David Lammy’s proposed changes to trial by jury
From His Honour Peter Collier KC
Madam, — It would seem that Nicholas Reed Langen would be content if the original Leveson proposal of a judge sitting with two magistrates had been carried forward by the Justice Secretary, David Lammy (Comment, 12 December). Although lay magistrates are not professionals, they, nevertheless, quickly become part of the criminal-justice Establishment, which jurors never do.
In 2006, when David Cameron proposed a Bill of Rights, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation carried out some research into what rights the public were most keen to have in that Bill. Two were at the front: 88 per cent of the respondents wanted a right to hospital treatment on the NHS within a reasonable time, but, ahead of that, 89 per cent wanted the right to a trial by jury to be included.
It is that right that allows people to accept the many powers that the state and its operatives have over them, as they know that, at the end of the day, if they are wrongly accused, they will have the right to have the accusations against them tried by a jury. It is knowing of that right which also imposes some restraint on those who might otherwise abuse their powers.
In 2017, David Lammy himself reported on the treatment of BAME individuals in the criminal justice system. He had found significant racial bias throughout the system. And, in addition to that, it is commonplace that many key players in the system have other unconscious biases, and some have rank prejudices. The advantage of a jury is that 12 people randomly selected from the voters’ list in an area do provide a good cross section of our diverse communities and are thus able to iron out those unconscious biases and expose any rank prejudices that exist in the case presented to them.
Very few cases of minor theft reach the Crown Court, whereas many cases of mid-range assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a police officer do go before juries. As those cases would not reach the three-year prison threshold, the right to jury trial would be lost.
We live in a time when the state is steadily increasing its authority over our behaviour in the public realm. That is why it is vitally important, when a transgression can easily result in a short loss of liberty, with all the consequences thereafter of having “served a sentence of imprisonment”, that the right to jury trial is maintained for that sort and level of offence.
When I became a judge at Leeds Crown Court in 2007, we could try almost all cases we received within six months. When I retired in 2018, that had stretched to ten months. It now appears to be three or more years. All that has been a result of the government not allowing the courts to use enough of their court rooms. Currently, between ten and 20 per cent are unused every day. This saves costs in judges, court staff, and lawyers’ bills (both prosecution and defence). The cutting back of “sitting days” began in 2010, and has continued ever since.
None of these proposals will make a significant impact on that backlog. Only when there is sufficient use of the court capacity will the system even begin to keep up with what is being sent to it, let alone begin to reduce the backlog.
PETER COLLIER
Address supplied
From Mr David Lamming
Madam, — Nicholas Reed Langen rightly lists the real causes of the current backlog of cases in the Crown Court, which David Lammy’s proposed restrictions on the right to trial by jury will not address. In stating that “juries are vital in only some cases, particularly those that go to the public interest,” Mr Reed Langen appears, however, to ignore those cases where the defendant’s personal interest in the outcome of a trial goes beyond the question of the length of any likely sentence of imprisonment.
I have in mind accusations of theft or fraud, many of which would, in the event of conviction, result in a sentence of less than three years — the threshold below which Mr Lammy proposes that trial should be by judge alone.
In many such cases, where the issue is whether the defendant’s conduct was dishonest, it is not the sentence of the court which is the principal concern, but the effect of a conviction on employment or a career, as well as standing in the local community.
In a case in 2020 (R v Barton [2020] EWCA Crim 575; [2020] 3 WLR 1333), the Court of Appeal, following a decision of the Supreme Court in a civil case, redefined the test for dishonesty in such cases by saying that when this is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain the actual state of the individual’s subjective knowledge or belief as to the facts and, when that has been established, “the question whether his conduct was dishonest is to be determined by the factfinder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people.” And, pre-eminently, the “ordinary decent people” who should make that decision are a jury of 12 randomly selected members of the public, not a case-hardened judge.
At least, as Mr Reed Langen acknowledges, the Leveson proposal, whereby such cases would be tried by a Crown Court judge sitting with two magistrates (who could out-vote the judge), would ensure some lay involvement, but it is no adequate substitute for a jury. What is required to address the current crisis is for the Government properly and adequately to fund the criminal justice system, and to do so as a matter of urgency.
DAVID LAMMING
(Retired criminal barrister)
Boxford, Suffolk
From Judith Russenberger
Madam, — Nicholas Reed Langen wrote about the possible removal of juries from legal trials, and in conclusion pointed to the importance of juries in cases concerning public interest. These are often cases in which the defendants have knowingly broken a law because their conscience compels them to use this last resort to highlight an issue that is being ignored by the Government.
Over the past six years, various activist groups have striven to persuade the Government to take urgent and appropriate action to address the climate crisis. When these campaigners are in court, they are not allowed to present scientific data as part of their evidence. Nor, when accused of public nuisance, are they allowed any legal defence to justify their actions. While acknowledging that they acted according to their conscientious beliefs, judges have repeatedly determined that the disruption that they have caused was disproportionate to the issue that they were highlighting. To top that, judges then instruct juries to make their decision solely on the basis of the law and not according to their conscience.
That this continues is astounding, given that a plaque in the Old Bailey clearly affirms “the right of juries to give their verdicts according to their convictions”: a right that has recently been confirmed by a High Court judgment.
Yes, we do need juries in trials involving public interest and issue of conscience. But we also need to ensure that juries know and understand that they are there to use their conscience, so that our legal process can represent the view of the public and not just the views of the judge.
JUDITH RUSSENBERGER
London SW14
Live Aid and ‘the journey from charity to justice’
From Mr Andrew Purkis
Madam, — In his review of Paul Vallely’s Live Aid: The definitive 40-year story, the Rt Revd Michael Doe writes that Vallely characterised Live Aid as moving away from alleviating poverty to addressing its underlying causes, “a journey from charity to justice” (Books, 5 December). This is an example of a flawed trope that is still very common, but deserves challenging: that there is an antithesis between charity and justice.
The trope relies on the view that charity is a top-down act of compassion by the fortunate to the unfortunate, which fails to address the causes of distress, is apolitical, and is blind to a human-rights approach. There are three objections to this assumption.
First, it was always a distortion to interpret caritas — Christian love — as synonymous with top-down kindness, as opposed to righteous anger and challenges to injustices.
Second, charitable purposes determined by Parliament now include promotion of human rights, the prevention as well as relief of poverty, the protection of the environment for future generations, and eliminating racial inequality. The Charity Commission’s guidance makes clear that charities are free to engage in non-party political activity in pursuit of their charitable objectives, and that this has long been a valuable part of what charities contribute to the wider society. So, the trope is out of date.
Third, colluding with the idea that charity is the antithesis of justice reinforces the malevolent view in more conservative parts of society that charity does and should mean uncontentious acts of kindness, keeping out of politics: the view that leads to continuing criticism of church representatives who “meddle” in political matters.
Let us be clear that striving for justice and human dignity is an inherent part, not the antithesis, of exhibiting Christian charity towards our neighbour.
ANDREW PURKIS
(Former Board Member of the Charity Commission and Secretary for Public Affairs to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1990s)
London SW12
Church Lads and Girls: the forgotten brigade
From Mr Alan Carter
Madam, — Once, the Church Lads’ and Church Girls’ Brigade (CLCGB) was the beating heart of Anglican youth ministry. It carried out the Church’s youth work before youth work existed. Now it appears to be irrelevant to the Anglican Communion. With a few exceptions in isolated parishes, the organisation is either unknown or unrecognised by most clergy and diocesan youth teams.
Why has the Anglican Church allowed its only official uniformed youth organisation to fade into near obscurity? Founded towards the end of the 19th century, the Brigade was more than marching and music. It was a lifeline for working-class boys and girls, offering discipline, friendship, and faith. It shaped leaders, clergy, and communities.
Yet, today, the Brigade survives only where parishes fight to keep it alive. National support has dwindled. Funding sources are scarce. And, while the Church pours resources into new youth initiatives, it ignores the one movement that has proven its worth for more than a century.
We hear the reasons: “Young people don’t want uniforms”; “It feels militaristic”; and “We need flexible, informal ministry.” But these arguments miss the point. The CLCGB has evolved. Its ethos is no longer about drill and discipline: it’s about fun, faith, and friendship. It offers camps, music, community service, and leadership training. It partners with the Duke of Edinburgh Award. It provides structure and safeguarding in a world where young people crave belonging.
In the small village parish of Tintern, in Monmouthshire, the CLCGB unit has more than 40 members, most of whom would normally have had, at best, a very limited experience of Christian faith.
The Anglican Churches face a crisis of youth engagement. Attendance among under-25s is falling. Families are drifting away. And yet here is a movement with history, credibility, and a proven track record, waiting to be rediscovered and engaged with.
So, here is the challenge: “Bishops, speak up. Put CLCGB back on the agenda. Parishes, take the plunge. Start a company. Recruit leaders. National Church, invest. Offer grants, training, and visibility.”
If we truly believe in passing on the faith and extending the Kingdom of Christ to young people, the Church cannot afford to ignore the CLCGB. It is not nostalgia: it is mission.
ALAN CARTER
Deputy Governor, CLCGB
Rotherham, South Yorkshire
contactus@clcgb.org.uk
The tongues stopped
From Mr Paul Minter
Madam, — I have been made aware that various people I have met in recent months, who used to speak in tongues, some for decades, have now stopped. This is both privately at home and in their churches, and some that used to interpret have also stopped. A question formed in my mind. What would happen if no Christians could speak in tongues?
The answer is that there would be no change to salvation, no change to the Holy Spirit working in individuals and churches. Perhaps the only difference would be all churches’ and Christians’ being closer together in love.
PAUL MINTER
Bexhill, East Sussex
The Editor reserves the right to edit letters.