An unjust and criminal bill The British government's policy proposal in the form of the Criminal Justice Bill, threatens to intensify, and make more harmful, the likely negative effects of the European Constitution. The worrying overlap of the European Constitution, and this Bill, relates to a serious erosion in the role of trial by jury. Juries saved until another day It is difficult to understand what possesses politicians in the United Kingdom, from any political party, who vote to support restrictions in the role of juries in courts of law. Even in the House of Lords, where some of the more responsible comments and debate relating to juries was to be heard, there were far too many in that chamber who voted to support the sections of the Criminal Justice Bill which restrict the role of juries. Fortunately they were outvoted by others with a better understanding of the role of juries or, at least, better instincts. Indeed, there are convincing arguments for extending juries into the civil area. One does pick up hints of the thinking of people who wish to restrict the role of juries where they make reference to issues of efficiency, reducing costs or asserting that juries do not understand complex cases such as those involving financial fraud. Most of these contentions have no evidence to support them. Juries improve efifciency and reduce costs There is sound and convincing evidence exists to demonstrate that the legal counsel of people guilty of an offence prefer to go before "certain" judges than before a jury. Juries, after all, are independent and not all judges are. Studies in Ontario, Canada showed that the existance of juries caused many such cases to be settled without going to court with admissions of guilt in exchange for reduced charges. The overall effect therefore was that more serious cases are settled in less time and fewer ended up before a jury. On the other hand, if everything was to be handled by judges, as some in the UK would prefer, then more would have gone to full hearings and the percentage of poor judgements, the guilty going free, would have increased. So, it would seem that the existance of juries, far from reducing efifciency and raising costs actually raises efficiency and reduces the costs of the overall operation of courts. On balance, with the existance of juries, verdicts or settlements, before full hearings, are more likely to be correct resulting in a more efficient dispatch of justice. Complexity On the issue of juries understanding complex cases, this problem of comprehension applies as much to the judge and solicitors as it does to the members of the jury. If a case cannot be explained adequately by a judge, that is he or she cannot sum it up adequately, then clearly the judge does not understand the case. The practice and scale of financial corruption today means there is a constant pressure to remove the more searching eyes of a jury from falling upon such cases if and when they come to court. Indeed, in large financial fraud cases, the stakes are so high that there is a definite risk associated with leaving such matters in the hands of judges. Juries are the best bet. What price justice? In the Lords, Lord Hunt laid out a concise and effective defense of juries The British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, regretted the Lords decision. Staff at the Home Office made comments about this being a problem for juries having to deal with serious crime cases. The position here is that nobbling or influencing members of juries is considerd to be a serious threat and the protection of juries to be expensive. The Metropolitan police cited a figure of £3.6 million as being the current costs of protecting juries against gangs. Hector McNeill, the Coordinator of the European Campaign for Jury Rights says that, "from the standpoint of costs and efficiency juries beat the alternatives. If a budget of £5 million was put aside to protect juries then the cost of liberty and justice would cost the population of the United Kingdom less than 9p per head each year. So what cost justice? What price, what value are these politicians placing on the freedom and reign of justice of the British population? Is freedom and the delivery of justice to the people of the United Kingdom not worth more than 9p for each person each year?" McNeill recalls that, "Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary, made similarly ridiculous claims some years back, of savings of some £150 million resulting from restrictions in the role of juries. And yet even in this case this represents only some £2.5 per head each year or something like 5p a week. Surely justice for the British people is worth more than this?" Juries well defended Some of the arguments in favour of juries were well placed in the debates in the House of Lords by David Hunt, also known as Lord Hunt of Wirral. A campaign by Liberty, the British human rights organization, contributed to the pressure to bring about a vote against the government in the House of Lords. Liberty's submission was well prepared with clear arguments against the restriction of the role of juries. An inadequate public appreciation of the role of juries? McNeill says that governments have become too willing to risk weakening the role of juries. He is concerned that