We’ve heard from those supporting the argument for limiting the right to jury claiming that “criminals game the system.”
Week in, week out we receive calls from desperate people informing us they are under investigation or facing prosecution and trial. They are not and may never be criminals. These people are merely members of the public facing prosecution, not some kind of group that deserves to be othered. This language which labels these people as criminals is misleading, dangerous and populist, and it undermines the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence.
Justice isn’t a game, as many reform-hungry politicians have reminded us over the past two decades. In truth, the reality for those waiting for their cases to be resolved is hard. Individuals wait on bail for four or five years; they are unable to complete their university courses or pursue their careers. They are forced to sign on with the police every week; their movements are restricted, they are cut off from family members, and excluded from their social lives. They don’t want to play games.
No one relishes the prospect of losing their freedom hanging over them for many years. The people we represent are desperate for their cases to be progressed: a parent missing years of school meetings while awaiting trial; a homeless person found with a knife, explaining that they were on their way to hand it in; an adult with learning difficulties accused of misconduct in the care home they live in; and an asylum seeker stuck in a hotel for years while awaiting the conclusion of their trial, only to be acquitted. These examples are not exceptional. They represent the many vulnerable defendants facing immense hardship while waiting.
The, at best lazy, at worst dangerous, rhetoric about “criminals gaming the system” obscures the complex realities of delays. For some of our cases, the delay has ensured that the prosecutor properly reviewed the case, while in others, the defendant was able to prepare their case properly and provide their account to a jury who would eventually acquit. Cases can be charged quickly in instances where there is an urgent need to bring a defendant before the court or it’s not appropriate to bail them. In such cases, an expedited charging process called the threshold test is used. However, haste can often prove inefficient. When there isn’t time to investigate cases properly or when investigations are rushed or incomplete, when, for example, not all investigative enquiries have been completed, and there’s no time to dissuade the police or CPS from changing course, cases can move forward without proper scrutiny, snowballing through the justice system without being properly reviewed until the event of the trial, ultimately undermining justice.
If there is an argument for restricting juries, it needs to be presented logically and coherently, based on the real lived experiences of all parties to criminal justice not just those who might appear in the headlines.