So the remedy for the problems in the criminal justice system is to create a third tier of criminal court to dispense quicker but, inevitably, second-rate justice (Some jury trials may be scrapped in England and Wales as court backlog hits record high, 12 December). Crown court, magistrates court and kangaroo court. Who will have confidence in a court that has the power to impose substantial custodial sentences, but has no jury and will consist of a judge and two magistrates?
Such middle-class justice is not going to be well received among the ethnic minorities in our inner cities, who are likely to find themselves at the sharp end of it. How can the procedure be swifter and at the same time be as fair as trial by judge and jury? What do we cut out? Problems are best solved by establishing the root cause and fixing it.
The sole cause of the present mess is the refusal by successive governments, from New Labour through the coalition to the Tories, to fund the system properly. In particular, the repeated cuts to public funding of barristers and solicitors have led to an exodus from the criminal courts.
Who will do the advocacy in the new kangaroo court? At what rate of pay? Where will the courtrooms be found when the government refuses to allow the current courts to sit at full capacity and numerous magistrates courts have been closed for good?
This issue does not require a report from a retired judge, however distinguished. It requires plain common sense, grip and pounds sterling.
Nigel Rumfitt KC
Studham, Bedfordshire
The current snarl-up in the justice system might seem a good reason for a reduction in the number of jury trials, but it may not be the sole motivation. Sometimes jurors reach verdicts that many judges or magistrates would not.
As has been seen in the recent trials of Just Stop Oil protesters, one judge can also take a different line from another and disallow a line of defence that had until then been the chief one for protesters and campaigners – that what would otherwise be judged a crime is justified by the necessity of preventing something worse.
In our society, there are those who prioritise personal convenience in daily life over the major, existential issues of our time, but others think and feel differently. That is why juries are so important, since they are likely to bring a collectively more open mind to the judgment they must make. If we value our democracy, we must keep them available for such cases, and keep open the option of “just cause” defence.
Diana Francis
Bath
