Criticism of the Government Proposal

The first proposal has been criticised because it reduces the range of cases being delt with by a jury. Jury trial is seen as a central platform of the English legal system. Jury’s are made up of all members of the public who will bring their own experience of life and their own knowledge of behaviour to bear on the facts of a particular case. Jurys are thought to be open minded rather than “case hardened”.

There are concerns about where the sort of trial will be held and whether there will be enough magistrates able to sit to hear trials lasting 2-3 days.

There are relatively few advocates appearing in the Crown Court and so a sudden increase in the number of Crown Court trials might mean that there are simply no lawyers around to staff them.

Secondly, again, proposal two fits into the right to jury trial which is so cherished by those who hold the English legal system at dear. A minor conviction is still a conviction which may have a massive effect on someone’s life, job prospects, ability to travel, credit rating etc. Jurys convict fewer people than magistrates and therefore the chance of an acquittal would be likely to be reduced.

Thirdly, again, this is an attack on the right to jury trials. It is right to say that some cases are immensely complex but lawyers who practice in that area of work are used to explaining things clearly and in a meaningful way to lay jurors. Jurors don’t only listen to directions on the law, they also consider the facts before them and also have to decide what they make of the person in the dock. Many people feel that a jury of 12 are likely to form a very worthwhile and meaningful impression of the person whose case they are trying as they get chance to watch that person and all their facial expressions and body language as the evidence is presented to the court.

Finally, this proposal builds on some good work already trialled by a number of Judges who are looking to resolve matters in a speedy but realistic way. Problems can arise when a defendant over focuses on the sort of sentence they may receive rather than whether or not they are actually guilty. On so very many occasions a client will tell the Probation service that they “haven’t done anything” but that they just “wanted to avoid prison” or, they will say that “the Judge told me to plead guilty”. The fear is that this new proposal would eventually lead to a lot of defendants applying to vacate their pleas when they are confronted by the “realty” of having to say what they have done.