Government U-turn On Trial By Jury
Plans to Reduce Trial By Jury For Certain Cases Shelved, For Now.
The Government has announced changes to its proposed criminal court reforms as it attempts to tackle a Crown Court backlog of almost 81,000 cases. Plans for wider use of judge-only trials have been dropped, but changes to jury trials, magistrates’ sentencing powers and the way some cases are allocated between courts could still have important consequences for defendants.
Why Are Changes to the Criminal Courts Being Proposed?
The immediate problem facing the criminal justice system is the growing Crown Court backlog.
Government figures show almost 81,000 cases waiting to be dealt with, with almost a third having been waiting for a year or longer. For victims and witnesses, that can mean an extremely long wait for a case to reach its conclusion.
But delays also have serious consequences for defendants.
Someone accused of an offence can potentially spend months or even years awaiting trial without having been convicted of the allegation against them. During that period they may be subject to bail conditions, restrictions upon their movements or contact with other people and, in some cases, may be held on remand.
There can also be consequences for employment, finances, relationships and family life while serious allegations remain unresolved.
When the Government says that “justice delayed is justice denied”, therefore, the principle is relevant to everyone involved in criminal proceedings.
Plans for Wider Judge-Only Crown Court Trials Have Been Dropped
One of the most controversial proposals under consideration had been greater use of trials in the Crown Court without a jury.
The Government has now changed course and says plans for some criminal trials to be heard by a judge alone will be scrapped, meaning juries will continue to determine the outcome of more serious ordinary criminal cases.
This is significant because trial by jury remains an important feature of the criminal justice system in England and Wales.
In a conventional Crown Court trial, the judge deals with questions of law and procedure while the jury considers the evidence and ultimately determines whether the prosecution has proved the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Maintaining that distinction for serious criminal cases means defendants will generally continue to have their guilt or innocence determined by members of the public rather than solely by a professional judge.
Some Complex Fraud Trials Could Still Be Heard Without a Jury
There is, however, an important proposed exception.
The Government intends to allow technical and lengthy fraud and financial crime cases to be heard by a judge alone.
Some complex fraud trials can involve substantial volumes of financial records, digital evidence, corporate structures and transactions stretching across lengthy periods. Trials can potentially continue for months, creating significant demands upon both the courts and jurors.
The proposed reform is intended to reduce that burden.
From a criminal defence perspective, however, it represents an important procedural change. In an eligible case, the person determining whether the prosecution has proved its allegations could be a judge rather than a jury.
The precise scope and operation of these provisions will therefore be important as the legislation progresses.
Magistrates Could Be Given Greater Sentencing Powers
Another part of the reforms involves allowing magistrates to impose longer sentences.
The intention is to enable more criminal cases to be completed in the magistrates’ courts rather than adding further pressure to the Crown Court.
That could help reduce delays, but increased sentencing powers are also significant for defendants.
The magistrates’ court already deals with the overwhelming majority of criminal cases. Giving magistrates greater powers to impose custodial sentences potentially allows more serious cases to remain within that system rather than being sent to the Crown Court for sentence.
For somebody facing prosecution, the court in which a case is heard can therefore become an important consideration when receiving legal advice about plea, procedure and the potential consequences of conviction.
Could Defendants Lose the Right to Choose a Jury Trial?
Perhaps one of the most significant proposed changes concerns offences which can currently be tried either in the magistrates’ court or Crown Court.
These are known as “either-way” offences.
Under the current system, where magistrates consider such a case suitable to remain in the magistrates’ court, a defendant can in certain circumstances elect to have their trial before a jury in the Crown Court instead.
The Government proposes giving courts the final say over where some cases should be heard.
The Government has described this as preventing defendants accused of relatively minor offences from attempting to “game the system” by electing jury trial in an effort to avoid imprisonment.
From a defence perspective, the more fundamental issue is that the proposal could change an existing procedural choice available to defendants.
Exactly which cases are affected and how decisions about trial venue will be made will therefore matter considerably once the detailed reforms are introduced.
Could AI Help Reduce Criminal Court Delays?
Technology also forms part of the Government’s plans to modernise the courts.
Proposals include using artificial intelligence to support the listing of cases, expanding virtual hearings and improving processes intended to ensure defendants arrive at court when required.
It is important to distinguish this use of AI from the determination of criminal cases themselves.
The proposal outlined by the Government concerns using technology to help administer and schedule court business. It does not mean artificial intelligence replacing judges or juries in deciding whether somebody is guilty of a criminal offence.
If technology can reduce cancelled hearings, improve court utilisation and help cases progress more efficiently, it could potentially benefit defendants, victims and witnesses alike.
Faster Justice Must Still Be Fair Justice
There is little benefit to anyone in criminal cases remaining unresolved for years.
Victims can be left waiting for answers, witnesses may have to live with proceedings hanging over them and defendants can face lengthy periods of uncertainty before the allegations against them have even been determined.
Long delays can also create practical difficulties for criminal trials. Memories can fade, witnesses can become difficult to locate and personal circumstances can change substantially while a case waits to be heard.
Reducing the backlog is therefore not simply about administrative efficiency.
But speed cannot be the only measure of whether a criminal justice system is working effectively.
The right to challenge prosecution evidence, receive appropriate legal representation and have allegations determined through a fair process remain fundamental regardless of how much pressure the courts are under.
What Could the Court Reforms Mean for Someone Facing Criminal Charges?
For most people accused of an offence, the immediate concern will continue to be the evidence against them and the potential consequences if they are convicted.
However, the wider structure within which a criminal case is heard can also matter.
The proposed reforms could affect whether some defendants are tried before magistrates or a jury, the sentencing powers available to magistrates and, in certain complex financial cases, whether guilt is determined by a jury or a judge sitting alone.
As the Courts and Tribunals Bill progresses through Parliament, the detail surrounding those changes will therefore be important.
Morton’s Solicitors provides criminal defence advice and representation from the earliest stages of an investigation through to court proceedings, trial and sentence.
The challenge facing criminal justice reform is not simply to make cases move faster. It is to make them move faster while preserving the safeguards intended to ensure that, when a verdict is eventually reached, the process used to reach it has been fair.
How We Can Help.
If you have any questions relating to prison sentencing and would like advice or legal representation – then don’t hesitate to call us now on 0161 477 1121 or email us.
