Letter: Justice in peril
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Magistrates' courts are to have their powers to try defendants increased dramatically as the right to jury trial is restricted.
Presumably the Government would agree that the principal aim of the criminal justice system must be to reach a just result, ensuring that miscarriages of justice do not happen. I have grave doubts about whether magistrates can deliver on this score.
The imbalance between acquittals in the crown court and magistrates' court is striking: 62 per cent to 24 according to government statistics. As a lawyer who represents defendants in both courts I believe the figures reflect a worrying reality.
All too often the perception is that magistrates, and in particular professional stipendiary magistrates, don't listen to evidence in the way juries do. Sitting on cases daily, there is a tendency to think they have heard it all before. Justices come under ever-increasing pressure in the name of efficiency to push matters through quickly so that cases which would take days of careful consideration in the crown court are done and dusted in an afternoon. The truth often lies in the fine detail and magistrates simply do not have the time to give proper consideration to the nuances of the individual case.
Defendants in the magistrates' court also run the gauntlet of poor prosecution and defence preparation. On the prosecution side CPS lawyers are massively overworked; important detail which might assist the defence often remains in prosecution files.On the defence side important witnesses may be ignored, scenes of crime unvisited, legal arguments unexplored. The attitude appears to be that summary trials are not so important. Certainly for lawyers they do not have the same cachet.
Research shows that there is a belief held by both defendants and their solicitors that magistrates are not impartial but on the side of the police. The imbalance in acquittal figures tends to show there is some truth in this.
Only two years ago Jack Straw was saying that removing the right to jury trial was "not only wrong but short-sighted, and likely to prove ineffective". He was right. Our principles of justice, especially the presumption of innocence and the right to jury trial, are widely admired and copied around the world. We should not seek to undermine our core values.
MARK HARDIE
Solicitor higher court advocate
London NW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments