Criminal Justice Bill of 2003 - Essay Example

Criminal justice bill of 2003 proposed abolition of Jury trial in serious fraud cases and recommended that such trials could be improved without Jury. The main argument had been that inexperienced jurors have created problems by appearing lazy, uninterested and been unable to understand the court proceedings or sometimes even pretending ignorance. Some of them belligerently try to influence or browbeat other jurors and there have been occasions when the jurors indiscriminately discuss the confidential court proceedings in domestic or friendship quarters, rumours getting publicised and leading to embarrassment of the Court. Jurors influencing others could damage the fabric of justice defeating the very purpose of majority verdict. The veil of secrecy sometimes is very thinly maintained. The popular belief that jurors represent all sections of society need not be right at all times. “The lawyers noted also that current exemptions from service mean that juries can sometimes provide a disproportionate representation of society, with more jurors, who are long-term unemployed and less from other parts of the community” (5 of Criminal Justice Bill, Clause 42). There are arguments that it is the right of the defendant to get right juries, so that the disadvantageous position could be ruled out. There are also arguments that jurors provide representation from different sections of society, and it is better than having one learned judge, who would represent only his opinion as a professional and not that of the society and his views need not be always right. He would depend on the law books that could have been outdated and while society keeps evolving, law books remain the same. Criminal law in Britain is considered to be very old fashioned and the definition of murder still remains based on the Judge’s definition made in 13th century. Also judge’s decision is not a democratic decision, but an autocratic decision keeping with the times of when the courts were established. It had been a matter of serious argument to try to find out if the single professional is better than a group of twelve lay people. Also there is another argument that British society has not remained entirely while any more and it has very wide cultural diversity, whereas most of the judges still remain while, male coming from either upper-class or from the middle class of the society and thus, poorer sections of society, minorities and women are rarely represented. “The lawyers considered that there really was a significant danger that judges may become ‘battle-hardened’ and jaded, so they may dismiss defence evidence as ‘the same old story’ they have heard countless times previously” (ibid, 6). There are instances when juries took a different and more relevant view and the judgement was given by taking the jurors’ view into account1. On the other hand, there are arguments which rightly proclaim that jurors are too ill-equipped to understand even the most ordinary of the court proceedings and most of them come from illiterate classes. They are too naïve to be said that they represent societal sections. Most of them cannot use computers and even computer feeding of case knowledge becomes impossible. It is a waste of time for the learned judge to keep guiding them during every moment of the case. Some of them compromise the dignity of the court by falling asleep during the proceedings which they, naturally, do not understand. They do not understand legal guidelines and cannot maintain confidentiality. Being unprofessional it is impossible for them not to share confidential legal proceedings with family members, colleagues and friends. It is not easy to get educated jury for all cases. Also another serious problem exists in the jury system. When juries are taken from minority community they think that they have to support the party from that community because they feel that their loyalty lies with the particular community and it is expected from them. This can jeopardise legal proceedings in the most alarming way. In a similar situation, a feminist juror might think that whatever is the truth of the case, her loyalty lies with the embattled female involved in the case and once again, this is detrimental to the course of justice. It is difficult to expect balanced and unbiased judgement from jurors belonging to such quarters. No doubt there is a lot of truth in these arguments. In the present case, we are more concerned with fraud trials. Here the main judgement lies in the jurors’ capability in deciding whether the defendant behaved dishonestly and for these jurors have to understand the areas of dishonesty as it is a specialised area of finance, banking or money dealings and sometimes fraud trials are difficult2. Some judges have appreciated the effort put in by the jury as quoted in the proposal: “The care and attention which you have devoted to this case has been obvious to me throughout from almost the very first moment you started to try this case. Those who may hereafter criticise juries’ appreciation of lengthy and complex fraud cases would have done well to see the care and attention that, as I say, you have given to this case throughout.” Still the proposal says that there are fundamental problems, first in the investigation process and then in subsequent trial. The seriousness of the alleged office and the mentality that leads to such offence should be fathomed by jury because a careless acquittal or a ready acceptance