Why does MoJ want to curtail jury trials in England and Wales?

The courts minister, Sarah Sackman, has said the government plans to press ahead with radical proposals by Sir Brian Leveson to take thousands of trials in England and Wales away from the jury system to be heard instead by judges and magistrates. What is the reason for these changes, how would they work and why are they controversial? Why change the jury system? The courts are plagued by a record backlog. On publication of his proposals in July, Leveson, a former judge, made clear he was curtailing jury trials with a heavy heart to prevent “total system collapse”. One of the consequences of the backlog has been victims and witnesses increasingly deciding not to participate in trials because they are left waiting years for their case to be heard. The quality of evidence they give can also be affected. In his report, Leveson wrote: “Little or no consequences for lawlessness could lead to a breakdown in law and order and society taking things into their own hands.” Cutting the courts backlog is also seen as vital to achieving the government’s plans to tackle violence against women and girls and make streets safer. Defendants also face years with charges hanging over their heads. Some will be held in jail awaiting trial – the remand population in jails is at a record high – only to then be acquitted. The cover of the report featured a number of quotes to the effect that justice delayed is justice denied, from the likes of Martin Luther King, William Gladstone, Magna Carta and the Talmud. What are the proposals? They include a new division of the crown court in which a judge and two magistrates hear “either way” offences – those in which the defendant can choose to be heard by either a magistrate or a jury in the crown court. Leveson also proposed the right to be tried in the crown court for offences that carry a maximum sentence of no more than two years. Another recommendation was reclassifying some either-way offences so they can be tried only in a magistrates court. Reflecting longstanding concerns about the length of serious and complex fraud cases and jurors’ ability to handle them, the report says they should be heard by a judge sitting alone. It also proposes a right for all crown court defendants to elect to be tried by a judge alone. The right to a jury trial could be removed for offences such as sexual assault, racially or religiously aggravated strangulation, harassment and child abduction. What difference would the changes make? Leveson said that the top three recommendations listed above would save 9,000 sitting days in the crown courts, out of a current total of 110,000. He said he believed that to be a conservative estimate but that it could take more than five years to clear the backlog even if all of his proposals were adopted. Why are the reforms controversial? Although some offences are already tried by magistrates, the right to trial by jury is seen as a bedrock of the justice system. Magna Carta in 1215 referred to the right to be tried by one’s peers, although Leveson and others dispute its exact meaning and the modern jury system did not emerge until much later. A survey of Criminal Bar Association members found them to be overwhelmingly opposed to the proposals. For example, 88.5% opposed the creation of the new crown court bench division, while 78.2% opposed the removal of juries from fraud trials. The Bar Council and Law Society have said the government should focus on increased funding for the justice system after years of underinvestment. Another concern that has been voiced is that reducing rights to jury trials would disadvantage people of colour and other minorities because of the lack of diversity in the judiciary but Leveson denied it would lead to more miscarriages of justice. Could they be reversed when the backlog is cleared? Asked whether he could have set a time limit, Leveson said it would take time for the proposals to be implemented and it was impossible to tell how long it would take for them to have the desired effects. He said, if it worked, “I anticipate that there would be real pressure to go backwards, not least from you [the press]”.