After the David Bain trial the world seemed to go mad. It seemed everyone had an opinion on whether or not he'd done the deed. Except for me, it seemed - I still don't. A good number of people came to the conclusion that the acquittal was a monstrous injustice (perhaps forgetting the 13 years Bain had already served behind bars), and that we ought to do away with the jury system forthwith.
But there are some good reasons why we have a jury system for criminal trials. The notion of being tried by one's peers is an important one in our system. Judges may be legally trained, but like everyone they have prejudices. Judges tend to be drawn from the higher echelons of society, so may not always be the best judges of what goes on at the lower end.
And having someone in a position to determine what the decider of facts can consider may be important. Judges frequently make decisions on what evidence the jury may hear. If the judge is also to decide on the facts, how will a judge be able to put out of his or her mind the evidence they may have just ruled inadmissible?
In Britain this week, however, the first crown court criminal trial to take place without a jury in more than 400 years has just begun.
The background behind the case is highly unusual. The
case involves four men accused of a £1.75m armed robbery. But three previous jury trials have had to be aborted, following various illnesses, the loss of jurors, and
allegations of jury tampering.
So the Court of Appeal has ruled that there will be no jury for the trial.
This ruling flies in
the face of the principle that a person has the right to be tried before
his/her peers, and is hugely controversial. But it remains to be seen whether this case is precedent-setting or a one-off.
In New Zealand the Crimes Act 1961 provides that everyone charged with an offence is entitled to trial by jury. There are some exceptions, where the accused may elect not to have a jury trial.
But until recently the right to dispense with a jury was the accused's prerogative. However, in 2008 the Crimes Act was amended so that the prosecution is now entitled to seek trial by judge alone where necessary due to the complexity or length of the case, or where there are reasonable grounds to believe the intimidation of jurors might occur.
So it seems we may be going in a similar direction.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
3 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not that I've got any better ideas, but juries are a wee bit overrated I reckon. A lot, even.
ReplyDeleteExperiment:
Split the jury up into three groups of four to deliberate, when all the sub juries have reached a unanimous verdict, they go back into court and announce their verdicts. If they have independently reached the same verdict, it stands. If not, then there is clearly reasonable doubt. So the defendant walks.
I'm pretty confident that would produce fewer convictions, but it shouldn't, should it?
Pascal, difficult to say really. Even after all these centuries, what goes on in a jury room is still a mystery (save for some non-conclusive research by the Law Commission).
ReplyDeleteI do agree that your experiment would probably result in fewer convictions. However, I suspect this reflects more on the group dynamics between 12 (rather than 4) people, rather than on the "correctness" of a jury verdict. Splitting up the 12 members removes the crucial opportunity for debate, reflection and (almost certainly, at least in some instances) pressure.
Your experiment, taken to its logical extreme, would see the element of group dynamics removed entirely, with all 12 members secluded from each other for individual deliberation. If all 12 members independently reach the same verdict, it stands.
I don't favour splitting the jury in this way. It's creative, but it might result in more acquittals and hung juries.
ReplyDeleteIn having more people involved in making the decision, the collective wisdom (though some would say prejudices) of the 12 are being used. If we split people into little groups I can see the possibility of strong personalities more easily taking over.
My own view is that the jury system largely works - it's not perfect, but the justice system is something that never will be. We can tinker with some bits of it, and we'll never be entirely happy with it, but all of the alternatives just seem worse.