of non-existing innocence could spell abortive justice though it is difficult to achieve unanimity in this matter3. As it is establishment of fraud is a highly time consuming procedure warranting diverse evidence and corroborative facts. If judge has to educate jury on all of them it is naturally further waste of Court time. All investigation cannot claim transparency and it is neither easy nor compulsory to have it. Commercial investigation might involve even distant parties and inside knowledge of such parties’ financial dealings might encourage jurors to use it later for their own advantage. There might be juries who had fallen prey to fraudulent financial issues and might have developed bias towards fraudulency and such jurors will be prejudiced while dealing with the case4. If it is necessary to choose sides, perhaps it is better to have trials without the jury. First of all, it is the right of the Court to decide on the trial and not that of the defendant, as told by Lord Justice Auld5. He also recommended for creation of an ‘intermediate’ Court with a bench consisting of a District Judge and two Magistrates and Government rejected this idea, but the Minister agreed that such arrangement could be considered in certain cases6. Clause 36 will allow the defendant to opt out of jury trial by making an application and the judge will examine the feasibility. If there is a co-defendant, his views are of paramount importance7. There are mixed reactions to this issue and the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association were rather uncomfortable and opined: “Rather than trying a cross section of cases and defendants, judges are likely under these proposals to have a diet of unpopular sexual allegations; unattractive middle or upper class fraudsters; and cases where the defence lawyers hope for a technical victory, either in the court of trial, or on appeal following defects in the reasoned judgment"8. Roger Smith, Director of Justice said: “the jury is often presented as something which is to defend the defendant's interest; it is actually wider than that. The jury protects the public's interest in the system. That is not just the defendant; it is a protection for the professional judiciary in the system because they take the decision on guilt or innocence" (Ibid). The Select Committee on Home Affairs supported the view expressed by Lord Judge Auld9. Judges are empowered to assess the need of avoiding jury trial in cases of tampering under diverse circumstances10. Committee also reports that these proposals met with Police Department approval because police want to avoid further delay and expenses as they had spent £9 million on jury protection in the last two years, which is another area, where jury trial becomes extremely cumbersome11. In Domestic Act, Crime and Victims Act, 2004 another possibility is introduced to enable the jury to try on sample counts12. If the issue to viewed from its entirety, it does not seem to be a bad idea if Jury are excluded from many trials as the procedure is lengthy, cumbersome, expensive and sometimes unnecessary. No doubt, there are cases that got benefited by the jury trial13. But the cases that produced suspicious results outnumber such cases. Democracy in legal procedures and minority representation in the court is not compulsory. What Court needs is presence of learned and professional judges who are not too stuffy and can move with the time. As they cannot make a judgement without proper evidence, pitfalls by judges are supposed to be less. But it is wrong to presume that jury are apprehensive of taking a tough line14. Naturally they should have ample evidence to do so15. Sometimes it is possible for the jury to get thoroughly confused if the case presents a much larger picture with wider implications16. Cases against the legal fraternity perhaps should be judged by jury verdict as it could be more impartial17. This does not mean that jury trial does not create complications18. As it stands today, government proposals were defeated by the Lords19. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Publications and Records, Trials on Indictment without a Jury, Part 7. Select Committee on Home Affairs. 2. Criminal Justice Act, 2003. 3. Rt Hon Lord Justice Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales: Report, 2001, p 180, para 117. 4. The General Council of the Bar and The Criminal Bar Association, Response to the Criminal Justice White Paper "Justice for All", October 2002, p 20, para 15.  5. EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE CRIMINAL APPEAL (TRIAL WITHOUT JURY WHERE DANGER OF JURY TAMPERING AND TRIAL BY JURY OF SAMPLE COUNTS ONLY) RULES, (NORTHERN IRELAND) 2006, No. 487 6. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2126115.stm 2. http://www.politics.co.uk/news/bills/fraud-trials-without-jury-bill/mps-debate-plans-trial-without-jury-$459518.htm 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6472755.stm 4. http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/12949098/detail.html 5. http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070424/NEWS/704240412/1001 6. http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/142/story/48051.html 7. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--terrorismarrest0424apr24,0,4186500.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork 8. http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=4&id=12441 9. http://www.nbc4.tv/news/12944711/detail.html 10. 3 Read More