Putting up a defence for jury trials in Britain | Letters

Simon Jenkins’ indictment of assemblage proceedings (Here’s a extremist mode to prevention England’s collapsing justness system: get escaped of juries, 5 May) deserves a damning verdict connected a fig of counts. He points to the excessive delays afflicting English transgression courts, which helium attributes to the 1% of cases that are decided by juries. He provides small grounds for this, portion making nary notation of the existent causes – Covid and chronic underfunding.

There is nary grounds that assemblage proceedings causes hold successful contested cases arsenic opposed to judges sitting alone. Judges would person to supply reasoned arguments for each factual decision (subject to review) and, for this reason, the immense bulk of British transgression judges powerfully favour assemblage trial.

Jenkins adds that we should articulation “the remainder of Europe” and extremity assemblage trial, without telling america what systems those countries bask and whether they are to beryllium emulated. Yet the inquisitorial strategy in, say, France, with its galore complications including dual probe by examining justices, is taxable to horrendous delays, historically acold worse than their adversarial equivalent in the UK.

Jenkins attributes assemblage proceedings to a “medieval hangover, judgement by one’s peers, implicit the whim of an unelected manorial lord oregon different authority” arsenic though this were undesirable. In fact, it is acold much apt to originate successful an adversarial democratic civilization inherent successful British past and observable successful parliament.

But the top interest is the lack of immoderate notation of the libertarian worth of assemblage trials successful an progressively totalitarian world. As 1 of Britain’s top jurists, Lord Patrick Devlin, observed: “The first entity of immoderate tyrant would beryllium to overthrow oregon diminish proceedings by jury. It is the lamp that shows that state lives.”
Bob Marshall-Andrews KC
Labour MP for Medway, 1997-2010

Simon Jenkins’ nonfiction struck a beardown chord with me. Having served connected 2 juries, I americium little than impressed. How are you meant to person a sensible treatment successful the assemblage country without a transcript of the proceedings proceedings? Your lone written grounds is immoderate you tin constitute successful pencil connected a expanse of paper, contempt the information that an authoritative grounds is being taken. You are fixed nary proposal astir however to tally the assemblage proceedings, presumably due to the fact that English yeomen each cognize intuitively however to bash this. Not each subordinate wants to beryllium there, and immoderate members’ contributions tin beryllium negligible.

For my archetypal proceedings determination were six charges, each related. For 1 charge, grounds from the unfortunate indicated the unsmooth day of the alleged offence rather accurately. It was revealed astatine a antithetic constituent successful the proceedings, and I noted this connected my spot of paper, that the accused was successful situation astatine the time. Despite this, the accused was convicted by 11 to one. I person besides had to beryllium done the verbatim acting retired of a constabulary interview, wherever the prosecution barrister played the accused and the constabulary interviewer played himself.

The assemblage country whitethorn good beryllium small much than a glorified broom cupboard. On my 2nd trial, I was encouraged erstwhile I saw a whiteboard, which I thought would beryllium rather useful. Naturally, the marker pens each needed replacing, and their replacements were highlighter pens.
Name and code supplied

Simon Jenkins thinks that members of the nationalist who service connected juries are incompetent to determine analyzable factual issues. If helium is right, past voting successful elections should besides beryllium near to experts.
Francis FitzGibbon KC
London