Singling out economic crime in jury reforms is unjustified

The broad sigh of relief last week as the government announced a partial retreat on controversial plans to curtail jury trials in England and Wales was tempered by the significant and concerning carve-out allowing “technical and lengthy” fraud and financial crime cases to be heard by a judge sitting alone, Louise notes. 

There is nothing unique about the complexity of evidence in financial cases. Jurors routinely evaluate highly intricate and unfamiliar concepts in other trials including cell-site analysis, DNA, medical evidence and ballistics. If the length and burden of a trial were a principled basis for removing the right to a jury, that logic would apply equally to multi-month murder or terrorism trials. Singling out economic crime creates an arbitrary boundary that cannot be justified, she adds. 

Louise concludes suggesting that rather than eroding the cornerstone of jury trials under the guise of jury inconvenience, the government should be focusing on other reforms that will reduce the backlog; namely significant investment, new technology, increasing capacity in the courts and promoting good and efficient case management.