The Guardian view on restricting trial by jury: the ugly face of justice tailored to tight budgets
Sir Brian Leveson, a former judge, recognises the sensitivity around any restriction on jury trial. But he weighs it against 'the real risk of total system collapse in the near future'. He argues that the backlog of unheard crown court cases – currently about 77,000 – betrays the victims of crime, leaves witnesses and defendants in limbo and corrodes faith in the whole apparatus of justice. To get the system back on track, Sir Brian makes 45 recommendations, covering a range of sentencing and divisions of labour between police, magistrates and crown courts.
The most controversial measure, if adopted by the government, is sure to be ending the right to be tried in front of a jury for offences that carry a maximum sentence of two years or fewer. The report also proposes that judges alone should decide complex fraud cases that notoriously tax jurors' time and capacity to absorb highly technical testimony.
Sir Brian is candid in acknowledging that the changes are not ideal. They express an invidious choice between unpalatable compromise and an intolerable status quo, tending towards calamity. He makes a case for reform irrespective of the wider fiscal constraints facing the government. But he notes also that the terms of reference for his inquiry sought recommendations that 'take account of the likely operational and financial context at the time that they may be considered and implemented'.
In other words, it is a question of finding the least worst solution when justice must be tailored to a tight budget. This is a crisis of long gestation. The justice department was among those 'unprotected' portfolios that bore a disproportionate burden of austerity when George Osborne was chancellor. The court system is also still struggling to recover from extreme disruption during the Covid pandemic. Labour has taken steps to ease the case backlog, funding more sitting days and appointing judges. But the rate of improvement is insufficient given the scale of the problem, hence the review and the drastic measures it proposes.
Whether curtailment of jury trial is a price worth paying to avert the worst-case scenario is a nasty question that only arises because adequately funded reform is not on the table. This has become a painfully familiar political conundrum for Labour.
The government was elected to fix a badly broken state, but on a manifesto that precluded most of the Treasury revenue-raising measures that might expedite tangible change. As a result 'reform' has become a euphemism for shrinking services and withdrawing entitlements. When the time comes, ministers might feel compelled by fiscal circumstance to accept Sir Brian's recommendations. If so, they will struggle to make a compelling case for a policy that so obviously compromises judicial principle for want of a long-term, better-funded plan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Woman said she was ‘Jesus sent to eliminate evil' after killing landlord and cat
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails Sign up to our free breaking news emails Sign up to our free breaking news emails Email * SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our Privacy notice A woman said she was 'Jesus' and had been 'sent to eliminate evil from the world' after battering her 72-year-old friend to death and stabbing his pet cat in the neck, a court has heard. Habiba Naveed, 35, previously denied the murder of her landlord Christopher Brown, but pleaded guilty to his manslaughter. She also admitted causing unnecessary suffering to his cat Snow by stabbing him in the neck on or before August 15 last year. At a hearing at the Old Bailey on Thursday, Judge Sarah Munro KC imposed a hospital order under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act and a restriction order under Section 41 – meaning Naveed can be detained indefinitely. At the time of the offence, Naveed, who has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, was 'psychotic' – while her mental health had 'deteriorated' in the days preceding the attack, the court heard. Prosecutor Kerry Broome told the court Naveed believed she had connections to the royal family and was Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed's daughter. After the attack, Naveed told her brother 'she was Jesus and had been sent to eliminate evil from the world', and later said to police 'the devil attacked me last night and I won,' Ms Broome said. The court heard Naveed had also told police she 'slept in coffins', and Jesus had raised her from the dead. The Metropolitan Police launched an investigation after Mr Brown's body was discovered under a dressing gown in the living room of the home he shared with Naveed in Polsted Road, Lewisham, south-east London. The house cat, Snow, was also found dead having been stabbed in the neck. Ms Broome said of a previous account of the attack given by the defendant: 'She believed she had seen the deceased kill his mother and that the deceased was evil.' 'She heard a voice telling her to kill him three times,' she said, adding that Naveed hit Mr Brown with a pan and then strangled him. 'She believed the evil spirit had jumped out of the deceased and into the cat.' 'She got a knife and she cut the cat's neck,' Mr Broome added. The pair had lived together at Polsted Road for several years, during which Mr Brown was persuaded to put the property, which he had inherited from his parents, in both his and Naveed's names, the prosecutor said. The house was refurbished and lodgers were taken in, which Naveed orchestrated, the court heard. In the days leading up to the attack, Naveed's family were concerned at the state of her mental health – leading them to call 111 and call an ambulance, the hearing was told. Sentencing, Judge Munro told the defendant: 'You attacked Chris between around 11pm and 11.50pm on August 14. 'You hit Chris a number of times to the head with a saucepan which broke in the process; you then sat on him breaking his ribs and strangled him. 'You then slit the cat's throat before leaving Chris covered in a dressing gown alone and dead or dying in the living room property where he was found by Mr Rizwan (a lodger) when he returned to the house at 2.15am on 15th. 'You left a bloodied knife with which you had cut the cat's throat nearby.' She added: 'The consultant forensic psychiatrist was of the view that the injuries fitted your account which shows that you were conscious of exactly what you were doing as you killed Chris.' The judge said two psychiatrists agreed on the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and that Naveed had 'no insight' into her mental health, diagnosis or symptoms. Naveed repeatedly became aggressive during previous hospital admissions and had been off her proscribed medication for a year at the time of the killing, the court heard. The defendant was a frequent user of cannabis which exacerbates her symptoms but, did not cause her psychosis, according to psychiatrists, the judge said. Mitigating factors beyond Naveed's mental illness included her lack of any serious previous offending, while aggravating factors included her use of strangulation and a weapon, the judge added. A post-mortem examination found that Mr Brown, who was a lawyer, died from blunt force trauma. In a tearful statement, a colleague from Mr Brown's law firm told the hearing that the victim would have helped anyone if he could, adding that Naveed had taken away any 'future memories'. She said: 'He wasn't just a 72-year-old-man tragically killed by his housemate, he was a solicitor, a boss, a partner, a kind man.' In a statement read out by Ms Broome, Mr Brown's cousin described him as a 'kind and caring person' who would go out of his way to help his family and his clients. Naveed attended the hearing via video-link and only spoke to confirm her identity.
