Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
C“Absolute feedback” seems to be the euphemism of the day, at least so far. Comprehensive reform of the criminal court system by David Lammy Go to England and Wales.
One can only imagine the formal and informal pressure that was put on the Lord Chancellor when his colleagues discovered, through leaks and possibly through Whitehall gossip, that there would be changes to the legal system, which would prompt The beginning of the end of trial by juryIt was believed that consideration was being given.
Mr Lammy has instead announced the creation of new “swift courts”, in which a single judge will deliver verdicts in thousands of cases, eliminating jury trials for “anyhow” cases, including assaults, thefts and drug deals. it is U-turn of a government This should be warmly welcomed.
Despite the country’s obvious economic problems and enduring crises in public services, Britain cannot stoop so low as to deprive its citizens of the human rights they have enjoyed for 800 years, and in times more difficult than ever. After all, even during wartime there were not so many restrictions on it and, Apart from the Covid epidemicThe only part of the United Kingdom where it has been denied more regularly was in Northern Ireland for a brief and disastrous period for terrorism crimes during the height of the Troubles.
More relevantly, Mr Lammy and his colleagues at the Justice Department are absolutely right to place another venerable principle of fairness on the judicial scales – that “justice delayed is justice denied”. For example, it cannot be right that victims of rape, Will have to wait for four or five years for their cases to be heard – And because of the pain of that delay, many people drop out of the system.
Like prisons, courts have relied on paper systems to an extraordinary extent, and they are often more prone to human error than digital systems, as well as being more expensive and less efficient. Modernization has become the most important task. This will certainly help relieve Mr. Lammy from duty Defending the sudden release of random culprits,
However, the story raises some questions about Mr Lammy’s judgement. It would have been far better for him to have accepted the reform agenda originally handed down to him after careful study by Sir Brian Leveson, a highly distinguished judge who was also endowed with a deep and rare understanding of the art of the possible.
We are now more or less back where Sir Brian’s review recommended modest reforms to the system, balancing justice and cost between the magistrates and Crown courts with new courts.
Mr. Lammy calls his version “Swift Court”, which at least reflects their purposeAfter all, even in King John’s time it was never sensible to make jury trials automatic for the most minor crimes, and most crimes were dealt with by magistrates alone,
Overall, especially for technical and lengthy frauds and financial offences, there may be no option other than trial by judge only. It is, and always has been, a question of balance. In all events, the current system of appeals will remain intact.
Cases where the potential outcome is close, and cases with “public interest”, or a political aspect, also need to be protected by the jury: incitement, protest, human rights and terror come to mind.
Thus, a danger about which Mr Lammy will have to reassure the public and Parliament Does this mean the end of jury trials as a democratic backstopThere have been many famous historical cases over the centuries that have upheld the rights of juries to convict even in cases where the evidence and the judge’s summation point in that direction,
In the enlightened words of a judge in the 17th century, and now displayed prescriptively at the Old Bailey: “Jurors, you have every right to acquit the defendant according to your discretion.” In recent years, we have seen a jury refuse to convict members Palestine crackdown on criminal damage to weapons factoryto compel re-examination; And an example where climate protesters who vandalized JP Morgan’s premises in London were acquitted.
In such cases, a jury trial should be available, and especially given the danger that a trial by judge alone would lead to charges of political bias and undermine the independence of the judiciary.
Mr. Lammy should generally try to ensure that these new restrictions on the right to be tried by one’s fellow citizens are temporary, and that lenient courts will eventually end. In the Commons, he rejected it, saying they were permanent (illogically, given the thrust of his arguments), and he refused to add a “sunset clause” to the legislation. This could prove to be a mistake if inter-party dissent grows and coalesces around the idea.
Even if it takes years, while the cases pending in the courts will be disposed of and the right to speedy justice restored, the general notion of the basic right to trial by jury will have to be reestablished. The current situation should be considered abnormal. In serious, sensitive, “political” and borderline cases, juries are an essential safeguard against overreach by a power-hungry executive and/or politically compromised judiciary – and they will be for at least the next 800 years.