Scotland to suspend trial by jury [now withdrawn]

[Tetchytyke]

Meanwhile, in Scotland the Government are proposing that trial by jury be "suspended" for up to 18 months and that evidence in criminal trials be submitted by statement with no opportunity to cross-examine a witness.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...plan-to-suspend-jury-trials-kneejerk-reaction

The Scottish government is pushing through a swathe of emergency powers to help the criminal justice system and public adapt to the pandemic in a bill expected to be approved by Holyrood on Wednesday in a single day.

The bill would prevent landlords from evicting tenants for non-payment of rent; empower Holyrood to allow the release of prison inmates nearing the end of their sentences, and allow children with mental illnesses to be detained for up to four days without a sheriff’s approval, instead of three days at present.

Judges will be allowed to take pre-recorded witness statements which cannot be challenged under cross-examination, and time limits requiring cases to come to court within 140 or 110 days would be waived.

Unlike with so-called Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, where a single judge sits without a jury in terror trials, there is no automatic right of appeal allowed under the new bill.

Some of the most fundamental parts of the criminal justice system to be thrown away for administrative expediency. And people wonder why I'm nervous!

It's quite alarming just how quickly key aspects of our democracy are being thrown away.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yeah not a fan of that! If you're going to go down that route then it has to have a built automatic right of appeal or at the very least it needs to be more than just one judge particularly considering presumably they want to use it for the most serious cases i.e. the ones which will attract the heaviest penalties. To be honest it almost feels like they'd rather make sweeping and dangerous changes to the way that the law is administered rather than invest in proper video conferencing facilities. For instance you could clearly carry out witness questioning and cross-examination by video link...

Then again we're not doing that much better in England. Social Security tribunals are going ahead via telephone even if people have asked for a face to face hearing. Not as serious as no-one is having their liberty taken away at a Social Security tribunal but it's a direction of travel.

 

[eastdyke]

BBC are reporting that this will NOT happen.
As at 10.25:

10:25
Scotland will not suspend jury trials
James Shaw
BBC Scotland reporter

Scotland’s justice secretary has said that he’s withdrawing a proposal to suspend jury trials in Scotland.
The measure was part of emergency coronavirus legislation, which is being debated by the Scottish Parliament today.
Humza Yousaf said the proposal was proportionate but had not secured cross-party support.

Current link [some scrolling needed]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52115535

 

[cactustwirly]

That is absolutely outrageous, and surely a recipe for numerous miscarriages of justice!!
I'm sure this new law is illegal because it breaks the Human Rights Act, and article 4 (I think?) of the European Human Rights convention.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Security tribunals are going ahead via telephone even if people have asked for a face to face hearing

Appellants are being given a "choice", although "have an appeal now or wait another year" isn't exactly the best choice.

BBC are reporting that this will NOT happen.

I should have known Humza Yousaf was behind it!

"Proportionate" my foot. I'm glad he's backed down, but the fact they ever thought it acceptable still alarms me.

 

[ainsworth74]

Appellants are being given a "choice", although "have an appeal now or wait another year" isn't exactly the best choice.

Theoretically. I've already heard from one whose choice was "either take part or we'll decide it in your absence"...

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've already heard from one whose choice was "either take part or we'll decide it in your absence"

At least if they lose that should be enough on it's own to take it to the Upper Tribunal!

 

[DarloRich]

The big issue, surely, is facilitating a jury in these circumstances.

The legal authorities in England have been criticised by legal practitioners over thier cack handed dealings with this situation!

 

[hexagon789]

The big issue, surely, is facilitating a jury in these circumstances.

The legal authorities in England have been criticised by legal practitioners over thier cack handed dealings with this situation!

There is precedent for reducing the number of jurors in certain circumstances; I believe the Isle of Man did that during the Second World War and retains the smaller size for all but the most heinous of crimes committed.

Given Scottish juries are 15 rather than the more usual 12, couldn't they be reasonably reduced in size to say 7 for a temporary period?

 

[hooverboy]

Yeah not a fan of that! If you're going to go down that route then it has to have a built automatic right of appeal or at the very least it needs to be more than just one judge particularly considering presumably they want to use it for the most serious cases i.e. the ones which will attract the heaviest penalties. To be honest it almost feels like they'd rather make sweeping and dangerous changes to the way that the law is administered rather than invest in proper video conferencing facilities. For instance you could clearly carry out witness questioning and cross-examination by video link...

