Clause 38 - Application by prosecution for trial to be
Criminal Justice Bill
5:45 pm
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I would ask him to remember that we are dealing with a situation in which no jury tampering has yet taken place. It is not as though, as in a later clause, jury tampering has occurred. We are considering the beginning of a trial, when somebody is saying to the judge that it is feared that jury tampering will take place. In general, we should fight against the proposition that juries should be replaced by judges.
I can understand the argument that a jury should be replaced by a judge in a case in which jury tampering has taken place. However, if it is argued that a jury should be replaced ay a judge in a case in which it has not taken place, but it is anticipated as somewhere between a possibility and a probability, my point would be that, given the importance of trying to maintain the jury system, and not to buckle under in response to outright threats, the judge should have a high standard of thinking on the issue before making the appropriate order. If the judge thinks that it is possible that there will be jury tampering, that is not necessarily a satisfactory position. If he thinks that it is likely or probable, is that satisfactory? If the judge is
sure, that means that he has reached a conclusion based on evidence that makes him sure, which is no other standard than the jury themselves must observe in the event of their coming to a guilty verdict.
The purpose of the amendment is to tease out from the Government what would be the problem with inserting ''sure'' on the basis that it might cause more jury trials to go ahead, perhaps safely, than might otherwise be the case if the judge were simply to grant a judge only trial if he believed that a case might involve jury tampering. The hon. Gentleman follows my argument, and I hope that he will explore the matter with me.