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
January 21 2000
Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill: Labour lords denounce one law for rich and another for poor
Rebel peers defeat Straw on jury trial
BY MELISSA KITE
JACK STRAW'S attempts to restrict trial by jury were condemned as unfair during an impassioned debate in the Lords last night.
Peers on all sides of the House, including several Labour rebels, united against the measure, claiming that it would mean one law for the rich and another for the poor.
The Bill, taking away the automatic right to trial by jury for so-called "either-way" cases such as theft and burglary, was defeated by the passing of an amendment which effectively rendered it null and void.
Baroness Mallalieu, a Labour life peer and QC with 30 years experience in criminal law, said that she could not support a Bill which made trial by jury a prize, not a right.
Magistrates were still not representative of young men, ethnic minorities or those from deprived backgrounds. "It's not surprising therefore that a defendant given the choice will say: 'I want my case to be tried by people like me'". She said: "Equality before the law is a principle which I believe should never be sacrificed if we can possibly avoid it. We would all of us I think agree that one law for the rich and one law for the poor is wrong but so surely is one mode of trial for the deserving and another for those of little consequence".
The former Labour Cabinet minister Lord Shore of Stepney said that jury trial was the jewel in the crown of the criminal justice system. "We need very powerful arguments indeed to persuade us that we should diminish access to trial by jury to our fellow citizens."
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Lord Chief Justice, defended the Bill and said he believed that many judges themselves accepted it was the right thing to do now there was a right of appeal built into the legislation. But he conceded that there were concerns.
However, claims that the changes were needed because of a current abuse of the system were roundly rejected. Lord Lipsey, a Labour life peer, drew gasps when he suggested that some black people "may opt for jury trial in the hope that they will get an OJ Simpson". He said: "What they hope is that there will be enough black jurors who are fundamentally hostile to the criminal justice system."
The Earl of Onslow, a Conservative hereditary peer, said that Lord Lipsey's remarks were disgraceful and he thanked him for adding votes to those who disagreed with the Government. He said: "It is totally essential that justice is not only seen to be done for us all but equal to us all."
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead attacked "this ill-conceived little Bill" and rounded on the Home Secretary for suggesting he backed it. "I utterly reject the view that this proposal is the equivalent of my majority verdict proposals."
"If he [Mr Straw] will accept the defeat of this measure with a good grace, if he will be less grudging on freedom of information, and if he will take less of a knee-jerk Daily Mail attitude to the whole complex issue of crime and punishment, then maybe by the end of this Parliament his reputation for humane sagacity might begin to gleam a little bit more brightly."
It was the first defeat in the Lords since most of the hereditary peers were removed, and the Tory home affairs spokesman Lord Cope of Berkeley, a life peer, hinted that it might not be the last. "Some people seem to think that we, the House of Lords, should not pass this amendment because it is 'too important a matter'. We are told we should stand back, hold our noses, and leave the decision to the House of Commons."
Lord Taylor of Warwick, (Conservative) said: "This Bill casts a shadow once more on race relations. So many organisations are against it, it is time the Government faced the music, even though they don't like the tune."
Earl Russell, a Liberal Democrat hereditary, said: "What we are dealing with is more than justice, it is the interaction between government and the governed." Those with previous convictions were more likely to be wrongly convicted, he said. The amendment was carried by 222 to 126. Lord Strathclyde, Tory leader in the Lords, said the Government should withdraw the Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington, Leader of the Lords, replied: "We will not proceed with this Bill and will be introducing a No 2 Bill in another place [the Commons]." Parliamentary Reports
