Joanna Hardy-Susskind

Hello members of the House of Lords 👋 Welcome to the debate on jury trials. Pull up a seat - everyone disagrees and the entire thing is on fire. But, sadly for you, it lands in your lap today👇🏼

Don’t get me started on some fraud trials randomly losing juries. What’s that even about? Juries aren’t stupid. They understand dishonesty when they see it.

So. There you go. It’s a failure of a Bill. It won’t work on its own terms, it won’t work on any reasonable sense of justice, it will simply move the queue for victims, and the underlying stats are laughable. Please. Do enjoy your debate today. ❤️

I honestly think in the most simple of cases it would be quicker to hear the case again than wade through the transcript of the entire thing, the arguments, the law, the exhibits, and draft a response.

Oh, and ask the government if they will ensure those subject to these new powers and new provisions will definitely qualify for Legal Aid so a lawyer can assist them and be remunerated at a rate commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Honestly. Ask them that twice.

When is a Circuit Judge going to find the time to watch CCTV, or ABEs, or consider legal argument from the summary jurisdiction? When are they going to write their reasons for allowing or refusing leave to appeal?

And will these applications for appeal be concisely drafted by experienced lawyers or will they be wheelbarrows full of handwritten dossiers and letters to MPs and AI slop because not everyone in the Mags will qualify for Legal Aid?

And Crown Court Judges can’t speak publicly on this issue - and I don’t seek to speak for them - but if I were sitting as a Judge tasked with determining ‘leave to appeal’ applications from the Magistrates’ Court I would be very worried:

They say the proceedings in the Mags will be recorded. Honestly, I read court transcripts all the time and they are seldom short. When is a Circuit Judge (tasked, LET US NOT FORGET, with conquering the backlog) going to peruse the proceedings in a 6 witness harassment trial?

Because this is all quite bonkers now, isn’t it? Let’s see what the Government say about the stats:

Hold on to your socks - they want to restrict something (important) that only amounts to 4% of receipts, but appears to be rather successful (if 60% fail HOW MANY SUCCEED?) because they think - in light of their own reforms - more people might appeal? My god.

Fifth, just don’t get me started on the diversity of the Magistracy. They can run all the expensive (!) recruitment campaigns they like - but no one is fixing this:

Sixth, if you do somehow think that death by careless driving or sexual assault with sentences less than 2 years should be tried in a summary fashion in a growing queue (ahem), then how do you feel about the automatic right of appeal being removed?

What will happen is the Crown Court backlog will fall and will be held up as a success story. But, beneath it, will be a log-jammed Magistrates’ Court, with a traffic jam of human misery. That’s not what success looks like.

It would be like the Health Secretary saying ‘Look! No queue for surgery!’ But then the camera pans to the GP queue and those waiting are gnawing off their own arms and extracting their appendix with a spoon.

They won’t do it. Honestly, even if they start doing it, they’ll soon stop. The ‘serious’ (I use the term re sentence only) either way offences of 12-24 months will soon find their way to a Judge alone for trial. Don’t let them introduce a Bench Division in a different building.

Fourth, do you really think this is going to speed things up? The Mags backlog is huge and growing. The Crown Court backlog is showing signs of stabilising AND a whole host of measures have arrived recently that will begin to bite. They’re moving one queue to another.

Third, do you really think they’ll be giving this new cohort of serious either way *trials* to Lay Magistrates? By design or necessity they will - of course - end up before District Judges sitting alone who can sit for multiple days. Which is a BENCH DIVISION via the back door.

Which is exactly, EXACTLY, what the government had to abandon in the Commons. Honestly. Very few Lay Magistrates can volunteer for 2-3 days at a time. And, those who can are likely to be retired or economically comfortable. Part heard trials go off for weeks or months.

First, don’t let them move sexual assaults and death by careless driving and some s20 GBHs and things like that to summary trial if the sentence is 2 years or below. You know that’s not right. You know they should not be tried summarily with no right of election.

Second, have a think if Magistrates (respected, trained, advised) should be locking citizens up for up to 2 years. Honestly, just think about it. It’s ok to say it out loud. I’ll go first: Volunteers - even trained and experienced and respected ones - should not be doing that.

That’s a pretty peculiar way for the government to say: ‘Preventing the accused (innocent until proven otherwise) from electing jury trial for either way offences with sentences under 2 years like death by careless driving and sexual assault’.

Does the government know what a trial is for or are they deciding who is a criminal at the start?

