THOUSANDS of people will lose their right to a trial by jury under reforms set to be brought in by Labour – despite fears it would erode trust in the justice system.
In a bid to tackle the 77,000-strong backlog of cases in the country’s Crown Courts, cases could be fast tracked and heard only by a judge and two magistrates.
Courts minister Sarah Sackman said drug dealers were “coming into court and laughing in the face of the justices” because they knew they could kick their case down the road by electing for a lengthy jury trial.
She told the Guardian: “Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a minimart should receive the right to trial by jury?
“Do we think that someone who has been involved in a serious fraud involving cryptocurrency that we should have a jury sat in court for a year or more hearing such a case?
“For me, the priority is swift justice, fair justice, over prioritising a defendant’s right to choose where that trial is heard. By the time that trial comes to court, everyone’s memories are a little bit more fuzzy. If you’re years away from when it took place, can you really get justice at all? That’s not fair.”
A Ministry of Justice source told The Sun: “No final decision has been taken by the government. But bold action to bring down the backlog and get victims the swift and certain justice they deserve is vital.”
The Criminal Bar Association, which represents barristers in England and Wales, called the move “the wrong decision”.
They said in a statement: “The delays in the Crown Court are scandalous, but the solution is not an un-costed, un-tested replacement for trial by jury.
“Study after study shows that trial by jury is the system which carries the greatest confidence of the public.
“Criminal cases matter both to the individuals concerned and to the public.
Whether it is the complainant who has had the courage to report an allegation of rape to the police, or a defendant who is innocent of an accusation, individuals want the truth of their case to be decided by an impartial panel drawn from the public, not by professional judges.”
Former senior judge Sir Brian Leveson suggested the tactic after a review of the state of Britain’s court system.
He said there should be judge-only trials for certain complex cases such as fraud and bribery.
A new division of the Crown Court with two magistrates and one judge should be set up to hear less serious offences, he said.
It could mean that criminals who commit serious offences including production and supply of drugs such as heroine, cocaine and ketamine, sexual assault, and taking indecent images of children could face the simplified court system.
