|
Why select jury trial? |
|
The James Committee 1975 |
The Committee's recommendations led to the present threefold classification of offences as summary, either way and indictable only. |
|
The importance of a defendant's good character. |
"A professional person of good character, if convicted of a minor offence of dishonesty for example, will suffer in reputation and may lose his livelihood, whereas for a person with a long record of similar offences the only penalty will probably be the sentence actually imposed. "
|
|
Other countries |
Few jurisdictions had found it necessary, or even regarded it as desirable, to build into their systems of criminal justice an element of personal choice by the defendant of the court in which he should be tried. |
|
|
"the regard in which the present right of election is held.... There is a substantial body of opinion in favour of removing the defendant's right of election [but] this is almost entirely confined to those directly responsible for the administration of justice, whether as judges, court staff or prosecutors. Virtually all the organisations representing practitioners and almost every individual solicitor and barrister who wrote to us, together with most of the organisations representing a wider interest, took the contrary view. "
|
|
Reasons for electing trial |
1. To delay proceedings and therefore to put off conviction and sentence. (Some defence lawyers will admit that they will advise clients to do this in the hope of persuading the CPS to accept a plea to a less serious charge, or simply to make it more likely that prosecution witnesses will not attend the trial or will be vague in their recollections).
2. To retain location in a local prison, close to family and friends (including friends in the prison) and with the additional visits available to unconvicted prisoners.
3. Acquittal, the chances of which are higher at the Crown Court than at magistrates' courts (this does not imply that the Crown Court is fairer).
|
|
"Cracked trials" |
Whatever the chances of acquittal at the Crown Court, a very large majority of
defendants electing trial subsequently plead guilty.
It is difficult to be precise, but it appears that about two thirds of
defendants electing trial subsequently plead guilty and about three quarters of
all defendants electing are subsequently convicted.
|
|
Juries acquit more
often? |
Juries acquit in about
45 per cent of contested cases, as compared with 30 per cent in cases tried by
magistrates.
|
|
Research by Warwick University |
Of
defendants electing jury trial 47 per cent were acquitted of all charges
or pleaded guilty after the prosecution had reduced the charges against them (35
per cent). |
|
Government figures show that juries in Liverpool are twice as likely to acquit
than at the Old Bailey. |
Juries
in Liverpool acquitted 64 per cent of defendants compared with 41 per cent in
Leeds and 59 per cent in Manchester. |
|
Juries are gullible? |
Are juries gullible and
too eager to acquit? It is clear that juries are influenced by advocacy, conversely
casehardened magistrates are too ready to
convict.
|
|
Calculated risk |
It may be that
defendants who know they are guilty prefer to be tried by magistrates who will
probably pass a lighter sentence, while those who are innocent are determined to
take their case to the highest court open to them.
|
|
Applications by prosecution for certain fraud cases to be conducted without a
jury |
The
prosecution may apply to a judge if the complexity of the trial or the length of
the trial (or both) is likely to make the trial so burdensome to the members of
a jury hearing the trial that the interests of justice require that serious
consideration should be given to the question of whether the trial should be
conducted without a jury.
Section 43 Criminal Justice Act 2003 |