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Migrant hotel threatens closure if just asylum-seeking men are housed on site
A migrant hotel has warned it will close if the Home Office begins placing men at the site instead of families. The Park Hotel in Diss, Norfolk, said it is currently contracted to accommodate families only and has made clear to the Home Office that it 'will have no alternative but to close' if that changes. In the statement shared to social media the hotel said: 'The Park Hotel has been contracted by the Home Office to provide accommodation for families. 'This arrangement presently remains in place, despite recent public statements suggesting otherwise. 'We have advised the Home Office and other stakeholders that should this situation change, and we are formally notified that the hotel will no longer operate as a family-only establishment, we will have no alternative but to close the Hotel.' It said there are currently 'vulnerable families and children staying at the hotel – many of whom are feeling frightened and uncertain about recent events at the Hotel and their futures'. 'We ask for understanding and sensitivity from both the public and the media during this time, as we continue to provide support to those in our accommodation,' the statement added. It comes amid mounting local tensions over the use of the hotel to house asylum seekers, with around 60 protesters gathering outside the premises on Wednesday night to voice their anger at the Government's decision. They were met by around 30 counter-protesters from campaign group Stand Up to Racism, who held signs reading 'refugees welcome'. The Home Office has not commented directly on the hotel's warning but has previously said the use of hotels is a temporary measure and all placements are made following risk assessments. The hotel has long served as a local business and venue for tourism, weddings and events. The Park Hotel refused to comment when approached by the PA news agency.
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ministers urged to explain plans to re-establish extraditions to Hong Kong
Ministers have been urged to explain plans which would once again allow Britain to extradite people to Hong Kong. The move could put at risk dissident Hongkongers who have fled to the UK to avoid recrimination by the Chinese government, a senior Conservative warned. Shadow Home Office minister Alicia Kearns urged the Government to ensure 'protections will be put in place to ensure no Hongkonger, CCP (Chinese Community Party) critic or anyone targeted by the CCP will be extradited under the new arrangement'. The UK's extradition treaty with Hong Kong was suspended by the then-Tory government after a new national security law was imposed on the territory by China in 2020. The treaty meant Hong Kong could request that someone living in the UK suspected of a crime at home could be handed over to face justice, and vice versa. Fears that the law could lead to human rights abuses were behind the UK's reasoning to put the agreement on ice. Ministers have now introduced a law change in the Commons which would tweak how Hong Kong is designated under the 2003 Extradition Act. The statutory instrument introduced in the Commons on July 17 would effectively re-establish an extradition route with Hong Kong, as well as Zimbabwe. It also changes how Chile is classified under the Act because the South American country has signed an international extradition treaty. In a letter to shadow home secretary Chris Philp seen by the PA news agency, security minister Dan Jarvis suggested the change was needed as no extradition to Hong Kong can currently be made 'even if there were strong operational grounds to do so'. Mr Jarvis added: 'The way to resolve this situation is to de-designate Hong Kong and Zimbabwe from the Act so that we can co-operate with them on the case-by-case ad hoc basis available for non-treaty partners. 'The safety and security of our citizens is our top priority. 'Ensuring that territories are correctly designated under the Act will ensure that the UK can accept extradition requests in a lawful and timely way to ensure the public is not put at risk.' Writing in response to Mr Jarvis, shadow minister Ms Kearns questioned why the Government had taken the step, as she said the situation in Hong Kong had 'worsened' in the years since the national security law was introduced. She pointed to the case of Jimmy Lai, the 77-year-old British national and proprietor of the Apple Daily newspaper, who is facing detention by the Chinese government, as well as other critics of Beijing. 'Has the Government assessed political freedom and the rule of law have been returned to Hong Kong, or have you decided these issues are no longer saleable alongside the 'reset' in relations between the UK and China?' Ms Kearns asked in her letter. In a post on social media, she added: 'I urge the Government to give urgent reassurances on how this system will be safely managed and what protections will be put in place to ensure no Hong Konger, CCP critic or anyone targeted by the CCP will be extradited under the new arrangement.' The Hong Kong national security law criminalises anything considered to be secessionist from China, and has led to a crackdown on critics of Beijing. Some 150,000 Hongkongers have moved to the UK under a special visa scheme launched in early 2021, after the law was introduced. Since coming to power, Labour has sought to reset relations with China with the aim of boosting trade, after the Conservatives took an increasingly hawkish attitude towards the country while they were in office. The Home Office, which is responsible for extradition law, has been contacted for comment.
