Latest news with #magistrates
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Hong Kong tightens prison rules, allowing visit restrictions on national security grounds
HONG KONG — Hong Kong tightened prison rules, allowing authorities to restrict visits, including those by certain lawyers and religious personnel, on national security grounds, in the latest expansion of its stringent control . Under the new rules, effective Friday, magistrates can issue warrants on application by correctional service officers to bar exchanges between specific legal representatives and persons in custody if the judges believe such connections could harm national security or cause bodily harm to any person, among other reasons.
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.
Telegraph
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
We must retain the right to trial by jury
The old legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied has rarely been more appropriate than it is today. The worsening backlog in the courts means cases are taking years to come to trial. This leaves alleged miscreants in limbo either on extended bail or periods of custodial remand which is itself an affront to justice. It also means that victims are left waiting too long for punishments to be meted out for the offences against them. Close to 77,000 cases are pending in the Crown Court in England and Wales. A review by Sir Brian Leveson, a former High Court judge, has proposed that in order to clear the backlog, thousands of cases that would normally be heard in front of a jury should be decided by judges alone. He said that without a fundamental reform the system faced total collapse. Sir Brian also called for more out of court settlements, such as a greater use of cautions, and for some inmates to serve just a small part of the term handed down. There is unquestionably a crisis in the system but whether Sir Brian's proposed solutions are the right approach is another matter. There is a danger of replacing one injustice with another. Many thousands of so-called 'either way' cases are already heard by magistrates alone so there is no absolute requirement for juries. Nonetheless, to remove even more from the scrutiny of juries is to deny access to a cornerstone of English justice and should be resisted whatever the apparent logistical attraction. The ancient right, dating to Magna Carta, to be tried by one's peers should not lightly be discarded. Other remedies must be considered, including sitting throughout the summer rather than taking a two-month recess. How can that be justified in such a crisis is hard to understand. If the courts are full, cannot other public buildings be used as temporary venues in which judges and juries can sit? Why can't more retired judges, made to leave office aged 70, be recruited back to the colours? Should all judges and juries not sit around the clock until the backlog is cleared? Moreover, the suggestion that more crimes should be dealt with by a caution is to further diminish the importance of deterrence in our system, already undermined by reduced jail terms and early release. Most offences are committed by a small number of repeat felons. If they think they can get away with just a ticking-off they will not be dissuaded from a life of crime.
Sky News
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
Fewer jury trials could take place to prevent 'total system collapse' of UK's courts
Fewer jury trials could take place as part of proposed reforms to prevent a "total system collapse" of the UK's courts and tackle a record-high backlog of cases. Sir Brian Leveson, chairman of the independent review of the criminal courts, has also recommended more cases should be settled out of court as he unveiled plans to shake up the structure of the system and reclassify offences. The recommendations are part of a bid to cut the backlog where some cases are listed for 2029. It comes as the crown court backlog in England and Wales passed 75,000 cases for the first time, rising to 76,957 at the end of March. Sir Brian's recommendations have been modelled to save approximately 9,000 sitting days in the crown court each year, 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, and there would be a greater use of cautions to divert more cases away from court. Sir Brian 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. "The recommendations I have put forward represent a cohesive package of reforms designed to transform our courts into a system that provides appropriate and fair decision-making. "It also takes a proportionate approach to trial processes while maintaining the fundamental right to a fair trial. "These are not small tweaks but fundamental changes that will seek to make the system fit for the 21st century." 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. Defendants in cases for offences including assault of an emergency worker, stalking and possessing an indecent photograph of a child would also no longer be able to choose a jury trial. A new Crown Court Bench Division, made up of two magistrates and a judge would deal with less serious offences, as well as complex cases such as fraud. Sir Brian also suggested the threshold for criminal damage being dealt with as a summary only offence be increased from £5,000 to £10,000. The review report 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. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said ministers will now consider the recommendations and will respond ahead of legislating changes in the autumn. The Lord Chancellor said: "I have already lifted courts funding to record levels, funding 4,000 more court sitting days than under my predecessors. 6:48 "But swifter justice requires bold reform, and that is what I asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose. "As part of our Plan for Change, I will do whatever it takes to bring down the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims." Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said: "As Sir Brian rightly identifies, criminal justice in this country runs the risk of 'total system collapse' unless we take the radical steps needed to reverse years of decline. "It cannot be right that in London more than 100 trials listed are for 2029. This is intolerable for victims and all parties who rely on a properly functioning court system to provide closure from what are often traumatic experiences, made worse by persistent delays. "I welcome this report and look forward to working with partners across government to deliver the bold reforms that are now a necessity, not an option."
