Letter: Royal Commission's plan to abolish the right to trial by jury will multiply miscarriages of justice

Frank R. Leishman,Mr Stephen P. Savage
Thursday 08 July 1993 18:02 EDT
Comments

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: Responding to a question about the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (RCCJ) proposals to restrict the defendant's right to elect for trial by jury in England and Wales (BBC Nine O'Clock News, 6 July), the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, commented favourably on the Scottish criminal justice system, where defendants have no such self-elected right.

It might be appropriate to underline that in Scotland the decision on whether or not a case should be tried under solemn procedure (ie, with a jury) rests formally with legally qualified prosecution service staff. Under the RCCJ proposals this function, it seems, is to pass in England and Wales to lay magistrates.

The alternative, non-jury trial venue for the Scottish defendant is most likely to be the Sheriff summary court. Here the case will be heard by a legally qualified Sheriff, whose sentencing powers in respect of imprisonment are significantly less than those of the English lay magistrates, whose courts provide the alternative to jury trial for defendants south of the border.

Scotland has never sanctioned convictions on the basis of uncorroborated confessions. While the RCCJ has recommended a tightening up of the rules surrounding unsupported confession evidence in England and Wales, it would appear that such confessions could still be the sole basis of conviction.

Many might be left wondering whether what the commission has prescribed is blended Scotch . . . with just a wee bit too much water.

Yours faithfully,

FRANK R. LEISHMAN

STEPHEN P. SAVAGE

Institute of Police and Criminological Studies

University of Portsmouth

Southsea, Hampshire

7 July

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in