Law officers draw up plan for limiting lengthy trials
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.EXTRA powers for judges to exclude evidence, advance fee-fixing and special training for lawyers and evidence summaries for juries have been put forward by the Lord Chancellor's Department as possible answers to the problem of lengthy criminal trials.
A consultation paper published yesterday follows concern about the length and cost of some trials, particularly fraud cases, such as the Guinness and Blue Arrow affairs. Costs to the country run into many millions of pounds. The department says a growing number could be shortened.
The paper suggests that the payment of lawyers - who it accuses of sometimes lengthening proceedings unnecessarily through 'unfamiliarity or inefficiency' - could be one way of restricting trials' lengths. It says the advance fixing of defence fees would exert 'considerable but not improper' pressure on lawyers.
In the pre-trial stage, the paper raises the question of whether judges for fraud cases should be selected on the basis of expertise in both financial matters and the management of long trials. Greater powers for judges to reduce indictments, wider disclosure of defence material and the automatic cross service of co-defendants' statements could help decide pre-trial issues and simplify the main trial, it says.
Judges in the United States have powers to rule out evidence if it is 'repetitive or unnecessary'. The paper seeks opinions on whether such powers should be granted in British courts. Limiting the length of trials or parts of trials, or the creation of full timetables, are also suggested as possible new measures.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments