Burnham listens
But what will he do?
At six o’clock last Friday morning, when my most recent newsletter was published, we were still waiting to hear what Andy Burnham was planning to do about his predecessor’s plan to curtail the right to trial by jury in England and Wales. By Friday afternoon, we had an answer — of sorts. As with early releases for prisoners, the prime minister would think again.
“I have my concerns about the plan to restrict a jury trial, partly from my personal experience, particularly in Hillsborough,” Burnham said while visiting a community centre in Sheffield. “So I want to really look in detail at that proposal and my instincts are that we need to find ways of not reducing access to jury trial.”
He added: “It's similar to the early release scheme. I want to get inside these issues before I confirm any of the plans that I inherited and, in fact, probably looking for changes.”
That comes as no surprise. As I wrote in mid-May, “anyone who aspires to replace Keir Starmer is bound to promise a review, at the very least, of the planned jury reforms.” At that time, barristers’ leaders were naturally cautious. On Friday, though, the Bar Council tried to nail Burnham’s instincts to the wall.
“Relying on a bit of my own Northern bluntness,” said Kirsty Brimelow KC, chair of the bar, it is encouraging if common sense is prevailing.”
Examination of the evidence shows that reducing jury trials is not required to reduce the backlog of cases and, in fact, could be counter-productive…
Crucially, the passage of time is showing that our proposals, including opening empty courts and targeted listing by judges, are reducing the backlog of cases. The indications from the new prime minister give me optimism that our voices will be listened to.
Comment
Burnham has made an extraordinary number of commitments in his first two weeks as prime minister.
Barristers may be right in arguing that the jury reforms backed by Sir Keir Starmer and his justice secretary David Lammy would have been counterproductive. But Lammy’s successor Alex Norris still has to deal with courtroom delays and prison overcrowding.
Reviewing problems is the easy bit. Solving them will be much more challenging.
Let’s hope Andy takes on board that it isn’t just about ‘Fair Trial’, it’s also about the massive problem of recruiting enough magistrates to cope with the original proposals, based on the stats of previous campaigns.
Absolutely agree concerning jury trial rights. Been here before of course and, e.g.,i was the one who spread the word that Jack Straw had finally decided to restrict the scope of that right to prevent defendants electing trial to take human rights points (sic).
This time round as Sir Stephen Mitchell has identified the aim is to try to deter direct action in campaigns, however nonviolent.
I actually believe in addition that what passes for the establishment these days, including significant elements in the administration have jury trial per se in their sights; for any government, juries can be a thorough nuisance. But then, surely, lawyers and the cjs are there and have a duty to be a nuisance and to challenge ill thought out, self serving excuses for strategy?
As to the review of early release how can Andy B or anyone else even PRETEND to square the circle of over reliance on custody with malodorous, counterproductive and scarce prison spaces?