Sean O’Neill, Crime and Security Editor
Enter our Snapshots of Summer photography competition
Prosecutors plan to apply this week to hold a major criminal trial without a jury for the first time. The step is being taken because of concerns that jurors assigned to the case – which involves members of an organised criminal network – would be vulnerable to intimidation or bribery.
The Times understands that the request for a no-jury trial is being made after close consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, QC.
Provision for dispensing with a jury is contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 but this is the first time that prosecutors have sought to use it.
The move will revive concern over the future of jury trials in Britain. The Government has previously tried to abolish jury trial for complex fraud cases and there has been debate about the future use of juries in some child abuse and terrorism cases.
The Home Office is already facing criticism over powers in the new Counter-terrorism Bill that would allow the Government to prevent a jury hearing some inquests on the ground of national security.
Details of the current case cannot be disclosed because of the danger of prejudicing the trial if the Crown’s application is rejected and a jury is sworn in.
It can be reported, however, that it follows a lengthy police investigation into a large drug-trafficking ring.
The prosecution told the trial judge on Friday that it wanted him to preside over the trial alone, then return a verdict. Lawyers indicated to the judge that they would make a formal application to him tomorrow.
They will rely on Section 44 of the 2003 Act which says that a trial without a jury can be sought if there is “evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place”.
The Crown will also have to prove that the threat to the integrity of the jury would persist even if police protection or other security measures were put in place.
The application comes six months after the courts system in Northern Ireland was reformed to reintroduce jury trial. Judge-only trials were established in the Province in 1973 to combat widespread intimidation of jurors by paramilitary groups.
Lawyers said last night that although problems of jury tampering existed, the situation in England and Wales was not comparable with the violence and intimidation in Ulster during the worst days of the Troubles.
Rock Tansey, QC, founder of the European Criminal Bar Association, said: “This is very much the thin end of the wedge and follows other suggestions from Government, such as conducting certain fraud trials without juries. It amounts to another attempt to undermine trial by jury. There are serious circumstances where jury intimidation can happen but it is not beyond the wit of Man to put measures in place to protect juries.
“I think the preservation of jury trial is fundamental to our system of justice. It is a mark of a civilised society and it is imperative that it is retained.
“Once you have crossed the line and had one no-jury trial then there will be huge problems. There are many cases where problems arise with juries but the answer is not to abolish jury trial.”
The Government’s attempt to remove juries from complicated fraud trials met with stiff legal and political opposition. After the collapse of the £60 million Jubilee Line fraud trial and difficulties with a number of other complex cases, ministers introduced the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill in 2006.
They argued that justice was not being served because some suspects were not brought to trial because of the danger of making trials too complicated and that the duration of cases placed an intolerable strain on juries.
The measure was passed by MPs but was blocked in the House of Lords last March. Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers led the opposition to the measure and were joined by a number of prominent Labour rebels, including Baroness Mallalieu, QC, who said that the Bill would “stick a knife into the main artery of our criminal justice system”.
Articles from our sister site WSJ.com:
You may be asked to subscribe to read certain articles
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
it would be a sad day indeed if trial by one's peers is abolished. Who is to say a solitary verdict by a judge is the ideal answer. No thought is given to dissenting views could mean unfair decisions that could have adverse consequwnces for the individual. whilst a trial judge may be versed in his knowledge of the law, this may put a veil over very integral and important facts that go overlooked unfortunately way too easily. what is needed is reform of the selection process and if possible training of prospective jurors so that they fully appreciate their role. merely taking the juror's oath will not suffice. at the end of the day a trial judge is like the juror- a human being- not some superficial machine that flawlessly delivers the most accurate of verdicts. The same woes of 12jurymen are the same woes that can manifest itself in a judicial panel of three.
keisha cruickshank, Siparia, Trinidad and Tobago
In the land of Magna Carta, they want to do away with juries. Why is this case so much worse than, say, the Kray cases, and other big criminal cases over the years.
Juries may be strange beasts but they have proved over the years that they can handle pressure in crim trials.
Sounds like this could end up in the European Court of Human Rights.
Kym Connell, Albury NSW, AUSTRALIA
No doubt I will be told that for legal reasons it would be impossible but why not hear the case with three judges and allow a majority verdict,that should minimise the chances of nobbling.
jerym eedy, caerphilly, uk
Might transparency be a suitable answer, so all the jury deliberations and all the judge's notes and comments are all in the public domain?
We know that governments are swayed by commercial considerations and that big multinational corporations have more clout than many nations. It is surely utterly naive to contend that judges alone are different.
The role of Britain, followed very quickly by the U.S.A., backing the introduction of the drug growing in Afghanistan for commercial reasons despite the known adverse effects is well documented but suppressed as much as possible by the two offenders.
'Justice' can be bought in England now, as elsewhere, and always has been. All that changes is the price. How could it change?
Ron Lampard, Market Harborough, England
To David Mausza, two points:
1. It is not longer a case of 12 juryMEN - the average nowadays is eight women to four men.
2. You do not have to nobble all twelve to destroy a jury - one is quite enough if she/he even mentions it to a fellow juror. (I have seen this happen too.) And, they are are much, much easier to get to than a judge.
Bill , Suzhou, China
Why should we believe judge is any less susceptible to bribery than members of a jury?
r payne, macon, france
What do you fear more, letting the guilty free because of a tampered jury or a state that can try without a jury?
A government can do more harm than any single criminal
Drew Sullivan, San Jose, California, USA
No-jury trials. Sounds an awful lot like China.
Sheridan, Hangzhou,
Baroness Kenedy was warning about this sort of thing back in 2003. I find it very worrying indeed, particularly as it is easier to nobble one judge than twelve jurymen, so the measure is irrational anyway.
David Marusza, islington, england
Having sat on a number of juries on two rounds of Jury service, I think this is a sensible move unless the manner in which jurors are chosen is radically overhauled.
In my experience, the intelligence of my fellow jurors varied widely, alarmingly even. However, even more shocking was the selfish and utter refusal of some to take their position seriously. One juror declared at the outset that she "had a party to go to" and invited us to decide the case any way we wanted, just "get it over with on time." On another case, a couple had obviously taken a sexual fancy to each other and sat apart, taking absolutely no interest in the deliberations of the rest of us. They, too, were happy to go along with whatever we decided, although we were not urged to haste this time.
The original concept was judgment by one's peers (equals). This NEVER happens in modern trials, in my experience. It needs to be revisited if the jury system is to justify its continuance.
Bill , Suzhou, China