There is a proposal that Jury Trials should commence, if not in the traditional sense with 12 members of the Jury selected at random present together in court with the Trial Judge and witnesses, but instead by video-link because of Covid-19.
Essence of a Jury Trial
Those of us who have practised in the criminal courts of England and Wales are frequently reminded by Trial Judges in addressing the Jury as to their duties and function that they are:
(a) to bring together their common sense and wide experience of life in reaching their verdict;
(b) not to discuss matters with any third party, including family members or friends;
(c) only to discuss the evidence during the Trial when they are all assembled together.
Judges often also go on to remind Jurors that the advantage of a Jury Trial is that they will have the opportunity to view the witnesses, not only in the evidence that they may give, but also their demeanour when giving that evidence and no doubt the body language that they exhibit.
Video-link
Jury Trials were suspended because of Covid-19 and the risk posed to Judges, Jurors, Advocates, Defendants and court staff contracting Covid-19 in such a rarefied atmosphere. In consequence, it is proposed that one way of reducing the backlog of Jury Trials is to arrange that they be conducted through video-link. This presumably means a Defendant would appear by video-link from the prison or, if on bail, some convenient venue, possibly the court itself.
The Jurors, presumably, would have to be selected from those who understand how to operate a computer and a visual link, as presumably would the Advocates.
Such proposals are unsatisfactory in many ways because it would appear to be difficult to monitor individual Jurors, presumably on video-link from their home, not having friends or relatives in the room during the course of the Trial listening in. It would also be difficult to assess the credibility of a witness seen through a TV screen, rather than in person.
Reducing the size of Juries
The Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland QC has considered an alternative for clearing the backlog of 40,000 cases and his preferred choice would be in reducing Jury numbers to 7 or having Judge only Trials. This was despite as recently as last month Chris Phillip MP, a junior colleague to the Lord Chancellor, appearing before the same Committee, stating that there was “categorically no question at all, under any circumstances, of the right to Jury Trial being removed”.
That position appears to have changed and, despite fierce opposition prior to Covid-19 of Trials being conducted other than in exceptional circumstances by a Judge alone, the Government appears intent on trying to introduce changes should require the utmost parliamentary and judicial scrutiny.
Jury Trials have been a tradition for hundreds of years as the fairest way of selecting twelve members of the public at random, irrespective of race, colour, creed or sexual orientation, to try one of their peers.
Even during the Second World War, Jury Trials continued and it would be highly undesirable for a Government to be allowed to introduce such legislation, even allegedly on a temporary basis, which would in due course no doubt become permanent and erode the fairness of the judicial system.