The Guardian
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
How do criminal courts work without juries around the world?
One of the most significant recommendations in a review of the criminal courts in England and Wales, expected to be published this week, is likely to be the scrapping of jury trials for certain offences. The idea in Sir Brian Leveson's independent inquiry is that it will help reduce the record backlog in the courts. But for many the right to a jury trial, except for the most minor offences, is synonymous with the right to a fair trial and watering it down would be hugely controversial. Here the Guardian examines how other countries' criminal courts work. In the US, the sixth amendment of the constitution states: 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state.' However, the supreme court ruled in 1970 that 'petty' offences, carrying a maximum sentence of six months could be tried without a jury. This puts it in line with what used to be the maximum sentence in magistrates courts in England and Wales, although, since 18 November last year, magistrates have been able to hand down prison sentences of up to a year. In the US, defendants have the right to waive their right to a jury trial, provided this is done voluntarily and intelligently. In England and Wales there is a much more limited right to choose, only available in the case of 'either-way' offences. These are criminal charges where the magistrate believes they have sufficient sentencing powers to hear the case but where the defendant can opt for a jury trial. Perhaps the most notorious jury trial in the US was when jurors deliberated less than four hours before acquitting OJ Simpson of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, after an eight-month trial. The Goldman and Brown families later won a civil case against Simpson. There have been no jury trials in Germany since 1924, when they were abolished. Most cases are tried by a panel of professional and lay judges. The lay judges must be aged between 25 and 69. Religious ministers, certain politicians and health professionals working in the court system are among those excluded. Municipal councils draw up a list of ordinary members of the public deemed suitable and they are then chosen by a committee to serve a five-year term. The so-called Schöffen help to make decisions on both law and fact. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: 'Although Schöffen are considered an important part of the German legal system, many professional jurists, including lawyers as well as judges, tend to believe that their influence is continuing to wane and that they may eventually be abolished because of their alleged tendency to project personal rather than legalistic opinions.' Jury trials were introduced to India under British rule, the first taking place in 1665. In 1958, reflecting decades of concern, the Law Commission of India called the jury system a 'failure' but the real impetus for them being abolished is said to be the infamous Nanavati case the following year. A jury acquitted an Indian navy commander of the murder of his wife's lover, despite overwhelming evidence only for the Bombay (Mumbai) high court to overturn the not guilty verdict. The Law Commission report had criticised the use of 'unscrupulous professional jurors' and criticised the failure of juries to deliver 'independent, impartial and just verdicts'. The Nanavati case amplified concerns about bias, including with respect to religion and caste, and the influence of external pressures and jury trials began to be phased out. They were not officially abolished until the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 stated: 'After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the judge shall give a judgment in the case.' Jury trials in France were a legacy of the 1789 revolution. They are limited to the most serious cases, heard by the cour d'assises, where three judges sit beside six jurors. The French have an inquisitorial judicial system as opposed to the adversarial system used in England and Wales, and, where there are jurors, French judges deliberate with them to reach a verdict. Cases which can be heard by the cour d'assises were controversially limited in 2023 to those carrying the longest sentences. That year it was decreed that all offences carrying a maximum sentence of 15-20 years should be tried by panels of five judges at 'département criminal courts', encompassing nearly all rape trials. Several thousand lawyers, academics and judges warned that abolition of juries was a danger to democracy. When, in a case that caught the world's attention, Dominique Pelicot was last year found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison for drugging his wife Gisèle Pelicot and inviting dozens of men to rape her over almost a decade of their marriage, it was a panel of five judges who delivered the verdict.
