Letter: Trial by jury 'only aspect of system that promotes trust in criminal justice'

Mr C. S. Richenberg
Sunday 11 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: During my 23-plus years on the bench, I have seen virtually every proposal for improving the criminal (and family) justice system in the lower courts resisted, ironically in the main by those avowedly in defence of civil liberties. Now that it is proposed to remove from defendants the automatic right to elect jury trial in either-way offences, they are off again. May I make a few points?

First, in the wake of the Royal Commission's report it can no longer be open to question that in a proportion of cases the right to a trial by jury is being seriously abused.

Second, for many years magistrates have been deciding whether or not to accept jurisdiction to try such cases, and I have never seen any suggestion that benches have been wrongly refusing to decline jurisdiction over cases that they think would be more appropriately heard before a judge and jury.

Third, if the Royal Commission proposal comes to pass, might not a fully adequate safeguard be simply to provide power of review of any magistrates' court decision refusing to commit for jury trial? After all, bail refusals are already subject to such review by a judge in chambers, and an analogous procedure seems an appropriate compromise between the interest of the defendant in having an unfettered right to trial by jury, and that of society in ensuring that the jury system is not abused.

Yours faithfully

C. S. RICHENBERG

London, N14

9 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