Then again we're not doing that much better in England. Social Security tribunals are going ahead via telephone even if people have asked for a face to face hearing. Not as serious as no-one is having their liberty taken away at a Social Security tribunal but it's a direction of travel.

what a surprise!!!..not!!

good job lord advocates for striking this down.
wouldn't be a single judge in any case though.

emergency measures is usually a panel of three judges/magistrates..perhaps Pop idol/britain's got talent was training you!

 

[DarloRich]

There is precedent for reducing the number of jurors in certain circumstances; I believe the Isle of Man did that during the Second World War and retains the smaller size for all but the most heinous of crimes committed.

Given Scottish juries are 15 rather than the more usual 12, couldn't they be reasonably reduced in size to say 7 for a temporary period?

the number of jurors isn't really the issue. The issue is more how do you socially distance in court when you might be hearing a case that last for several months crammed into a relatively small room with 10-30 other people and then within the court precincts with god knows how many at one of the big combined court centres? What about the robing room or judges chambers or consultation rooms or police waiting areas or witness waiting areas?

I don't suggest Diplock courts or anything like that just that we need to be flexible and think how we deliver justice ( and other services) at this time.

PS I Do wonder how many people have actually been in a court. It is much more than you might think. Trying to make this work in some small magistrates court will be............................ fun!

 

[hexagon789]

the number of jurors isn't really the issue. The issue is more how do you socially distance in court when you might be hearing a case that last for several months crammed into a relatively small room with 10-30 other people and then within the court precincts with god knows how many at one of the big combined court centres? What about the robing room or judges chambers or consultation rooms or police waiting areas or witness waiting areas?

I don't suggest Diplock courts or anything like that just that we need to be flexible and think how we deliver justice ( and other services) at this time.

PS I Do wonder how many people have actually been in a court. It is much more than you might think. Trying to make this work in some small magistrates court will be............................ fun!

I was more thinking that if you did hold jury trials then by having fewer jurors it would mean that if any developed symptoms there would be fewer people affected.

I agree that a workaround is going to be difficult to find.

Unless trial by a couple of judges and once things are back to normal, the right to an appeal in the form of a fresh jury trial?

 

[peri]

How about the courts moving to a much larger venue (perhaps the unused concert halls).
I would presume the commercial cases could run over video links.

 

[hexagon789]

How about the courts moving to a much larger venue (perhaps the unused concert halls).
I would presume the commercial cases could run over video links.

Still the issue of how to run jury trials though, no?

 

[hooverboy]

the number of jurors isn't really the issue. The issue is more how do you socially distance in court when you might be hearing a case that last for several months crammed into a relatively small room with 10-30 other people and then within the court precincts with god knows how many at one of the big combined court centres? What about the robing room or judges chambers or consultation rooms or police waiting areas or witness waiting areas?

I don't suggest Diplock courts or anything like that just that we need to be flexible and think how we deliver justice ( and other services) at this time.

PS I Do wonder how many people have actually been in a court. It is much more than you might think. Trying to make this work in some small magistrates court will be............................ fun!

glass screens for the trial, skype for the deliberations and verdict.

 

[hooverboy]

Still the issue of how to run jury trials though, no?

so maybe they have peek a boo booths like strip clubs for the jurors!!!
that would be interesting!!

high crimes and misdemeanours tried in spearmint rhino instead of the old bailey!
(i predicted the toilet roll shortage as a joke!..many a true word spoken in jest!)

 

[hexagon789]

so maybe they have peek a boo booths like strip clubs for the jurors!!!
that would be interesting!!

It's certainly a different approach, I'll give you that!

I wonder if smaller juries, with a jury room clearly segregated into 2m separated zones would work?

 

[kieron]

Smaller juries would make things worse, as it's more of a loss when a juror drops out due to illness. Something will be done, as it's not good for anyone if a trial has to be abandoned due to the virus, or if a trial is delayed without any certainty over when it will take place.

The "live" BBC link seems to have gone now, but they have an article about the withdrawal of the clause here. It starts:

The Scottish government has dropped plans to hold more trials without juries during the coronavirus lockdown.

Ministers proposed having more trials decided solely by judges during the pandemic, with social distancing rules meaning juries cannot assemble.

However after some lawyers and politicians voiced opposition, the move was dropped from emergency legislation.

Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said more legislation will be tabled later in April to settle the issue.