Read on Twitter
Thoroughly depressing to see Labour buy into the government myth that uprooting our criminal justice system is the way to deal with the trial backlog.
Properly funding the criminal justice system is the way to deal with the backlog. https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1354202462706671616
Properly funding the criminal justice system is the way to deal with the backlog. https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1354202462706671616
As readers of my books will know, I’m a jury sceptic. I think it’s probably the best system we have, but I believe it is unduly opaque and capable of improvement. I’m not ideologically fervent about a jury of twelve.
But.
But.
We should not be uprooting fundaments of the justice system without careful research into the impact.
For instance.
David Lammy’s 2017 review identified jury trial as “one stage in the criminal justice system where B[A]ME groups do not face persistent disproportionality.”
![We should not be uprooting fundaments of the justice system without careful research into the impact.For instance.David Lammy’s 2017 review identified jury trial as “one stage in the criminal justice system where B[A]ME groups do not face persistent disproportionality.”](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsuXPcEW8AEC_aG.jpg "We should not be uprooting fundaments of the justice system without careful research into the impact.For instance.David Lammy’s 2017 review identified jury trial as “one stage in the criminal justice system where B[A]ME groups do not face persistent disproportionality.”")
For instance.
David Lammy’s 2017 review identified jury trial as “one stage in the criminal justice system where B[A]ME groups do not face persistent disproportionality.”
What impact would reducing the size of jury panels have on outcomes? On how deliberations work? What research can Labour point to that makes them confident that this will not have an adverse impact on the quality of justice?
Then there’s the practicalities. What does reducing juries to seven members actually do to assist the backlog?
It won’t make trials any quicker.
It won’t increase the number of socially-distanced trial courtrooms.
Again, what research informs this policy?
It won’t make trials any quicker.
It won’t increase the number of socially-distanced trial courtrooms.
Again, what research informs this policy?
The reason that “wartime juries” were reduced to seven jurors was because of a feared shortage of jurors - due to conscription - NOT because of a shortage of courts.
We have a shortage of courts because the government sold off 297 court buildings. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-labour-call-for-slimmed-down-wartime-juries-to-clear-backlog-of-crown-court-cases-12199994
We have a shortage of courts because the government sold off 297 court buildings. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-labour-call-for-slimmed-down-wartime-juries-to-clear-backlog-of-crown-court-cases-12199994
Circling back to the practicalities, it is possible that reduced numbers would allow certain courtrooms - not currently able to accommodate socially-distanced twelve - to start running trials. But you still need socially distanced retiring rooms. And enough court staff.
Even if reducing juries to 7 did allow more trials in existing court buildings, this would correspondingly increase the numbers of lawyers, court staff, witnesses and defendants traipsing each day through the narrow corridors of our court buildings. What does this do to the risk?
Interestingly, having floated the idea of reducing, even removing, juries last year, the government now appears to be backing them. Here is new minister @DXWQC in the House of Lords yesterday, rejecting reductions in juries and calling for careful consideration before any change:
