Old ideas from the new Lord Chief Justice
A recent address from Lord Thomas did nothing but revive old ideas from the new Lord Chief Justice.
Until 1971 the criminal law system comprised three trial courts: magistrates’ courts for the lowest level of offending; Quarter Sessions for the mid-level, and Assizes for the most serious. Then Quarter Sessions and Assizes were replaced by the Crown Court which now deals with both those levels.
In boroughs and cities Quarter Sessions were presided over by part-time judges known as Recorders who sat alone. They were civic appointments. In the counties they were presided over by a Chairman or Deputy Chairman (also part-time and equivalent to Recorders) who sat with lay justices. Those courts sat for limited periods but for long hours and dealt with large numbers of cases. High Court Judges moved around the country to preside over the Assize courts in designated towns and cities.
Quarter Sessions were local courts run by local people and they pushed tirelessly to get the work out in their allotted time. If their workload was heavy, they sat special extra sessions to clear it. The Crown Court is centrally run and from the moment it started in 1972 there appeared to be no sense of urgency about it and the work rate dropped. It is now a cumbersome and inefficient monster. So at a time when costs are top of the agenda, it may be as well to examine the merits of the old system to see how its better points may be incorporated into the current one.
Queen’s Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson, is to carry out a review of criminal proceedings with a view to streamlining the system and has been asked to report in nine months.
A less satisfactory suggestion by Lord Thomas, however, is to revive the recommendations of the Roskill Inquiry in 1986 to abolish trial by jury for fraud. I wrote at the time that the concept of jury trial was under siege. The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, wished to see jury trial abolished for small amounts and also for those involving commercial fraud. Lord Roskill, who had already publicly voiced his opinion that jury trial should be restricted, was appointed chairman of the reviewing commission.
Changing the mode of trial from juries to professional judges would remove a cherished safeguard and achieve nothing. Even Roskill recognised that it would be the thin end of the wedge and, since 1986, various governments have returned for a further bite at the cherry only to retreat when the public’s voice was raised in opposition.
Ultimately, the answer is in the hands of the lawyers: more efficient investigation; more succinct and focused oral presentation at trial; greater use of modern technology to assist in simplifying the issues.
Cherish the words of Sir William Blackstone: “Trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law … The liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolate.”