Latest news with #judgeonlytrial
Telegraph
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
High-profile sex criminals could be granted trial without jury
High-profile suspects in sex cases that have shocked the nation could get the right to seek a trial without a jury under plans to be considered by ministers. A review commissioned by Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, is expected this week to recommend defendants should get the right to ask for a judge-only trial as part of 'once-in-a-generation' reforms to tackle chronic court backlogs. High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson, the review's author, has suggested that this could include suspects whose crimes have garnered so much 'public opprobrium' that they might feel the suspect would be unlikely to get an 'objective' trial by jury. In a previous review, he indicated this reform could include defendants charged with sexual or sadistically violent offences or suspects from minorities or sects who might consider a judge to be more objective than a jury. The move to give a right to opt for a judge-only trial would replicate similar systems in the US and Canada, where defendants in all Crown Court trials have the right to refuse a jury. An alternative model in New Zealand limits the option to less serious offences carrying maximum sentences below 14 years in jail. Sir Brian signalled the approach last month in a speech to legal experts, although he stressed a judge would require the discretion to reject any request. 'I'm also going to talk about the extent to which a defendant should be allowed to elect to be tried by a judge alone, as happens in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand,' he said.
Telegraph
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Defendants should have right to choose judge-only trial, says Leveson
Defendants are to get the right to ask for a judge-only trial without a jury. Under plans for 'once-in-a-generation' reform to reduce court backlogs, an independent review set up by the Government will recommend ministers should follow the example of Canada, Australia and New Zealand and allow defendants in the crown court to opt for a judge-only trial. Sir Brian Leveson, the senior judge heading the review, will recommend the move as a way to speed up trials to tackle the record backlog of more than 75,000 cases which is forcing some victims to wait up to four or five years for justice. He told a conference on modernising justice: 'I can see the advantage in lots of cases. You will get a reasoned judgment [from a judge]. In front of a jury, you don't get a judgment at all, you get guilty or not guilty. 'The case will be undeniably speedier because the judge doesn't have to explain to the jury all the basic premises of the criminal law.' Sir Brian is also expected to recommend that the public should be spared jury service if a case is going to last more than 12 months because of the 'unfairness' of it taking a year out of their lives and livelihoods. Instead, such cases would be heard by a judge without a jury. Other proposals will further scale back people's right to a jury trial for some lower level offences such as assault of a police officer while resisting arrest, racially aggravated criminal damage, dangerous driving and possessing a class B drug like cannabis. These are likely to be tried either by an intermediate court comprising a judge and two magistrates or by extending the powers of magistrates to try cases carrying sentences of up to two years, rather than only those with maximum jail terms of one year, as at present. Sir Brian was appointed by Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, who said that 'once-in-a-generation reform' of the courts was the only way to tackle justice delays for victims. Internal Ministry of Justice forecasts suggested the backlogs could rise to 100,000 without radical action. Sir Brian said there was a 'real risk that the system will collapse' as defendants take advantage of cases being delayed as long as 2029 and 'threw the dice' in the hope their victims or witnesses disengaged and prosecutions were abandoned. He also said it would be up to the Government to decide which types of cases it felt were appropriate for defendants to have the right to spurn a jury but he said the judges would have the discretion to overrule any request if it was in the public interest to do so. 'There are some cases, which I would not consider appropriate for a judge to try alone, and I would give the judge a discretion,' Sir Brian said. 'So a defendant may say, 'I would like to be tried by a judge alone', and the judge would be perfectly entitled to say, 'I think not'.' Public opprobrium He suggested one type of case judge-only trials could be where there was significant 'public opprobrium' over the case such as sexual or sadistic violence and could sway the jury. 'I can see defendants, perhaps charged with cases that attract public opprobrium being concerned about a jury coming in from their daily lives to face that trial,' he said. 'Equally, I can see if it's that much public opprobrium, why a judge may say, 'I'm not sure about that.' So there is a balance to be done, but judges make judicial decisions all the time.' He said it could also apply to factually or legally extremely complex cases where a jury may struggle to fully understand the case. A third type could where there had been alleged confession or identification, where judges tended to be more rigorous in scrutinising its validity than necessarily a jury. Sir Brian said there had been a limited number of cases where judges had heard cases alone such as where a jury had to be discharged due to evidence of jury tampering. He is expected to deliver his report to Ms Mahmood next week with publication expected in early July. It follows a similar review of sentencing by David Gauke, the former Tory justice secretary, which recommended freeing some prisoners as little as a third of the way through sentence to tackle prison overcrowding.
