Are trials without juries always illiberal?

24 May 2010 by

Under threat?

The Coalition Government has pledged to “protect” the right to trial by jury. It is often assumed that the a jury is needed to ensure a fair trial, but Sir Louis Blom-Cooper argues in an interesting article in the Guardian that juries may not always be essential, particularly in cases involving serious organised crime.

Blom-Cooper, an academic and barrister, argues that jury-less trials need not always be illiberal. He says “The experience in Northern Ireland over three decades suggests that serious organised crimes can effectively and efficiently be tried before a professional court ‑ a single judge or perhaps three judges.” He also suggests that defendants ought to be able to waive their right to trial by jury as is the case in many other jurisdictions.

An increasingly limited right

In its Programme for Government , the Coalition partners have promised to “protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.” lt is anyone’s guess what this will mean in practice. What is indisputable, however, is that the New Labour government chipped away at the right to trial by jury and earlier this year, for the first time in 350 years, four men were convicted to long prison sentences without a jury deciding on their guilt or innocence.

The position of juries in the modern legal system is in flux. Whilst ensuring the right to a jury trial forms a significant part of a State’s obligations under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, this does necessarily extend to every trial. As Blom-Cooper highlights, “there is no constitutional, or indeed any form of general, right to trial by judge and jury. There is only an unqualified obligation to submit to it in indictable cases, which form only about 2% of all criminal trials, although the proponents of the system regard the institution of the jury as a fundamental principle of English justice.

Indeed, the civil (non-criminal) courts now operate almost entirely without juries, as do Magistrates’ courts, although magistrates are only permitted to impose custodial sentences up to a maximum length of one year.

The right to a jury trial has been further eroded in recent years with the passing of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the effect
of which is to limit the right to trial by jury in the Crown Court, where sentences can be much longer. Section 44 provides for the option of judge-only trials if there is a “real and present danger” of jury tampering.

We posted last month on the historic “Heathrow Heist” case where four men were convicted in the Crown Court to long prison sentences in a trial without a jury. After three initial trials collapsed, the Court of Appeal ruled last June that there was a serious danger that the jury could be influenced, and as such set up the fourth, final and judge-only trial. The mens’ lawyers have said they will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming a breach of their Article 6 right to a fair trial.

Not necessarily a bad thing

The key question for the Coalition Government will be whether “protecting” the right to trial means ensuring that all Crown Court trials will again have juries. Although this policy would probably be popular with the public, it may in fact be a retrograde step. Blom-Cooper suggests that the historic right to trial by jury should be viewed by the Coalition Government through 21st century spectacles, suggesting that “advances in technology, communication and science, together with the complexity and sophistication of today’s criminal law, the intricacies of admissible evidence and the length and cost of jury trial, should lead any politician or legislator to consider modifications of jury trial.”

He suggests two modifications to the existing system, both of which would lead to less jury trials. First, the introduction of trials without jury in cases of serious organised crime, and possibly for cases involving serious fraud. Second, he argues that defendants should be able to opt for trial by judge alone in all cases tried on indictment. This proposal was rejected by the previous Government, despite being common in other jurisdictions such as in the United States.

Whether either recommendation will be taken up by the Coalition Government is not clear. The “protection” of trial by jury could mean many things, and is perhaps the kind of pledge which is simpler to make in opposition than in Government. Ultimately, it may not stand up to consultation with experts in the field such as Mr Blom-Cooper. But some will no doubt argue that the increasing absence of jury trials represents not a practical solution to a complex problem, but rather an illiberal and dangerous precedent.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: