Jury trials scrapped for 1000’s of instances: The 4 issues you could know

Everything you need to know about the Labour Government’s major shake-up to the courts system as thousands of cases are set to no longer have access to jury trials

View Image

Everything you need to know about major shake-up to courts system and cutting of jury trials

• WHAT: Jury trials will be ditched for criminals expected to get a sentence of three years or less. It means more than 7,000 cases that last year were heard by juries will no longer have access to them. Around 2,500 cases will now be heard in new “Swift Courts”, which will have a judge alone and are estimated to take 20% less time than a jury trial. Some 5,000 cases will be heard by magistrates. The estimates are based on last year’s figures. Criminals will lose their right to choose a jury trial if they are accused of an “either way” offence, which can be heard in either the Crown or Magistrates Court. The most serious crimes, which must be heard in the Crown Court, will still be heard by a jury. Legislation will need to be passed to introduce the changes.

• WHY: The Labour government inherited a major crisis in the justice system when it was elected. It has already announced a seismic shake-up of sentencing which will see more offenders serve their sentences in the community, amid mass overcrowding in jails. In the courts system, victims are sometimes waiting years to get a trial date, with many distressed individuals dropping out of the process before justice is served. Ministers have also said criminals are gaming the system by electing a jury trial in the hope it drags out the process and their case gets dropped. It can take years before a date of a jury trial is set, whereas cases in the Magistrates Courts can be finished within weeks or months.

• ARGUMENTS FOR: Justice Secretary David Lammy has consistently repeated “justice delayed is often justice denied”. It is a saying that couldn’t be more true in England and Wales at the moment, with a record Crown Courts backlog of almost 80,000 cases leading to intolerable delays in the system. Ministers have put victims at the forefront of their plans, ensuring that they get justice served more quickly, ultimately by removing a defendants’ right to choose a jury. Mr Lammy has also argued that crimes need to be better categorised and suggested that someone who steals a phone from Currys should not be able to opt for a jury trial, nor should they be holding up the queue for a victim of rape who is waiting years for their trial. Mr Lammy also said scrapping jury trials for complicated fraud and financial cases will help relieve the “undue pressures” such long cases place on jurors.

• ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Critics have raised concerns that working class communities or people from a minority ethnic background could suffer from the reforms. Disparities in outcomes already exist within the justice system but juries – who represent the so-called man on the street – are widely considered to help dispel any bias judges might hold. Moving to more judge-only hearings has raised fears of miscarriages of justice. Legal professionals have also cautioned against taking away the “fundamental right” of jury trials. They point out that there is no clear evidence against the “gold-standard” of jury trials, arguing that the reforms are intended as a fix to the courts backlog not because of any issue with juries. The Criminal Bar Association warned the plans bring a “wrecking ball” to a system that is “fundamentally sound”, adding that there was no confirmation they would cut the backlog as much as needed.