Lawyers attack proposals to scrap jury trial and relax the double jeopardy rule

JUSTICE FOR ALL: Law Society and Bar Council back code on a defendant's previous convictions

Lawyers this week voiced their unanimous disapproval of proposals to abolish trial by jury in certain cases, permit hearsay evidence, and introduce exceptions to the double jeopardy rule as the consultation period on the criminal justice White Paper came to an end.

The Law Society said plans to remove trial by jury in serious fraud and complex cases and trials that may give rise to jury intimidation, deny defendants 'their democratic right to be tried by 12 ordinary men and women.

The erosion of defendants' right to jury trial must be resisted'.

Bar Council vice-chairman Matthias Kelly QC added: 'We will mount a vigorous lobbying campaign to press our proposals home in Parliament where there is enduring concern at the Home Office's continued fixation with curbing jury trial.'

These sentiments were echoed by human rights group Justice and the Legal Action Group (LAG).

There was almost complete support for a defendant having the right to elect trial by judge alone.

However, Justice said that acquittals of those accused of sensitive crimes, such as child abuse, could leave a judge open to public hostility.

There were concerns over the proposal to allow hearsay evidence directly into court, and calls were made for more clarity.

The Society said: 'The rule of hearsay is not properly understood, even by practitioners.

The law needs to be codified in statutory form.' All also opposed the relaxation of the double jeopardy rule.

The Society and Bar Council supported a new code, as proposed by the Law Commission, which would set out the instances when a defendant's previous convictions or misconduct could be revealed in court.

LAG and the Bar Council spoke out against the plans for advance disclosure of defence witness lists, while the Society reiterated its belief that 'delays to the system are not caused by defence practitioners, and defence disclosure is hampered by poor prosecution disclosure'.

LAG also strongly opposed the advance disclosure of unused expert witness reports.

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group primarily focused its analysis on proposals directly affecting criminal defence lawyers and the legal aid system.

It said it opposed 'further penalties against defence lawyers' for errors in court, and opposed the idea that lawyers should serve on juries.

The Criminal Law Solicitors Association has yet to publish its response, but director Rodney Warren voiced his concerns over the disclosure of used witness reports, the abolition of jury trial in certain cases and admission of hearsay evidence.

'There seems to be a desire by the government to move towards an inquisitorial justice system, as opposed to an adversarial one,' he said.

Andrew Towler