A Lawyer Writes
A Lawyer Talks
Judges or juries?
Preview
0:00
-0:21

Judges or juries?

Who’s to decide?

As presaged in the King’s speech, the government’s Courts and Tribunals Bill was reintroduced in the House of Commons yesterday. It picks up where it left off, though no date has yet been announced for the bill’s report stage and third reading.

Will the government’s plans to limit jury trial ever reach the House of Lords? Or will Andy Burnham’s bid for the Labour leadership mean that we end up with a more modest set of reforms? That’s one of the questions I explore in my analysis of the government’s legislative programme for the Law Society Gazette. To read it, click here and then click anywhere on the left-hand page.

After writing the piece, I tried out some of my ideas on Kirsty Brimelow KC, chair of the bar (pictured). Far from exploiting the political turmoil that was deepening even as we spoke yesterday afternoon, the barristers’ leader said stability was to be preferred.

I took the opportunity to ask Brimelow about her comments on Rajiv Menon KC, the defence counsel who is waiting to hear whether his remarks to a jury will lead to contempt of court proceedings, a disciplinary investigation or no further action. Readers will recall that I wrote about the issues last week and again this week.

Brimelow said on Wednesday that she hoped this “troubling episode” was now at an end. Did that mean she thought barristers in a criminal trial could legitimately ignore directions from a judge on what a jury could be told?

You can hear Brimelow’s response in the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks. My weekly podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol on the graphic at the top of this page.

User's avatar

Continue reading this post for free, courtesy of Joshua Rozenberg.