Clause 36 - Trials on indictment without a jury
Criminal Justice Bill
3:00 pm
Mr Hilary Benn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leeds Central, Labour)
I hear that argument, which reinforces the importance of appropriate advice in making the decision. However, the same argument would apply in relation to the existing right of choice in either way cases. I do not accept it as an argument against giving defendants the right to a choice.
Several hon. Members have referred to the question of the broader public interest and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) gave an example, in relation to the Leeds United case, that might or might not fall within clause 36(8). The subsection provides for the relevant considerations to be taken into account. It is a matter for the judge, but it is also appealable under clause 39, which would provide an opportunity for all the issues to be aired. On the point about freemasons, it is improper and illegal to attempt to subvert the criminal justice system in that way and would remain so under the clause.
We need to be slightly careful about where the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey might take us. If we accepted all that he said, we might be forced to the conclusion that we should abolish the right of election in either way cases and decide that nothing could go before the magistrates, but everything should go before a jury. Every argument that he advanced would apply equally in that context. It is important, in deciding that the individual should be given the right under the clause, not to accept that justice from a judge alone is of lesser quality—not least for the reason I gave earlier, that many judges already dispense such justice regularly.