Latest news with #jurytrial
CBC
4 days ago
- CBC
Judge to rule on evidence against Oromocto First Nation chief, 8 others facing charges
A judge will soon decide if there's enough evidence to continue to a jury trial for Oromocto First Nation Chief Shelley Sabattis and eight others accused of assault and breaking and entering. Sabattis and the others were in Fredericton court on Thursday for a preliminary hearing where the Crown presented evidence. It was scheduled to begin on Monday and last three days, but an issue with defence lawyers delayed it to Thursday, when it wrapped up in one day. The proceedings are covered by a publication ban to prevent influencing a potential future jury trial. Also accused are Allan Sabattis-Atwin, an Oromocto First Nation councillor and Chief Sabbattis's son, and her other children — Desirae Stevens and Drae Steven — along with Nikia Sabattis, Aubrey Landry, Joel Berrios, Shawn Sabattis-Atwin and Steven Sabattis. All accused were in court for the hearing. A preliminary hearing is held to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to a full trial. Sabattis had previously elected to be tried by a jury. Following the hearing, Judge Natalie LeBlanc said she would deliver her decision on Aug. 26. The charges stem from an incident that allegedly took place in Oromocto First Nation, where Sabattis and eight others are accused of breaking and entering and assault on Anthony O'Blenis and Sonya Atwin. Sabattis also faces another count of obstructing RCMP, but that was not included in the preliminary hearing.
Daily Mail
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
PETER HITCHENS: This is the sinister motivation behind the plans to change our legal system. They must not be allowed to happen... or we'll all be at risk
The British state has for centuries hated jury trial, which grew up here by accident and is a great obstacle to naked power. Without a jury, a criminal courtroom is just a chamber full of state employees, trying to work out how long the defendant should go to prison for. With a jury, it is a place where the Crown has to prove you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If it can't, you stay free.
Telegraph
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
One of our most ancient freedoms is under threat. This Labour plot cannot stand
Today, the right to a jury trial is as important as ever. For years, Britain has been respected around the world for the quality and independence of its judiciary. Now, there are very legitimate questions about whether those once-high standards are being maintained in every case. Far too often, we have seen judges making decisions that are totally out of step with the public's instincts, whether on immigration, asylum or free speech. At a time when trust in the justice system is already in short supply, we cannot afford to dismantle this crucial safeguard. Yet that's exactly what this Labour Government might be about to do. It's no secret that Britain's courts are a mess. After Covid, judicial strikes, and a marked rise in certain types of crime, the number of cases waiting for trial stands at a record high. Rape cases are now being scheduled as far away as 2029, a horrific delay in justice for victims. Shamefully, this backlog has only grown since Labour came to power, with 750 cases added every month. So what's their plan to solve this crisis? If yesterday's Leveson Review is anything to go by, they look set to provide yet more sentencing discounts, which could see criminals serve as little as 20 per cent of their sentence. Then there's the plan to allow drug dealers and stalkers to avoid a criminal record by settling out of court, hardly the sort of result anyone could call 'justice'. The proposal to scrap jury trials in many cases is just as pernicious, eroding one of this country's ancient liberties. According to Courts Minister Sarah Sackman, this is 'an idea whose time has probably come'. By the report's own admission, scrapping jury trials will only have a 'limited impact' on the court backlog. It will save £31 million, amounting to just 0.2 per cent of the Ministry of Justice's budget. And while the report only recommends scrapping jury trials in some cases, it also says that there is 'no limit' to the cases that jury trials might be removed from in future. What's more, it suggests giving judges a blanket power to decide which cases are too 'complex' for juries to opine on. That's a slippery slope which could end in the total abolition of jury trials. Scrapping this pillar of our constitution for the sake of (very limited) administrative convenience is a disgrace. Alongside parliamentary democracy, trial by jury ranks as one of this country's greatest gifts to the world. Eight centuries ago, Magna Carta set out the principle that nobody shall be judged but by their peers. While the exact shape of the system has evolved, this core principle has remained consistent. Today, jury trials are one of the few ways in which ordinary members of the public can play a part in the justice system – a crucial safeguard against judicial overreach. In his report, Leveson invokes Lord Devlin, one of the greatest legal minds of the 20th century. Yet it was Lord Devlin who once, rightly, called jury trials 'the lamp that shows that freedom lives', noting that 'no tyrant could ever afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of 12 of his countrymen'. Devlin was absolutely correct. Jury trial has long ensured that the law can never stray too far from the common sense of the British public, reining in the mistaken impulses of an occasionally fallible judicial branch. Take the case of Jamie Michael, a former Royal Marine who was arrested after he posted a Facebook video urging people to organise peacefully against migrant hotels. He faced a jury at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, who took just 17 minutes to clear him of stirring up racial hatred. While critics claim that juries are slow, the public can draw the line between clumsy anger and real incitement faster than any official. So why is the Government being so careless with one of our constitutional traditions? The answer is simply because the Labour Party thinks that judges always know best. We see it in their approach to the Chagos Islands, the European Convention on Human Rights and, now, in their willingness to scrap jury trials. For Keir Starmer, the rule of law simply equals rule by lawyers; it's no surprise that these instincts are shared by his Labour colleagues.
