Ministers could extend juryless trials ‘by a stroke of a pen’

Ministers could introduce judge-only trials for politically damaging cases without a vote in parliament because of a clause buried in a bill that has been approved by MPs. The unprecedented law would mean any type of trial deemed complex or lengthy, other than rape or homicide, could be recategorised as judge-only without the need for a new vote. Most commented 1 Starlink deliberately slowed in Ukraine, says Zelensky Russia-Ukraine war 1,130 comments 2 Katie Zacharia departs as Trump’s press secretary after less than a week US politics 699 comments 3 Hundreds of British troops to rehearse Ukraine mission Politics 317 comments 4 Scotland plane crash: boy, 16, and flight instructor, 80, killed Scotland 52 comments 5 All Blacks leave Australia chasing shadows in dazzling first half Rugby union 31 comments Leading legal figures warned that the “anti-democratic” loophole could be exploited by future governments, particularly in cases where politicians face criminal scrutiny. Top stories 1 US inflation hotter than expected as Iran war stokes fuel costs Economics The government has abandoned plans to create a judge-alone court to hear cases carrying prison sentences of up to three years, which The Sunday Times campaigned against. However, the Courts and Tribunals Bill still includes plans for complex fraud cases to be heard by a crown court judge sitting without a jury — and leaves the door open for further offences to be added without parliamentary scrutiny. Advertisement The bill, which is now in the House of Lords, gives all future governments the “power to order certain complex or lengthy cases to be tried without a jury” in England and Wales except in homicide or rape cases. Flora Page KC, who represented victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal in the public inquiry, said: “It’s the power, without any proper parliamentary scrutiny, to create new offences which will have juryless trials that really worries me. It’s bad enough getting rid of juries in serious fraud cases, which troubles me already, but at least that’s out there, that’s in the legislation. What I find really troubling is the idea that any serious or complex case could, by a stroke of a pen and a statutory instrument, become another judge-only trial. Top stories 1 Will Lyons: my vintage wine tour of South Australia Inspiration “Let’s say officials or ministers were involved, and the police bring charges because they think that’s appropriate, and then the government could probably do pretty quickly a statutory instrument to say, ‘Right, that’s a judge-only trial’. And then you’ve got a political trial being heard without the sort of public scrutiny it otherwise would have, and without members of the public deciding on guilt or not guilt.” At the moment, judge-only trials in crown court are planned only for complicated financial fraud cases. But a review of complex fraud cases commissioned by Rishi Sunak’s government, published earlier this year, argued that jury trials remained essential. It found that even in complicated cases, “experience shows juries cope when cases are properly managed and presented”. Jonathan Fisher KC, author of the review, warned it would be wrong to take away the public scrutiny of a jury. He wrote: “The retention of jury trial for the most serious offences in the criminal lexicon but not for fraud would devalue the importance of fraudulent misconduct and reinforce the historic ambivalence towards fraud as a civil matter rather than a serious public wrong. This would be the wrong message for parliament to send.” Advertisement Kieran Mullan, the shadow justice minister, said: “Labour were rightly defeated on their outright attempts to erode our jury-trial rights in this way. But what they haven’t been defeated on is this underhand attempt to do it through the back door. Who knows how they might define complex in future? The exclusions are minimal. “We could see all sorts of offences added, and as far as I’m aware there has never been a power for ministers quite like this before — to bypass the full scrutiny of parliament, the way in which we pass the most important laws, when deciding what comes on and off a list of who gets a jury trial.” There also continue to be concerns from barristers that increasing the maximum sentences that magistrates’ courts can impose from one to two years would introduce judge-only trials by the back door for more serious offences — especially as more complex trials are typically heard by district judges rather than lay magistrates. Since the changes would also be introduced alongside the removal of the automatic right of appeal, there are concerns about the risk of miscarriages of justice. Andrew Thomas KC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said the trial-without-jury clause in the bill was an “anti-democratic measure” that would “create a system of two-tier justice in our crown courts”. Thomas believes the definition of trials “deemed long or complex” could “include a large proportion of the important and high profile cases which come before our courts”. Warning of the dangers for future governments, Thomas said: “Judge-only trials could be extended to cases of bribery or misconduct in a public office, where politicians and other powerful people are under scrutiny. It could be expanded to conspiracy cases, to protest cases, to terrorism or to drug trafficking. Complex is not defined.” Advertisement “We have to contemplate not just what the present government might do with a power of this kind but what future governments might do. We only have to look to the USA to see the danger in granting executive powers without any parliamentary check, especially to politicians who may be less respectful of the independence of judges and prosecutors. We have to think what would happen in the future if there were accusations of corruption in public life.” A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We inherited a courts system at the brink of collapse with a record backlog that’s failing victims, which is why we’re acting on all fronts — investing at record levels, driving system efficiency, and delivering the structural reforms needed to tackle the backlog. “By removing juryless trials for less serious offences, the vast majority of Crown Court trials will continue to be heard by a jury, while allowing us to move faster on wider reforms. Any changes to offences in scope of Clause 4 require explicit approval from parliament.”