One angry man

The article notes that jury trials are to be removed for a wide swathe of criminal cases in England and Wales, after the government confirmed plans to divert offences attracting likely sentences of three years or less into new judge-only ‘Swift Courts’ as part of a package to tackle the Crown Court backlog.

For white-collar and business crime, the implications are twofold. First, many allegations of fraud, false accounting, money laundering, Companies Act breaches and regulatory offences will fall within the “likely three years or less” bracket, especially where the figures involved are modest or where corporate defendants and professionals are of previous good character. Those cases are set to be channelled by default into the Swift Courts, removing the defendant’s current ability to insist on a jury by electing Crown Court trial for either-way offences. Decisions on venue will instead lie with the courts, with ministers explicitly seeking to prevent what they characterise as the “gaming” of the system.

Second, the MoJ has flagged a separate, targeted extension of judge-only trials to “exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial” cases, allowing a Crown Court judge to sit without a jury even where the likely sentence exceeds three years.

Neil Blundell, vice-chair of the City of London Law Society Committee on Corporate Crime & Corruption is unconvinced that allocating complex white-collar cases to a judge-only court will impact the Crown Court backlog to any significant degree, observing in a statement: “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.”