Clause 36 - Application by defendant for trial to be conducted without jury
Criminal Justice Bill
9:30 am
Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
Not particularly. I had lamb pies, an apple, a cup of coffee and some leek soup. Perhaps the lunch improves later in the week.
We talked about the matters under discussion. There is nervousness among judges that they might end up trying cases on their own. They are not strident on that issue, although they also anticipate the problem that we shall discuss in the clause stand part debate.
I ask hon. Members to consider the protection proposed by amendment No. 203, which would add to the end of subsection (3):
''if he is satisfied that this will not compromise the defendant's right to a fair trial''.
Thus, if the Committee rejected the proposal that the decision that trials be conducted without a jury be discretionary, and it held on to the obligatory consequence, the judge, in making an order, would have one more consideration to take into account: that the defendant's right to a fair trial not be compromised.
One might say, ''Hang on a minute. Which judge would say, 'I'm not going to try a case fairly'?'' One would hope that they would all feel able to try cases fairly. However, there is a slightly wider consideration. The question is not simply whether judges think that they can decide the facts reasonably—I am sure that they form views about the facts all the time, even
though they do not make a judgment on innocence and guilt. However, in terms of a fair trial, the issue is as much to do with justice being done as justice being seen to be done.
There may be cases in which the judge believes that it is in the defendant's interest for a jury to give the result. The cases that come to mind most are the notorious sex offences, child killings and the like. I can understand why a defendant would want a judge-only trial in some of those cases. A judge-only trial would probably make the trial much shorter. There would not be the embarrassment caused by the case's being set out before 12 members of the public, and the trial would seem less of a public trial. There therefore might be a temptation for the defendant to say, ''Yes, I want this. This is the way I can get through the system most speedily''. I can foresee pressures on a defendant to do so in some cases.
However, if the case is nationally well known—we can all think of recent examples—it may be better for a jury to take the decision, because a jury's authority is greater than that of a judge. I shall make that argument later. The verdict is that of the public, not a professional lawyer.