Do they think sexual assault with a starting point under 2 years is ‘relatively minor’? And if they do not think that - why are they saying it?

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

committees.parliament.ukcommittees.parliament.uk

Government response here: committees.parliament.uk/publications...

gov.ukGovernment Response to the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts

Gov response to Leveson - published the day before the Bill returns to the Commons (🙃) - is here: www.gov.uk/government/p...

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

If you’re putting a ceiling on tens of thousands of people - defendants and victims - by forcing their serious cases into summary trials - then you’re still *restricting* jury trial. You’re still skinning the cat.

committees.parliament.ukcommittees.parliament.uk

The Justice Select Committee report is here: committees.parliament.uk/publications...

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

And how many applicants are from routine, semi-routine, service or manual occupations? 2%. Is it a typo?! Is it a cause for concern? What’s the equivalent % for juries drawn randomly? The government: ‘more remains to be done’. That’s certainly one way of putting it.

Anyhow. I’ve been doing this long enough to understand we’ve won a significant battle but we may now lose the war. But don’t you go in there today and think you’re ‘saving jury trials’ like some kind of ‘listening and learning’ victory lap.

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

Anyway. Diversity. My goodness. The government are at the statistics again. Heaven help us, hold onto your socks:

Ok. Maths not a strong point for me. But if 36% of new recruits (the new ones!) are under 50 - then how many are over the age of 50? How. Many? And how many defendants and witnesses and complainants are under the age of 50?

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

And the government’s response is so spectacularly funny I honestly wonder if they’re in on the joke (?!)

Why do you think they’re deferring to the Judge? Why do you think this appeal is here, in the Crown Court, being heard? Not to mention that it’s wrong. Once a sentence is deemed manifestly excessive/ wrong in law (their first point) it needs resentencing.

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

So - let me get this straight - hardly anyone appeals, but when they do, loads of them are successful appeals? So you’re restricting it because there might well be more? I would jolly well imagine there would be more. The difference is: I’m not sure that’s a bad thing guys.

The Justice Select Committee called out the completely random removal of Magistrates from the appeals process:

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

And what about that safeguard? That automatic right to a rehearing if you think the Magistrates just, you know, got things wrong? That you got 2 years and it was just wrong. They’re taking that away. They’re introducing transcripts and a permission stage for any appeal.

And their use of statistics here is truly - truly - incredible. Because, if you read this very carefully, can you see the BLAZINGLY OBVIOUS CAUSE FOR CONCERN here?

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

Summary trials are quick and - whilst not slapdash - they (obviously) lack the time spent in a jury trial. Quite what is going to be shaved off a death by careless or sexual assault trial? What would you be willing to sacrifice as a bereaved family, a victim, or accused?

In a jury trial, matters of law, admissibility, and bad character are dealt with separately from the jury so as not to pollute their reasoning and to ensure the trial remains fair if something is deemed inadmissible. What will happen in these summary trials for serious offences?

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

Now. I know we are squeamish about being perceived to criticise Magistrates. Let me be clear: they are public spirited, doubtless well-meaning, some are v experienced, they have training and a legal advisor to help them. There is a place for them in the system - an important one.

But we have to be able to express our opinion, which is one I suspect the general public share: Lay people - legally unqualified people - should not have the power to imprison for two years.

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

I’ll give you an example. This is the Death by Careless Driving sentencing guideline. That’ll always get a jury trial, you think! Wrong. Look at the starting points for this either way offence:

And what about Sexual Assault? An either way offence, too. Here’s the sentencing guideline.

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

They will try to present this as a modest adjustment. It’s not. It’s radical. Don’t take it from me. Take it from the Justice Select Committee:

I want you to think about a two year prison sentence for a moment. Frankly, think about a two minute or two day sentence. But two years. Think about how it would wreck your life, your job, your home. This is not the ‘easy’ end of criminal allegations. This is serious stuff.

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼

As some of us (ahem) have been saying for awhile now - the trial-by-judge reforms would have only captured a slither of cases once the backlog was cleared. The real power shift was never Jury > Judge. The real move was always Jury > Magistrates.

You are being asked to approve volunteer Magistrates hearing more serious criminal trials and being able to hand citizens two year prison sentences. And, for good measure, to get rid of the automatic right of appeal (rehearing) against their decisions. That’s on you. Today.

Hey. Labour MPs. And other MPs, too. Are you on your way to the Commons for the Courts and Tribunals Bill? Grab a coffee. Come over here. And pay attention. 👇🏼