"Under his proposals, jury trials in England and Wales will be effectively halved. Currently, defendants charged with either-way offences have the right to choose whether to be tried by magistrates or a jury. But Mr Lammy wants any case where the likely sentence is less than three years everything from sexual offences to theft to violence to narco-crime to be judge-only."
"Sir Brian Leveson, whose review Mr Lammy cites as inspiration, did not recommend a blanket scrapping of defendants' right to opt for a jury. He did not suggest using speculative sentence predictions to determine the mode of trial. He did not propose removing lay participation from either-way trials. He did not call for expanding magistrates' sentencing powers to two years, nor for judge-only trials across whole categories of crime."
"That protection is what Mr Lammy wants gone. As the former lord chief justice Lord Thomas told the BBC, removing lay input is the most controversial and serious aspect of the reforms proposed. It strips away ordinary citizens' involvement in deciding guilt a right that has survived monarchs and wars, but apparently not Mr Lammy's inability to stand up to the Treasury."
Proposals would make any case with an anticipated sentence under three years judge-only, removing defendants' option to choose a jury for either-way offences. The change would affect many sexual offences, thefts, violent crimes and narcotics cases, leaving only the gravest offences such as murder and rape with lay juries. Sir Brian Leveson's review recommended a judge sitting with two magistrates for most either-way trials rather than removing lay participation. Jury trials currently account for less than 3% of criminal cases. Crown court backlogs exceed 78,000 cases, and reliance on speculative sentence predictions would determine trial mode.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]