Warning ‘unfair’ jury trial reforms will punish first-time offenders
The government’s plans for court reform could make previously convicted defendants more likely to have a jury trial than defendants with clean records, MPs have warned.
The Justice Committee report said this disparity was an “unintended consequence” of the proposed new trial allocation process, which would take into account the likely length of a sentence when deciding whether a case should be heard by a jury.
Under the Criminal Code, previous convictions are an “aggravating factor”, meaning repeat offenders are likely to face longer prison sentences, thus increasing their chances of a jury trial.
The government’s proposals, following recommendations from a review last year by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson, suggest that cases involving sentences of possibly three years or less will be heard by a single crown court judge.
Magistrates will deal with cases that potentially carry a prison sentence of up to two years.
A law reform charity described the matter as “deeply unfair”, while shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy said it was “not right”.
“If a defendant has a previous conviction, then, under the Government’s proposals, he is more likely to be subject to a jury trial than a defendant charged with the same offense who has not previously been convicted of a criminal offence,” the Justice Committee said.
The Association of Criminal Lawyers told the committee the “disparate impact” on defendants would amount to “punishment for good character”.
The process may also disproportionately affect children; Juveniles will generally receive a sentence between half and two-thirds of what an adult would receive under sentencing guidelines.
Fiona Rutherford, chief executive of campaign group Justice, told the Press Association: “By reserving jury trials for the most serious offences, the government confirms that it views juries as the gold standard.
“It is deeply unfair to both victims and defendants that those with previous convictions are more likely to retain this protection than those without.
“This is one of the many reasons why the Government is removing jury trial cuts and moving towards measures that will actually improve court congestion, such as better planning, prisoner transport and legal aid.”
Mr Timothy told PA: “Under Labour’s reforms, a repeat offender would be more likely to be tried by jury than a first-time offender facing the same charge. “This is not right.
“No matter who you are, the right to a jury trial is one of the foundations of our constitution.
“The Labor Party gets this straight away – except for repeat offenders, it seems.”
The Courts and Tribunals Bill has cleared its first hurdle in the House of Commons despite opposition from Labor supporters, including accusations from one MP that Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary David Lammy was using victims as a “stick” to coerce them.
Charlotte Nichols, representing Warrington North, spoke publicly about being raped for the first time, saying: “It feels as if experiences like mine are being weaponized and used rhetorically to mislead.”
Meanwhile, Kingston upon Hull MP Karl Turner, a qualified lawyer who had been an outspoken critic of the proposals, lost his Labor whip.
Sir Keir Starmer’s former barristers’ chamber founder is among those condemning the plans.
Geoffrey Robertson KC said the proposed reforms would “undermine part of the British heritage”.
On the other hand, the Justice Committee said it was not convinced that magistrates’ courts would be able to cope with the possible increase in caseloads as a result of the reforms.
It was also stated that the target of reaching 21,000 judges by 2029 was unrealistic and there was a chronic shortage of suitably qualified legal advisers.