there appears to be either an intentional strategy or just an abandonment of responsibility in the way juries are discussed. McNeill sees several tactics being employed, "One is to chip away at the status of juries in an indirect fashion by emphasising isolated technical and economic issues claiming a reduction in costs here, an enhanced efficiency there and a rationalization or modernization. Such presentations are seldom supported by evidence and indeed are a misrepresentation of the facts". Hansard reports that David Hunt, in his contribution to the debate in the Lords, did raise this very question. He asked why the issue of juries contained in the Criminal Justice Bill at all. The sections concerned with juries amounted to some 5 pages in a document exceeding 300 pages. It is notable that no one attempted to answer this important qiestion. McNeill sees juries as the cornerstone of defending freedom and all other rights Need to emphasise the constitutional role of juries Hector McNeill feels that the constitutional importance of juries is not emphasised enough. Whereas many countries have written constitutions, the jury has the role of replacing that function in defending people from unjust laws or the inappropriate application of laws. McNeill says juries should be extended into civil areas. This is because the trend has been for enforcements to become more and more significant in the civil area with bigger and bigger fines, threats of loss of property and even freedom without the intervention of juries. McNeill cites the confiscation of land from, often innocent, people who fall foul of section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act, as an example of ongoing abuse by local authorities in England. Such cases are judged solely by judges or magistrates with no juries in sight. McNeill says already too many Statutes have become codified and flow in from the European Commission with enforcements and yet no jury oversight. He cautions that the European Union Courts and the European Court of Human Rights (European Council) are completely jury-less and alien to fundamental principles of the British constitutional approach. McNeill considers the European practice of having panels of, often politically selected, judges vote on European Court decisions to be complete anachronism. McNeill emphasises the importance of recognising, across the political spectrum, the consolidating role of juries in British society. Juries represent a foundation for open decisions which can help strengthen the delivery of justice in the areas of human rights, discrimination, equality, the rights of the poor, asylum, immigration and extradition issues, freedom of information, privacy and surveillance, intelligence and security services and European and other arrest warrants, terrorism, policing and prison conditions. McNeill says, "Irish and British traditions are founded upon free and public tribunals which existed before the Magna Carta and in some territories before the institution of what now passes for democracy. Now there are three. On of these tribunals is the fleeting moment when each member of the public casts a vote in a general election. The other tribunal is Parliament. Here, unformtunately, representation of the people, and local concerns, have tended to have been undermined by representation of party, but this is government, non-the-less. And lastly, the final tribunal is the jury which, in effect, has the opportunity to test and judge the legislative output against its actual or potential impact upon citizens. Where a jury sees sound evidence of wrongdoing, they declare such, but where a law is badly crafted and therefore harmful, or where a prosecutor, or even judge, with intent, desires to apply a law in a fashion which is inappropriate to the case in question, then the jury is free to protect the individual, who stands accused, from such abuse. They can nullify the law, in that case, by declaring not guilty." "If only politicians, irrespective of party affiliation, could embrace the importance of such transparency and extend juries to the civil areas, as is the case in the United States of America and Canada, then we would see a marked improvement in the quality of justice and a more effective defense of our freedoms. This should be a concern for all who claim to uphold the interests of Britain. This is needed because an increasing percentage of laws enter our Statues having come from Europe. Most were never mentioned in election manifestos. None has been tested by juries. There is a significant lack of oversight by the people of what passes for legislation and law. As a result many are harmed by the legal system. This harm to others is a direct result of the people's tribunals being denied a role, this is exclusion on a grand scale. As a result freedom is being undermined. Defacto judicial efficiency and transparency is rapidly declining and the population being denied their rightful role to defend the rights of others. This drift is hardly perceptible but it is real and it is dangerous. Action needs to be taken before it is too late." Sources:Hansard, Lord debates Juries are not a technicality, Hector W. McNeill, in European Campaign for Jury Rights, 2003 Real News Online, Theme Park, Juries European Campaign for Jury Rights