Trial By Jury: still 'a fundamental part of our democratic system', insist 89% of respondents

A large proportion of the public supports government moves to scrap juries in corporate fraud trials, research revealed this week.


In a survey of more than 2,000 people commissioned by accountancy firm KPMG, 49% were in favour of removing juries from fraud cases, while only 28% were opposed.


However, there was resounding support for the role of the jury in non-fraud cases, with 89% agreeing that juries are a 'fundamental part of our democratic system'. Only one-fifth thought juries should be used in fewer cases than at present.


Earlier this year, the government announced controversial plans to seek parliamentary approval to implement section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which will allow serious and complex fraud trials to be conducted by judge alone. It is opposed by the likes of the Law Society, Bar Council, Liberty and Justice.


Brian Spiro, a partner at London firm BCL Burton Copeland, who acted for two of the defendants in the Jubilee Line trial that collapsed in March this year following jury problems, said: 'The vast majority of the public believes that they are never going to be subject to a fraud trial, so there is a degree of self-interest in the result. They do support juries in cases where they can imagine themselves appearing.



'If the question had been "would you be in favour of scrapping jury trials in fraud cases as a first step towards all cases?", I suspect there would have been a different result. The result would also have been different if the research had been done within the City.'


He added: 'The government still won't sanction independent analysis of juries, yet it seems prepared to push through section 43 based, at least in part, on the argument that juries can't cope with complex frauds.'


A Department for Constitutional Affairs report recently backed greater jury research, but initially only through methods such as mock or shadow juries.


Louise Delahunty, a partner at specialist London white-collar fraud law firm Peters & Peters, said: 'It comes down to a question of costs, and this is why these trials are being targeted. Some trials are too lengthy and recent measures deal with expediting trials. These measures should be given a chance to work.'


She added: 'Is it fair to have a system where a serious murder charge provides the right to a jury, but someone accused of fraud, whose company may have gone into liquidation with resulting debt, or who may be subject to shifting City standards - usually a person of good character - should forego this basic right?'


Law Society President Kevin Martin said trial by jury is a fundamental right and safeguard.