The Guardian
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on restricting trial by jury: the ugly face of justice tailored to tight budgets
Only a tiny minority of criminal cases in England and Wales are decided by a jury – as few as 1%, once guilty pleas and judge-directed acquittals are taken into account. There are democracies where jury trial is rarer still. That is relevant context for the recommendation, published on Wednesday in an independent review of the criminal courts, that more cases be heard by magistrates. There are also good reasons why the right to be judged by one's peers is deemed a foundational principle of justice and an insurance against prejudice and capricious power. This, too, is relevant context. 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.
The Independent
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Jury trials ‘always important' part of justice system amid court reform shake-up
A jury trial is 'always going to be an important part of the criminal justice system', a minister has said, as proposed reforms could see less cases heard by juries. Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds told Times Radio there has always been a 'balance' between jury trials and other types of trials, and looking at 'radical options' was what a review into court reforms was intended to do. On Wednesday, plans to reduce the number of jury trials and create a new type of crown court where trials are heard by judges were unveiled by Sir Brian Leveson. The review commissioned by the Government seeks to 'reduce the risk of total system collapse' amid a record-high backlog where some cases are listed for 2029. It comes as the crown court backlog in England and Wales has passed 75,000 cases for the first time, rising to 76,957 at the end of March. Sir Brian's recommendations are expected to save approximately 9,000 sitting days in the crown court each year from some of the main changes, such as by diverting cases to magistrates' courts or to the proposed Crown Court Bench Division for trials to be heard by judges. Juries would be reserved to hear the most serious cases. On the recommendation to end automatic jury trials, Mr Thomas-Symonds told Times Radio: 'A jury trial is always going to be an important part of our criminal justice system. 'But it's always been about drawing a line with whether it's the types of crime, for example, or seriousness of the crime as to how exactly we deliver fair trials across the criminal justice system.' He also told ITV's Good Morning Britain the Government would examine the recommendations in Sir Brian's report and look to legislate in the autumn. 'But that isn't to say we're not acting now. We already have 4,000 extra crown courts sitting days, we've increased magistrate sentencing powers and also invested £450 million pounds in the system, frankly, to keep it afloat from the disastrous position we inherited,' he said. Chairman of the Commons' Justice Committee, Andy Slaughter, however warned it needs to be considered 'very carefully' before altering the system. The Labour MP said: 'Juries are central to our constitutional right to a fair trial. 'We should think very carefully before altering a system that has served us well for centuries. But that does not mean the ambit of the jury system can never change. 'Sir Brian makes a compelling case for radical change and the need for more than extra resources to restore the reputation of the criminal courts.' The proposal however was described as 'deeply concerning' by Mark Jones, dispute resolution partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach. He said: 'It removes the right to be judged by your peers and the diverse nature of those who make up juries. 'The principal reason for the current backlogs is a lack of funding and investment. 'That should therefore be a significant part of the solution, rather than eroding a defendant's right to a fair trial by losing the right to be judged by his peers.' Chairwoman of the Bar Council, Barbara Mills KC, also rejected the need to curtail the right to a trial by jury, arguing that juries represent society and a fundamental part of the system. The representative body for barristers said the reform should be piloted with a clear end date to review it, and agreed with Sir Brian that detailed modelling and equality impact assessments should be carried out before being introduced. Sir Brian told reporters he does not 'rejoice' in the recommendations, but added: 'I do believe that they are absolutely essential if we are to prevent our system from collapse.' The former senior judge told Times Radio on Wednesday that greater investment on its own would not solve the current courts issue and that 'something much more radical' was required. He said the proposed reforms take a 'proportionate approach to trial processes while maintaining a right to a fair trial'. He added: 'These are not small tweaks but fundamental changes that will seek to make the system fit for the 21st century.' Under the proposals, defendants in cases for offences including assault of an emergency worker, stalking and possessing an indecent photograph of a child would no longer have the right to choose a jury trial. A new Crown Court Bench Division, made up of two magistrates and a judge, would have powers to deal with all either way offences such as fraud, child abduction, sexual assault and violent disorder. A judge would decide whether a defendant's case would be sent to the new court, or to the crown court with a jury. Defendants would receive a 40% discount on their sentence if they plead guilty at the earliest opportunity, and Sir Brian also called for a greater use of cautions or unpaid work to divert more cases away from court. Either way offences with a maximum custodial sentence of two years or less, such as possession of drugs, bike theft and voyeurism, could face lower penalties of 12 months' imprisonment or less. Sir Brian, chairman of the independent review of the criminal courts, said: 'It is well recognised that justice delayed is justice denied, but the record and rising court backlog means victims, witnesses and defendants are waiting months, sometimes years, for cases to come to trial – unable to move on with their lives. 'This situation is simply unacceptable.' Reacting to the proposed changes, the Victims' Commissioner Baroness Newlove said for victims, proposals such as sentence discounts will 'feel like justice diluted once again', but added the reforms were 'necessary'. 'There is no credible alternative, but even this may fall short of what's truly needed,' she said. In the report Sir Brian warned that 'the reality of criminal courts which are no longer effective is already beginning to materialise'. The review published on Wednesday made up the first part of Sir Brian's recommendations, with a second report focusing on court efficiency expected to be published later this year.
