One for your radar with massive ramifications due to under representation of BAME people and women as Judges and Magistrates.
This story isn't being given column inches by newspapers.
It should be front page.
A thread by the secret barrister
Secret Barrister @barristersecret
I worry that this seismic change to our constitution is not being given the attention it urgently warrants. So I'll say again:
The government wants to abolish jury trials in order to address a court backlog caused by its own cuts, under the pretence that it was caused by Covid.
Pre-Covid, there was a backlog of 39,000 cases in the Crown Court. The govt was content with this appalling state of affairs; happy to make defendants, victims & witnesses wait years for justice.
^Covid has pushed the backlog to 41,000.
This, apparently, demands urgent action.^
41,000 cases is unacceptable. It requires urgent action. But that action is not tearing up the right to jury trial, and replacing it with trial by a single judge and two magistrates.
Action means resourcing the system properly, re-opening courts, sourcing alternative venues.
While the backlog, and the delay, has been increasing over recent years - due, I'll say it again, to political decisions to remove funding from the courts - it is not the greatest ever.
In 2014, there was a backlog of over 50,000 cases. Nobody suggested removing jury trial.
Recent days have seen senior and retired judges speaking out, saying what a smashing idea it would be to replace juries in certain cases with trial by a judge, just like them, and two magistrates, just like their friends.
It would be a disaster. Make no mistake.
This brilliant thread by @Joanna__Hardy illustrates the problem with representation in the judiciary.
Joanna Hardy @ Joanna_hardy
If a restriction on jury trials is going to be seriously suggested by serious people in serious circumstances then let’s get real.
A little thread
I’m a lawyer (sorry) so I’ll first hit you with some figures. I’ve been reading some spreadsheets. Hold onto your hats.
Circuit Judges are a good place to start. They are a type of Judge who would try lots of these trials.
Of those who answered the question about ethnicity in the July 2019 statistics - and, in fairness, not everyone answered - 4% of Circuit Judges were from a BAME background.
There’s a spreadsheet you can read. Which I did.
Of the Circuit Judges who answered the ethnicity question, 12 said they were Asian or Asian British, 5 said they had a mixed ethnicity and 4 said they were from another ethnic group. 3 said that they were Black or Black British.
Not 3% (of those who answered).
3 Circuit Judges (of those who answered).
You could fit them in a car.
You’ll want to contrast that against the over representation of minority ethnic groups in the Criminal Justice System. The latest figures suggest minority groups are over represented at the following stages:
- stop and search
- arrest
- custodial sentencing
- prison population
The lay magistracy - who it is suggested would sit with a judge in pairs - is more racially diverse. Which is, I suppose, a start.
However - uh oh - 84% of them are over the age of 50.
Magistrates can be appointed from the age of 18.
Do you know how many are under 30?
1%
Please don’t get me started on how many defendants are aged between 18-29.
And don’t ever get me started on how many under 18s - children - end up in the Crown Court.
There are more spreadsheets.
I’ve read them.
In Northumbria, the stats show there wasn’t a single magistrate under the age of 30 when the figures were reported. Not one.
(As an aside - young people, please apply to be Magistrates).
So I’ve hit you with the stats. But why does it matter? It matters because when I represent someone from a minority background or a young person or both they (regularly) see a Judge who doesn’t look or sound like them.
“Will the Judge get it?” I’m often asked. They’re asking will the Judge understand the choices I made, the phrases I use, my social media posts, the things we do where I live, the challenges I face, the norms of my age and my community.
Will they get it? Will they get me? Will they get this? Is this fair? Does it look fair? Does it feel fair?
And I always say the same thing. “The Judge doesn’t get to decide - the 12 voices on the jury decide.”
And then the Judge tells everyone that Judges don’t get to decide.
“There are 13 judges” they tell juries. “You 12 are the judges of the facts. And I’m the judge of the law.”
12 voices. 12 experiences. 12 opinions and journeys and bruises and lessons and everything a human picks up along the way.
Those are the qualifications needed to judge other humans. Not law degrees and enthusiasm.
It’s often not a perfect mix. But it is always the better one.
Juries can judge facts. They can spot a liar and they hate liars. They can hear honesty in the heartbreak, in the ferocity, in the silence. They sometimes hear stories so raw, so painful that the room reels - they can barely bring themselves to listen, to judge. But they do.
And as we search for who can best assess the honesty, the desires, the wants, the greed, the motives of fellow humans - we don’t need to look much further. This, the most human task of all, should not be professionalised or restricted.
Not for expediency.
Not for a backlog.
As far as defence briefs go - this could be our most important. Lawyers of the future will ask what we did, what we said when they suggested eroding it. For those of us holding this crumbling, miserable system together - the jury trial is the only glimmer. Let’s keep it shining.
The secret barrister @ barristersecret
Readers of my book will know from Chapter 2 the problems with our magistrates' courts, and the way we appoint and train magistrates. The senior judiciary, sadly, are wholly unaware. They have not appeared in a magistrates' court for decades. They do not see what we see.
These wise judicial heads will be rolled out by the government over coming weeks to show how sensible and moderate and not-at-all-worrying it would be to replace juries with judges and magistrates.
With respect, they do not speak with knowledge or authority on this subject.
Please do not be distracted or conned.
The government has had since March to identify 'Nightingale' courts to make jury trial workable. It has done nothing. It has sat on its hands, letting the backlog grow.
Now it will say that there is no choice but to replace juries.
Lie.
So, for those at the back:
🔴The court backlog was caused by govt cuts, not Covid
🔴We had a bigger backlog in 2014 and nobody suggested abolishing juries
🔴Any decision to replace juries with judges & magistrates would be in the interests of government, not justice.
P.S. To deal with those hijacking this conversation for other agendas, this is not saying that juries are perfect and the system cannot be improved. They are not, and I think it definitely can.
But the government is not promising to improve justice - just to make it cheaper.
P.S. To deal with those hijacking this conversation for other agendas, this is not saying that juries are perfect and the system cannot be improved. They are not, and I think it definitely can.
But the government is not promising to improve justice - just to make it cheaper.
Huge implications here. And very much against the point that recent marches and protests for women and the BAME community were trying to make.