Lawyers argue ‘no jury’ trials will undermine justice – Senior legal figures say that allowing only judges to preside over sexual offence cases will destroy confidence in the system
Lawyers argue ‘no jury’ trials will undermine justice – Senior legal figures say that allowing only judges to preside over sexual offence cases will destroy confidence in the system
13 comments
>#Lawyers argue ‘no jury’ trials will undermine justice
>__Senior legal figures say that allowing only judges to preside over sexual offence cases will destroy confidence in the system__
>John Boothman and Jason Allardyce
>Sunday November 20 2022, 12.01am GMT, The Sunday Times
>Abolishing juries in favour of single judge-only trials for sexual offences would undermine Scotland’s justice system, according to some of the country’s most senior legal figures.
>Nicola Sturgeon wants to test the move after a review by Lady Dorrian, the lord justice clerk. This follows recent figures that show only 51 per cent of rape and attempted rape trials resulted in a conviction, compared with a 91 per cent overall conviction rate.
>Dorrian’s review drew from research into mock trials to identity how juries weigh up guilt and innocence involving sexual violence. It found some people had “problematic” views about what constitutes rape and how “real rape victims” would behave.
>But Tony Lenehan, president of the Scottish Criminal Bar Association, cited English research with actual jurors which did not bear out those concerns, and suggested that the case for the “seismic” change was being pushed by misguided special interest groups.
>Writing in The Sunday Times online, he said: “Allowing or even risking one interested party to have sway over the decision-makers robs this most important of civic functions of public confidence and of the essential transparency of justice.”
>Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court judge, accepted that the jury system was flawed, arguing: “Juries do not have to give reasons so there cannot be an effective appeal. They are prejudiced, in favour of the accused in minor cases, the prosecution in serious ones.”
>Nevertheless, he said they should be defended “because the public has confidence in them and the criminal justice system needs public confidence”. Sumption added: “The motivation behind the Scottish proposals is to raise the conviction rate but I suspect that judge-alone trials will depress the conviction rate further.”
>Last week Frances McMenamin KC, Scotland’s top female lawyer, compared the plan to Hitler’s courts, claiming it could undermine democracy.
Elsewhere, juries were abolished in South Africa in 1969. This followed concern about racial bias, although two lay members sit alongside the judge and can overrule the verdict. Judge-only courts were set up in the 1970s for criminal cases in Northern Ireland during the Troubles after concern over jurors being biased or vulnerable to intimidation. This year, in Victoria, Australia, judge-only criminal trials were introduced as a short-term measure to tackle a Covid- related backlog.
>The Law Society of Scotland, representing solicitors, argues that sexual offence cases, often with no witnesses, can be difficult. Juries hear competing accounts that can both appear plausible. It states: “Not all allegations are true. Complainers can, on occasion, misremember events or incorrectly identify perpetrators. The differences may be in the detail but those differences can be hugely important. If judges replace juries in determining guilt, they will face the same difficulties. There is no obvious reason why judges should be more prone to convict in identical circumstances.”
>Kenny MacAskill, the former SNP justice secretary, said the change would be “a leap backwards”.
>“Trial before a jury of your peers for serious crimes is a central part of our justice system as in most other western legal systems,” he said.
“Education of not just jurors but our society on issues such as misogyny and abusive control is rightly ongoing. But the abandonment of juries is … a leap backwards. Justice is about protecting our citizens and it’s our citizens who must always decide.”
>Sandy Brindley, chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, said there was evidence that juries seemed reluctant to convict in rape cases, even in the face of significant evidence. She said: “We have grave concerns that rape survivors are systematically being denied access to justice — and guilty men regularly acquitted — due to jury decision-making being influenced by attitudes and belief in myths about rape.”
>The Scottish government said it was “continuing to explore these proposals in line with our commitment to give serious consideration to all of the recommendations made by Lady Dorrian’s review”.
Many Western countries have no jury trials and this has not caused the potential issues highlighted. In fact, if you’d ask citizens in those countries, they have a low opinion of jury trials.
Have you met the average person? Jury trials are terrifying.
How many people actually have the capacity to actually judge and understand what evidence is being presented on any side this also includes the specific nuances and limitations.
How many people have been inherently tainted by tv drama shows or movies where incredibly fallible evidence is somehow held up as undeniable case winners.
How many people quite frankly are inherently biased on many issues and let’s be real here very very few people have any ability to actually recognise let alone out aside their biases.
This is before we get onto the whole idea of topic specific issues with juries which again let’s be real one just has to put a news story about someone that was sexually assaulted on a night out up on reddit to see just how insane some views and opinions that well never change are. Theres still an ridiculous number of complete and utter morons that think that magically such things cant happen if it’s not “wanted”. The general public really shouldnt be anywhere near such sensitive cases.
Juries are far more flawed. Now does there need to be proper oversight and enforcement of a non jury system to maintain impartiality; yes. However really most of the maybe issues already exist in the jury system; and suggestions about the rich and powerful being let off once again let’s be real and look at how historically they get let off at many more steps in the justice process first.
I’d have more confidence in our legal system if it was modernised and overhauled and didnt rely on practises from the middle ages with grown adults dressing up in bathrobes and wigs in court.
Given the wide variety of sentences that judges issue for the same crime, most of them seem senile.
What other thing could this be than to alter the outcome of the trials? It can serve no other purpose than that.
In my opinion, jury nullification is one of the biggest mechanisms we have as the public against tyranny of the state. Currently, citizens have the power to simply say no to laws – they have absolutely no legal impetus to uphold an unjust law.
I absolutely cannot support non jury trials. They are far from perfect, but I don’t believe there is a better system.
I’ve been on a jury and would be terrified to be tried by one.
This cannot possibly destroy confidence in the system. There is no confidence currently to destroy. They cannot even agree on exactly how rape is defined as there is no consensus on what constitutes ‘consent’ in any given situation. Pretty sure that the horrifying figures abt how many women are actually raped are overblown, but still, less than 5% I think get to a successful conviction is improbable. Justice is not being served to anyone at the moment.
Regardless of the argument here, saying that “X will destroy confidence in the criminal justice system” is like saying “X will destroy confidence in Uri Geller’s ability to bend spoons.”
But the bloody jurors get in the way of the decisions made over lunch in the local hostilely
Given the awareness, common sense and analytical skills of modern society I’d abolish jury trial tomorrow.