Jury trials must be defended

Louise Casey, the Government's victims' commissioner, has called for the scrapping of the right to trial by jury trial for lesser offences that "clog up the courts", to save money. She also points out that victims of serious crime have to wait for longer to give evidence in the Crown Court as a result.

She is no doubt right in her claim that almost 70,000 cases which could be heard by magistrates makes up more than 40% of the crown court's business every year, which costs more money than trials in the lower court. But she apparently fails to appreciate that hearing such cases isn't just a "nuisance" for the Crown Court – it's part of our system's essential functions.

The right to trial by a jury of one's peers is one of the cornerstones of the British criminal justice system and it has been the basis for fair and transparent justice for hundreds of years. Any attempt to limit jury trials must be resisted.

Calls to limit trial by jury are really made for two reasons – trials by Magistrates are cheaper, and conviction is more likely. Neither is a good reason to change the trial process.

Her alternative, superficially more attractive argument, is also totally false:

"We should not view the right to a jury trial as being so sacrosanct that its exercise should be at the cost of victims of serious crimes."

It's a false dichotomy. This is actually an argument for greater resources in the court system, and is no argument against jury trials at all. And ultimately, even if her parallel is right, a fair trial is sacrosanct. Once you start tinkering with it, it will prove very hard to stop.

By Alex Deane