End to trial by jury in fraud trials

THE right to trial by jury in complex fraud trials - and possibly a range of other cases - is to be done away with under new measures announced by the Government today.

The Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, wants a single judge to sit in on complex fraud trials. The highly sensitive move effectively ends an 800-year old tradition that dates back to Magna Carta whereby defendants can be tried by a panel of 12 jurors.

It has a good chance of making it on to the statute book. This is because Labour is now the largest party in the Lords for the first time and this will significantly ease the passage of controversial legislation such as this through the Upper House.

The Government is keen to introduce restrictions on jury trial because it believes that many jurors either don't understand the complexities of detailed fraud cases or because few of them can take enough time off to hear a case.

But lawyers have attacked the move. The Law Society described the Government's decision as an 'overzealous swipe' at the justice system. Edward Nally, president of the Law Society, said the Government was wrong to act before new court rules have taken effect.

He declared: 'Juries are not the reason for lengthy trials. The solution lies in better case management and the new court procedure rules introduced recently must be given a chance to work. Without prejudicing justice, the new rules will ensure better management of cases and shorter trials. Rarely should a trial last longer than six months.

'Juries are the bastion of our justice system providing democratic accountability in the criminal courts. We should not dispense with them simply as a way of controlling costs in complex cases. The suggestion that juries are incapable of ensuring justice in fraud trials is a patronising and dangerous assumption.'

The Government, however, says some fraud trials have dragged on for months, making it difficult for anyone in full-time employment to sit on such juries. Ministers are also known to be concerned about the high cost of lengthy trials as well as the collapse of several high-profile cases.

In March, the Jubilee Line extension fraud case collapsed after two years at a cost to the taxpayer of £60m.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC, last month announced separate moves to curb long-running criminal trials by changing the way Legal Aid is paid to lawyers, as he pledged: 'The days of the 18 month trial are over.'

Civil liberties campaigners, however, argue that moves to remove juries from fraud trials would be the thin end of the wedge. Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: 'This government has long proved its lack of enthusiasm for our age-old traditions of jury trial. No-one should be under any illusion that this policy will stay restricted to serious fraud cases.

'Evidential complexity is an excuse that may be made with a whole host of trials. This patronising approach is particularly surprising from a government apparently so keen for greater community involvement in the criminal justice system.'

Chakrabarti's comments reflect mounting concern among defence solicitors as to how widely the measure may eventually be extended. Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act, which gained Royal Assent in November 2003, allows prosecutors to apply to a Crown Court judge to allow the case to be heard without a jury.

The judge can allow the application if he believes that the complexity of the trial or the likely length of it (or both) are likely to make the trial 'burdensome' to jurors. If a defendant is convicted by a judge sitting without a jury, the judge must give a judgment stating his or her reasons at the time of the conviction, or shortly afterwards.