Source: Times, The (UK)
Contact:  http://www.the-times.co.uk/
Pubdate: Thur, 17 Sep 1998

OPTION OF TRIAL BY JURY UNDER THREAT

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Sir, The Home Office is consulting on plans to remove a defendant's right to
choose trial by jury for certain serious offences, including grievous bodily
harm and theft (article by Roger Ede, Law, September 8); its consultation
paper, published in July, claims not to be concerned with the merits of jury
trial, but only with the right of the unconvicted to choose it in so-called
"either-way" cases.

We represent five organisations involved in the delivery of justice who are
collectively fearful that such a fundamental right is to be dismissed in the
interests of justice on the cheap.

Of course jury trials cost more - but the public puts a value on justice and
delivering the right result. The financial impact of injustice on wrecked
lives and careers is far more costly, and near impossible to remedy.

The Conservative Home Secretary proposed abolishing a defendant's right to
jury trial some 18 months ago (report, February 28, 1997). At that time, the
present Home Secretary, Jack Straw, said the idea was "not only wrong, but
short-sighted, and likely to prove ineffective". We believe his analysis was
correct.

The Government's current plans are inadequately researched as to their
impact. They rely on a mistaken interpretation of outdated Home Office data
gathered before far-reaching changes in the justice system brought in under
the 1996 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act.

The main reason for electing jury trial is that people quite rightly see
their chances of obtaining fairness in the Crown Court as significantly
higher. Having a professional judge to oversee the case is as important as
having the facts decided by a jury.

Electing jury trial brings with it important safeguards for defendants. The
removal of the right to elect would lead to further delays, with mini-trials
about venue; lawyers would be put in the invidious position of having to
submit to magistrates that they lack the qualities to reach a fair decision;
and, in practice, any defendant anxious to secure a jury trial would seek to
challenge the justices' decision by way of judicial review, which would
cause further delay and expense.

The consultation period for these ill-considered proposals closes at the end
of this month. All who value people's justice should make their views known
to the Home Secretary as a matter of urgency.

Yours etc, HEATHER HALLETT, Chairman, Bar Council, VICKI CHAPMAN, Head of
Policy, Legal Action Group, MICHAEL MATHEWS, President, The Law Society,
ANNE OWERS, Director, Justice, JOHN WADHAM, Director, Liberty, General
Council of the Bar, 3 Bedford Row, WC1R 4DV. September 14.

- ---
Checked-by: Don Beck