Clause 37 - Application by prosecution for
Criminal Justice Bill
4:45 pm
Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
I, too, hope that the Committee will reject the clause, which will produce a two-tier justice system, in which certain cases will be dealt with in one way and other cases in another way, but as the hon. Member for Woking said, in this case—and this is fundamentally different from what we were discussing on clause 36—at the instigation of the prosecution. From the point of view of the defendant and the public, that will be perceived as stacking the criminal justice system against the defendant. If the prosecution
make their case, the public will not decide the outcome of the trial.
Furthermore, this category is likely to consist of white-collar crime cases—let us be honest about that. The public should be able to judge white-collar crime in the same way that they judge other sorts of crime, and there is no reason why it should not be judged by the same cross-section of the British public. Indeed, it is important that it is seen to be judged in the same way, otherwise it might look as if there is a preferential bias in the system. Complex fraud cases very often involve professional people from the world of business and finance. If experts and lawyers handle such cases, and there are no lay people on the legal tribunal, it will look as if the professional classes are deciding the outcome.
The clause lends itself to the dangers alluded to by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and others. We could end up with a system in which justice is decided, but the public do not necessarily know how it was done, because the debate was confined to experts. The great benefit of the jury system is that it requires people to put matters clearly and to summarise their case. We might add that the clause increases the risk of the defendant not understanding the issue, which can be in no one's interests.
One can over-emphasise the burdens on the jury. In reality, jurors work for eight hours a day, and very often less. That is what most people do in their working lives. Although the job is different, people know that they may be called on to do it. It is part of civic responsibility that one takes the straw that one is given. It may be a short straw, and one may do two weeks and a couple of quick trials, or it may be a long straw. However, we are talking about giving up at most six or nine months out of a whole lifetime to do one's civic duty. Jury service is one of the responsibilities of citizenship. It is not only ''fair and reasonable'' and not too big a price to pay, but beneficial to those who do it, just as being on the lay Bench is. Participating in the democratic process is generally an ennobling and improving experience. Although it may be hard to concentrate during a long trial, I have no strong recollection of people protesting that they were less willing to take part in one or that it was less important to do so—people understand their job.
I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Woking, that the evidence base for the proposals is weak at best, and possibly non-existent. The Minister prayed in aid two cases, but I think that we accept that they come from a previous generation of case management. There will always be one or two cases that are difficult to manage, but there was no great demand for the proposed changes among jurors, members of the public, the press, groups representing judges and the legal profession or anyone else—there was no great pressure for them. The Minister is right to say that the issue has been examined periodically over the years and that it has been around—of course it has—but the case is weaker now than when the Roskill and other inquiries considered it.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is probably best placed to understand my next point. If
one is looking to instil confidence in the criminal justice system, one should surely look for more lay participation, not less. It would be unhealthy if the treatment of white-collar crime and financial fraud were subject to most criticism. In constituencies such as mine, where the majority are on low incomes and only a small minority on high incomes, we need people to know that those living in the posh flats receive the same justice system as ordinary people, not a system that differentiates and gives those on 10, 20, 30 times the salary a better chance of getting off.
In the famous first royal butler trial, the question arose whether an application for a public interest immunity certificate had been made. The judge had to decide whether certain evidence should be allowed because it had a prejudicial value. In a civil trial, judges often rule on procedural matters and then move on to matters of fact. The great benefit of the system in criminal trials is that when a case goes into session without the jury while legal argument continues, the judge decides on the legal matters and can be appealed to about them, but the jury decides on the facts.
When judges rule that evidence is inadmissible, people find it difficult to believe—it is one of the great fictions that judges and magistrates go through—that it can be put out of their minds altogether when it comes to adjudicating on the facts. Juries sometimes know that arguments about the evidence were conducted in their absence, but only what is entitled to go before the jury does go before it. On matters with as much national significance as a murder trial, we must be careful not to provide another reason for people to feel that unfairness is built into the criminal justice system.
The arguments in favour of changing the jury system are almost non-existent and outdated, and the arguments against are overwhelming. The public have significant confidence in the jury system—more than in Parliament, local government or, sadly, the police—so we tamper with it at our peril. Changing to a two-tier justice system at the instigation of the prosecution risks undermining the wide public confidence in this aspect of the criminal justice system.