Increase in Jury Cases at UK Courts - Essay Example

In the UK, courts are overwhelmed with cases. Trial by jury cases often wait several months to be heard. Cases fail to proceed due to their complexity, sending a message to UK citizens that the justice system if failing. Discussion here is not about whether the legal system needs reformed or not. Argument is based on the assumption that reform is warranted. Further, discussion will show that reduction in trial by jury cases is necessary as part of legal system reform. Some arguments specifically identify the choice to eliminate trial by jury in the most complex fraud cases, suggesting that such cases can be more appropriately heard by a panel of judge or judge and magistrates. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith states “it is about justice...making sure serious fraudsters are brought to trial" (BBC News, 2005). Kevin Martin, president of the Law Society is against the new proposal, as he suggests That the problem does not lie with juries, but with poor management of court cases. There is concern that doing away with juries will erode public confidence in the legal system. This is a legitimate concern. Lack of confidence in the legal system may lead to lack of cooperation with police and others who serve to uphold the law. Interviews with UK citizens indicate that while the jury system can be flawed, it should be maintained in all cases. A poll of UK citizens by News Online provides as with insight into public opinion. One UK citizen believes that the jury system should be upheld at all costs, as failing to do so would allow the state to relinquish its authority to the victims, in deciding punishment. Another feels that trial by “jury of one’s peers” is still the most fair, claiming that judges are made up of social elite, “deciding the fate of us, the common folk” (News Online Poll, 2001), which would lead to injustice. Such a view also suggests that judges and the legal system would become more corrupt in doing away with trial by jury cases. Concerns stem from a view of an already unfair justice system, which has little to do with juries. As judges are responsible for determining punishment, juries have no influence over this aspect of trials, only in determining innocence or guilt. Even with this responsibility, one citizen believes that most juries are incapable of making unbiased decisions, state “its a well-known psychological effect that group decisions are always biased toward the views of most assertive. Neither do I trust the average persons ability to assess a case logically, to understand what is and isnt a valid argument or to think without prejudices” (News Online Poll, 2001). Statements such as that given above indicate that not all citizens believe trial by jury cases are decided fairly. As ‘experts’ of the law, judges already possess the knowledge and experience to decide proper punishment. Therefore, it is not a stretch to assume that judges also possess the knowledge and experience to decide guilt or innocence. When deciding a case, judges rely on their knowledge and experience of applicable established law. Decisions are not made randomly. Judges “interpret and apply principles previously laid down by statutes and in precedence” (Academic db). Precedent is very important to ensure that common law or case, which is based on previous decisions by judges, is applied with consistency and logic. It can also be very complex, which is a strong argument for allowing judges to hear cases without trial by jury. Judges also rely on Acts of Parliament, or Statutory law which can apply to the UK as a whole, or to specific locations. Again, judges are more knowledgeable in regard to statutory law and, therefore more competent in determining whether a crime has been committed, proving innocence or guilt. Juries are not required to explain their findings or conclusions, so no precedence is set and there are no documented guidelines for further use in future cases that are similar in nature. An example of statutory law is the Equal Pay Act of 1970, which mandates equal pay for the same work. In the House of Lords case Pickstone v Freeman, female workers, in the position of Warehouse operatives claimed that they should receive the same pay as their male co-workers. An industrial tribunal determined that they were not entitled to equal pay for like work under the equal value provisions of the act. The tribunal premise is based on the fact that though similar work is being performed, female workers may not be producing as much of the same work. The decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal “on the ground that in the circumstances the applicants were entitled to pursue equal value claims under article 119” (Pickstone and others v Freemans plc, 1988). In such a case, trial by jury is risky, depending on how jurors might interpret the statute. Even female jurors might easily be misguided by the argument that women may not produce as much as a male counterpart. Litigators often rely on emotions of the jury to reach a verdict or decision in their clients’ favor. In eliminating the trial by jury option in such cases, judges have the ability to apply the law in the manner in which it was intended, disregarding the pleas of defendants or the intentional misrepresentation of the law by litigators. If such a case were one in which precedent was established, future cases would likely focus on productivity issues rather than issues of fair pay. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith makes a legitimate claim that cases are often extremely complicated and too cumbersome. If jurors have difficulty with the complexity of fraud cases, however, they will likely have difficulty with other complex criminal cases where many exhibits or units of evidence are presented. There are claims that evidence is not presented fairly, but in a random and discretionary manner. If this is truly the case, jury trials change nothing. Arguments against eliminating or reducing trial by jury tend to focus on judicial bias and corruption. Judges, like jury members, have political affiliations with parties and organizations. “I do not believe that justice in civil or criminal cases can be seen to be done where Judges and the judiciary generally are not representative of the general population,” states one poll respondent (Online News Poll, 3002). The statement presumes that all members of a jury will listen to facts and evidence related to a case, without bias or emotion. While it is more likely that a jury will be made up of diverse views, it is less likely that they will be able to apply the exact letter of the law, even when instructed to do so. Often judges must explain the intention of the law, so as to remind jurors that this is most important in basing their decision. Assisting a jury can also have negative consequences. Clare Dyer, legal editor of The Guardian discusses the need for reform in rape laws. In her June 18 2007 article she points out how few cases end in conviction. Ministers are dedicated in reforming