Criminals will be stopped from \u201cgaming the system\u201d by choosing trial by jury in order to increase the chances of proceedings collapsing, the courts minister has said, promising to enact radical changes to limit jury trials by the next election.<\/p>\n
Drug dealers and career criminals were \u201claughing in the dock\u201d knowing cases can take years to come to trial, Sarah Sackman said, while warning that inaction would be a road to \u201cchaos and ruin\u201d.<\/p>\n
Ministers will legislate to remove the right to trial by jury for thousands of cases in one of the biggest and most controversial overhauls of the justice system in England<\/a> and Wales in generations \u2013 promising the changes will significantly shrink the court backlog by 2029.<\/p>\n The Ministry of Justice is braced for a backlash from barristers and the judiciary as it presses ahead with the measures to tackle a backlog of nearly 80,000 cases, which will create a proposed new judge-only division of the crown court to hear some cases.<\/p>\n Sackman said the \u201cstakes are incredibly high\u201d as she prepared to announce early next month that vast numbers of cases will now be heard by judges and magistrates rather than juries, a response to recommendations in a review by Sir Brian Leveson.<\/a><\/p>\n Speaking at Wood Green crown court, Sackman said victims of severe sexual assault were routinely told it could take four years for their cases to come to court.<\/p>\n On the morning she spoke to the Guardian, the minister watched a bail hearing for a case involving severe sexual assault, one unlikely to come to a full trial until 2028. Some of the offences in the case, including strangulation, beating and nonconsensual sexual images, took place as far back as 2020.<\/p>\n \u201cI can\u2019t think of a greater responsibility in government than ensuring that our justice system works,\u201d she said. \u201cThe sense of duty that I feel is enormous.\u201d<\/p>\n Graph showing average times from offence to completion of cases by type of offence. Court cases involving rape take over two years on average<\/a><\/p>\n Changes to jury trials are opposed by 90% of the Criminal Bar Association, which has warned that ending the right would be an unacceptable price to pay and undermine what was a fundamental principle for British justice. It said that the British public had a deep faith in the jury system \u2013 and that changes risked a loss of trust.<\/p>\n Sackman said she understood why people \u201cfear change\u201d to the justice system. \u201cBehind these 80,000 odd cases that are waiting in the backlog, there are individual stories and individual lives being put on hold behind each and every one of those cases,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n \u201cNo one is being served in the case that we saw. Not the accused, who\u2019s currently being remanded in jail, not the victim who\u2019s been waiting since she first reported her crime years ago.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve spoken to victims and survivors who tell me they\u2019ve lost their jobs, they suffered mental breakdown all the while that they were waiting. More victims and witnesses are pulling out of the process because they cannot wait that long. That is compelling illustration of justice delayed being justice denied.\u201d<\/p>\n Graph charting jury trial delays<\/a><\/p>\n Judges at Wood Green who spoke to Sackman described it as \u201cmorale-sapping\u201d to see defendants opt for jury trials in the hope of collapsing their cases.<\/p>\n \u201cThey are coming into court and laughing in the face of the justices, knowing they can go back out on the streets and commit further offences,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Sackman said she was in no doubt that removing the choice of a jury trial from thousands of defendants was the right balance, suggesting that all but the most serious theft cases as well as complex fraud cases would be among those now overseen by judges or magistrates.<\/p>\n Defendants can chose where their case is heard in 40% of cases. In 2014 only 8% of the those on trial for an either-way offence elected for a jury trial. By 2022 this had more than doubled.<\/p>\n \u201cDo we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a minimart should receive the right to trial by jury?\u201d she said. \u201cDo we think that someone who has been involved in a serious fraud involving cryptocurrency that we should have a jury sat in court for a year or more hearing such a case?<\/p>\n \u201cFor me, the priority is swift justice, fair justice, over prioritising a defendant\u2019s right to choose where that trial is heard. By the time that trial comes to court, everyone\u2019s memories are a little bit more fuzzy. If you\u2019re years away from when it took place, can you really get justice at all? That\u2019s not fair.\u201d<\/p>\n