City of London Law Society reaction to Government on Jury Trials Proposals

In light of government proposals to restrict, or in some cases remove, the right to trial by jury in serious and complex criminal cases - including fraud - please see below reaction from the City of London Law Society (CLLS) Committee on Corporate Crime & Corruption. In a letter sent to the Lord Chancellor today, the Committee raised significant constitutional, evidential and practical concerns about any move towards judge-only trials.

The letter sets out in detail why such reforms would be unsupported by evidence, would not alleviate current pressures in the criminal justice system, and would risk undermining public confidence, particularly among minority ethnic defendants. The Committee’s Chair and Vice-Chair said:
Louise Hodges, Committee Chair, said: “Trial by jury is a long-standing and essential safeguard in our criminal justice system, particularly in cases where the state exercises significant prosecutorial power. The empirical evidence demonstrates that juries are representative, effective and capable of handling complexity, and they remain the one stage at which minority ethnic defendants do not face disproportionate outcomes. Any restriction on this right must be supported by compelling evidence and we have seen none. Both the causes of the current backlog and the solutions to resolve it lie elsewhere.”

Neill Blundell, Committee Vice-Chair, said: “The data clearly shows that serious and complex fraud cases account for only a very small proportion of Crown Court work and, when properly managed, can be easily catered for in the jury system. Removing juries in such cases would not resolve systemic pressures and would instead create new burdens for courts and judges including the need for detailed reasoning on verdicts which will add to the administrative burden for judges. Targeted reforms: improved case management, adequate investment in technology and modern disclosure practices - would deliver far more benefit without undermining a fundamental constitutional protection”.