the law, though judges voice strong opposition. Reports indicate that “the conviction rate dropped from 33% of reported rapes in 1977 to 5.4% in 2005” (Dyer, 2007). The Council of Circuit Judges opposes use of expert witnesses used to describe general behaviors and psychological impact. “They say the distinction between assisting a jury to find the facts and usurping the jurys function of deciding whether the alleged victim is telling the truth is likely to be "blurred" in the majority of rape cases” (Dyer, 2007). Judges argue that reforms may make such trials more costly and time consuming. However, costs can actually be reduced by eliminating trial by jury altogether, giving judges power to hear all evidence provided and expert testimony. Time taken for jury selection and costs of compensation both make a strong case for eliminating trial by jury for such cases. The purpose of the jury is not to determine whether a victim is lying, but rather to determine guilt or innocence of the defendant, based on facts. The statistics Dyer provides suggest that juries are not entirely capable of doing so. In 2003 Parliament proposed the Criminal Justice Act, which was strongly opposed by the house of Lords. The idea of judges sitting along with panels of experts was also rejected. In fraud cases, I believe elimination of trial by jury presents the best alternative to few cases currently being prosecuted. Though defendants in most criminal cases are allowed a trial by “jury of their peers,” it is not nearly as applicable for defendants who commit corporate crimes of fraud. Panels of jurors represent a wide variety of social and economic groups, more closely resemble a criminal defendant’s group of social contacts and community, thus providing a “jury of one’s peers.” The same cannot be offered to a corporate fraud defendant, as it may be much more difficult to assemble a jury of corporate managers and executives. Strong arguments exist for legal system reform, though none stand to impact the system as much as trial by jury. The additional time for jury selection and compensation of jurors has a great impact on cost savings, not to mention time savings on many overburdened and backlogged court systems. However, reducing the number of trial by jury cases just for the sake of time and cost savings would also be unreasonable. Reform of the legal system through reduction of trial by jury cases should, therefore, focus application of the law in a uniform and consistent manner. Many UK citizens feel the current system of justice is unfair. Often very different decisions in cases of similar crimes lead to the appearance of inequality. Allowing the application of the law to be applied more consistently may actually lead to a more positive view of the current system. Though concern for judicial corruption is justified, there are measures in place that deter such activity. Written documentation in decisions and applicable law involved in decisions must be provided by judges. Documentation is subject to review and potentially to further scrutiny in the event of appeals. Judges are more knowledgeable about applicable law and less likely to act purely out of sympathy. Experience and knowledge in precedence also increases the likelihood of well reasoned decisions. This is especially important in suits lacking merit in evidence or based primarily on controversial scientific information. Setting precedent for such a case in one trial will lead other courts to similar decisions. This goes even farther in reducing costs, as cases with no merit are less likely to go to trial. As experts are currently used for many cases involving complex subject matter or evidence, this can still be achieved without trial by jury. I agree with the suggestion of “expert jurors’’ for complex cases. Experts are currently used in trial by jury cases, so why not use their expertise in assisting judges to make decisions. Some courts now apply costs sanctions against those who unreasonably refuse to mediate. Mediation has become an acceptable form of alternative dispute resolution and may provide the best solution for all parties involved. A neutral uninterested party acts a middleman to assist both sides of a dispute in reaching a mutually agreed upon settlement. The mediator does not determine guilt, liability or any settlement. Though mediation is not likely to bring satisfaction criminal cases, it can take the place of trials in other cases such as in unfair hiring, unfair labor practices and housing disputes. New government regulations put into place in 2004 to reduce litigations in unfair employment cases, has failed. A 15% increase in the number of equal pay cases heard by tribunals has led to reversal of the regulations. Mr. Gibbons said: “Rather than encouraging early resolution, the procedures have led to the use of formal processes to deal with problems which could have been resolved informally. This means that problems escalate, taking up more management time” (Taylor, 2007). Use of mediation greatly reduces costs for employers, employees and courts when used for pay and other labor disputes. Mediation also allows both parties to present their sides on equal footing, not as victim and defendant. Litigation is often uncertain and may produce results that are unacceptable to both parties. It certainly offers a solution in helping to reduce the number court cases involving trials. With the rise in dispute resolution alternatives, jury trials become less of a need. Courts are freed for more serious cases. Fraud cases are serious, though not necessarily best heard with juries. Expert witnesses and application of business or corporate law are the best tools to ensure justice in such cases. Other criminal cases may also benefit from at least a reduction in numbers of jurors or by using experts, if not in eliminating trial by jury. If juries decide guilt or innocence based on emotion, they are not ensuring that justice is served. The average citizen wants security in a justice system. The standard long standing trial by jury represents security. The increase in dissatisfaction with the system stems mostly from awareness of of perceived corruption. With the more swift, less costly administration of justice, through elimination of many trial by jury cases, the average UK citizen’s belief in the justice system would actually be restored and increase the feeling of security. References A.C. 66 House of Lords 1988. Pickstone and others v Freemans plc. [1988] 2 All ER 803, [1988] 3 WLR 265, [1989]. Academic db. Available from [9 September 2007]. BBC News 2005. No jury trial presses on. Available from [13 September 2007]. Dyer, C 2007. ‘Ministers defy judges on rape law reforms Warning that proposals to boost convictions are a minefield’, The Guardian. Available from [10 September 2007]. Talking Point 2001. ‘News Online Poll: Do you have faith in British justice?’, BBC News. Available from [10 September 2007]. Taylor, A 2007. Claims for pay equality swell tribunal cases’, Financial Times. Available from [ 13 September 2007]. Read More