The government’s decision to scale back its plans to curtail trial by jury is welcome.
Ministers have finally recognised the strength of opposition to curtailing a fundamental safeguard in our criminal justice system; but scaling back these proposals does not mean restoring the jury trial rights that the remaining reforms would remove.
Defendants charged with either-way offences would still lose their right to elect a jury trial, with magistrates deciding. Magistrates’ sentencing powers would also increase from one year to two. These remain significant changes to how criminal justice is delivered.
The magistrates’ court backlog stands at around 380,000 cases. The proposed changes would add an estimated 5,500 trials annually. Here, the government risks transferring pressure to another part of an already overstretched system.
Magistrates make an invaluable contribution to justice. The question is whether they have the resources, training, and support to absorb more complex cases lasting several days. I have written before in these pages about how over-burdened our magistracy is.
More importantly, increasing the powers of magistrates does not create more capacity. These changes, therefore, require a credible plan for staffing, legal advisers, and infrastructure.
In my dissenting opinion during the Justice Committee’s scrutiny of the Courts and Tribunals Bill in June, I warned that transferring pressure from the Crown Court would not resolve the underlying causes of delay. Those concerns remain unanswered.
The government also intends to retain judge-only trials for complex fraud and financial offences. Yet Jonathan Fisher KC’s independent review, Fraud in the Digital Age, found the efficiency case for removing juries unproven and supported retaining them. It identified disclosure as the greatest cause of delay in complex fraud trials.
I have previously written to the lord chancellor raising such concerns, but it is up to ministers to explain to the public why they are proceeding against the conclusions of their own commissioned review. In my mind, complexity does not justify dispensing with juries.
Appeal rights also demand scrutiny. The bill would replace an automatic appeal by rehearing with a permission requirement and a narrower review. As I argued in my dissenting opinion, magistrates’ appeals represent only a small proportion of Crown Court receipts, while successful appeals demonstrate their value in correcting errors.
Retaining more serious cases in magistrates’ courts while restricting opportunities to challenge their outcomes is a deeply concerning combination.
No one disputes victims and defendants receiving timely justice, but delivering it requires properly resourced courts and reforms that are grounded in evidence - not half-measures like what we have seen hitherto from the government.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP is the Conservative member of parliament for Solihull West & Shirley, and shadow minister for Health & Social Care. He previously served as a British Army Medical Officer and barrister, and sits on the House of Commons Justice Committee
No comments yet