argument for change. And the new provision of a
special right of appeal in any event deals with one of my key worries
when I was in Opposition.
"Too many defendants have been working the system, demanding Crown
Court trial purely to delay proceedings. Not only does this cause
suffering and distress to victims and witnesses, but it also costs
the taxpayer a lot of money in extra court costs. We estimate that
this Bill would save the taxpayer over £100 million. This is not
however just about money and delay, but about the public interest in
an efficient criminal justice system.
"I have of course been sensitive to the concerns that this change
could adversely affect Black and Asian defendants. It has been said
that proportionately more black defendants elect for trial. There is
no firm evidence for this. But if it is so, it is not necessarily to
their advantage. Where such defendants were convicted, the effect of
electing would be to increase the penalties imposed on them, since
the Crown Court sentences more heavily than magistrates for
equivalent offences. There is no evidence that magistrates' courts
do discriminate against Black and Asian defendants, and remarkably
few complaints of miscarriages of justice in respect of magistrates'
trials. This may partly be because a defendant dissatisfied with his
or her conviction in a magistrates' court has an absolute right to a
complete retrial in the Crown Court (before a judge and two
magistrates, not a jury) - whilst there is no such general right to a
retrial from a jury conviction. This right of retrial, together with
the new interlocutory right of appeal against a refusal of jury
trial, add up to important safeguards.
"Those who extravagantly complain that this change would
fundamentally affect civil liberties should answer one question.
Where is the evidence that the quality of justice in Scotland is less
than in England and Wales? In Scotland, defendants have no choice of
courts.
"The defendant's choice of jury trial has never been an ancient right
- it is an anomaly which is replicated virtually no where else. This
Bill would ensure that jury trial is available for cases that
objectively warrant it, while safeguarding defendants' access to a
fair trial.
"This legislation is part of our modernisation programme for the
Criminal Justice System. It will make it more effective and
efficient without compromising the quality of justice."
NOTES FOR EDITORS:
1 Media copies of the Draft Bill are available from the Home
Office Press Office. Other copies are available
from the Home Office publications section on 0171 273 2084.
2 The Home Office issued a consultation paper Determining Mode of
Trial in Either-Way Cases in July 1998.
3 The Criminal Law Act 1977 divides offences into summary
offences, which are triable only in a magistrates court and
indictable offences. Indictable offences are subdivided into
'indictable only' which must be tried 'on indictment' in the Crown
Court and 'either way' offences which may be tried either summarily
or on indictment (that is magistrates court or Crown Court
respectively).
4 These changes were proposed by the Royal Commission on Criminal
Justice and the Narey Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System
in 1997, and were more recently supported by the Lord Chief Justice
Lord Bingham.
5 As a result of the provisions in the Bill, a reduction of
around 12,000 Crown Court trials per year is estimated. The net
result savings to the criminal justice system is about £105 million.
