Europe South Asia Asia Pacific Americas Middle East Africa BBC Homepage World Service Education



Front Page

World

UK

UK Politics

Business

Sci/Tech

Health

Education

Sport

Entertainment

Talking Point

In Depth

On Air

Archive
Feedback
Low Graphics
Help

Wednesday, May 19, 1999 Published at 18:38 GMT 19:38 UK


UK

Top QC attacks jury reform

Trial by jury: "a contract between the public and the state"

Senior barrister Michael Mansfield QC tells BBC News Online why he opposes Jack Straw's changes to the jury system.

The hallmark of the Thatcher years was a steadfast adherence to dogma, never changing or veering away from the principles that underlay it.

Now, it appears, we have a government of the opposite calibre, that, as soon as it achieves power, turns its back on most of the principles it espoused while in opposition.


[ image: Michael Mansfield QC:
Michael Mansfield QC: "Whole framework is a nonsense"
In particular recently, there are some glaring examples. Asylum and immigration; disability; and now the right to choose jury trial.

Even more ironically, it was Jack Straw, as well as the shadow Attorney General, who were calling these same propositions, when put forward by Michael Howard, "short sighted" and "ineffective".

If it is to be said this is to save money, one hardly needs to remind everyone that this government has already spent £80m on a war in Kosovo that has not been sanctioned by the United Nations, still less by a vote in the House of Commons.

Either way cases

These propositions are likely to affect up to 20,000 people. These are people involved in cases classified as hybrid, or "triable either way" cases, and involve allegations of dishonesty, assault, child cruelty, drugs, and so on.

They are all serious allegations, which, were they to be proved against an individual, not only may cause serious harm to reputation and career, but also may result in a prison sentence.


[ image:
"The fairest form of trial"
The fairest form of trial has always been considered to be that of trial by jury. This dates back, it is said by some, to the Magna Carta.

All research, particularly that carried out by the Home Office itself, and by the Runciman Commission, shows that the public would overwhelmingly prefer to be tried by 12 ordinary people than by a professional judge or magistrate.

Democratic rights

One of the obvious reasons is that ordinary people introduce an element of democracy into the judicial process, and it is one of the few ways in which citizens can participate and exercise democratic rights in an effective way.

Social historian EP Thompson once described it as a contract between the public and the state, in which the jury provides a protection against abuse and arbitrary exercise of power.


[ image: Clive Ponting: result
Clive Ponting: result "poses real threat"
Juries have always approached their task conscientiously and diligently, and several notable trials are evidence to this - William Penn and the Quakers, and more recently, Randle and Pottle, and Clive Ponting - all trials at the Old Bailey.

It is the results of these trials which pose the real threat and not the idea that money may be saved.

'Unworkable'

Furthermore, the actual proposals are quite unworkable. If the right to choose is to be given to a magistrate, how is he to do it?

How is he to assess whether one defendant, as opposed to another, deserves a trial by jury, particularly if both defendants are facing the same charge?

Is it the amount of money that's involved? Or is it the character of the defendant? In any event, it is all arbitrary and subjective.

What if the defendant feels aggrieved, and wishes to appeal against a decision to refuse a jury trial? Apparently, he will be allowed to go to the Crown Court.

No doubt this would have to happen before any actual trial of the issues. If this is the case, there will be delay and further expense, the very things which, it is said, these proposals will avoid.

In short, the whole legislative framework is a nonsense, and it hardly behoves Jack Straw to wear the same mantle as Michael Howard, when these matters were shown to have been quite unacceptable then.

No doubt the next target is going to be the presumption of innocence, and they will argue it is quicker to assume guilt and pass straight to summary execution.





Advanced options | Search tips




Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | ©


UK Contents

Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
England

Relevant Stories

19 May 99 | UK Politics
Trial reforms to 'hit black defendants'

19 May 99 | UK
Jury system in the dock

24 Feb 99 | Stephen Lawrence
Profile: Michael Mansfield





Internet Links


Bar Council

Home Office


The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.




In this section

Next steps for peace

Blairs' surprise over baby

Bowled over by Lord's

Beef row 'compromise' under fire

Hamilton 'would sell mother'

Industry misses new trains target

From Sport
Quins fightback shocks Cardiff

From Business
Vodafone takeover battle heats up

IRA ceasefire challenge rejected

Thousands celebrate Asian culture

From Sport
Christie could get two-year ban

From Entertainment
Colleagues remember Compo

Mother pleads for baby's return

Toys withdrawn in E.coli health scare

From Health
Nurses role set to expand

Israeli PM's plane in accident

More lottery cash for grassroots

Pro-lifers plan shock launch

Double killer gets life

From Health
Cold 'cure' comes one step closer

From UK Politics
Straw on trial over jury reform

Tatchell calls for rights probe into Mugabe

Ex-spy stays out in the cold

From UK Politics
Blair warns Livingstone

From Health
Smear equipment `misses cancers'

From Entertainment
Boyzone star gets in Christmas spirit

Fake bubbly warning

Murder jury hears dead girl's diary

From UK Politics
Germ warfare fiasco revealed

Blair babe triggers tabloid frenzy

Tourists shot by mistake

A new look for News Online