?Trial without jury takes place everyday in T&T. All civil trials and all trials in the magistrates' courts are held without a jury and the decisions in each instant is made by the judge or magistrate, as the case may be. All appeals are heard by a panel of judges clearly with no jury. Is the institution of trial by jury then so sacrosanct? Jury trials now take place only in respect of serious criminal matters; indictable cases which are tried in the High Court. These include all cases of murder, manslaughter, rape, serious wounding, arson and the like. Drug trafficking and firearm cases may be heard either in the magistrates' courts or by a jury in the High Court: it depends how serious the offence is. At one time in the English legal system most criminal matters were heard by a jury as were civil matters but this practice was eroded over time with the creation of magistrates' courts and jury legislation. Last week the Chief Justice stated that there was evidence of possible instances of jury tampering in court matters and in that regard he welcomed legislation which the executive intends to bring to permit trial by judge alone.
He however pointed out that in such a scenario there was likely to be increased attempts to intimidate judges and appropriate security measures would have to be put in place to meet this situation. Jury tampering is nothing new and there are recorded cases in which this has occurred. For example in an English case of Thorpe in the 1990's where the defendants were being tried for conspiracy to defraud bank customers of over eleven million pounds, three jurors were approached by persons who had interests in the case attempting to influence their verdict. In T&T in some instances following threats made to jurors during the course of a trial juries have had to be discharged without delivering verdicts. In other instances the revelation of jury intimidation only surfaced after the trial.
In favour of jury
What are the arguments in favour of jury trial? The most obvious is that ordinary citizens have an opportunity to participate in the administration of criminal justice. They are able to appreciate how the system operates and actually see law in action, without themselves being parties in a court action. They are the ones who make the decision at the end of the day to convict or not–possibly one of the most important decisions they will ever make. The accused person also has the advantage it is said of having his case tried by his "peers" rather than by a judicial officer who may be removed from his particular situation and life style.
Against
As against that are these words of BS Oppenheimer writing in 1937, "we commonly strive to assemble 12 persons colossally ignorant of all practical matters, fill their vacuous heads with law which they cannot comprehend, obfuscate their seldom intellect with testimony which they are incompetent to analyse or remember, permit partisan lawyers to bewilder them with their meaningless sophistry, then lock them up until the most obstinate of their number coerce the others into submission, or drive them into open revolt." There are other reasons why the institution of the jury may not be as successful as is thought. The infamous case of Rodney King in 1992 demonstrates the problem with jurors who may act on their latent prejudices in arriving at a verdict. Here was a black man beaten by white policemen in public, which beating was videotaped, yet a wholly non-black jury acquitted them.
The incident sparked a storm of riots in Los Angeles at what was perceived as this travesty of justice. Another problem with jury trials is that, unlike a judge or magistrate, a jury need give no reasons for the decision. The secretive nature of the process is even protected by the law and this allows juries to get away with perverse verdicts. A jury whose members have been intimidated may thus be more likely to act in accordance with the will of the intimidators, secure in the knowledge that their verdict cannot be challenged. Possibly in recognition of all of these matters England passed legislation, which came into effect in 2007, permitting for trial without jury in criminal cases where there is danger of jury tampering.
The Criminal Justice Act specifies two conditions that must be met (1) that there is a real and present danger of jury tampering and (2) that notwithstanding any steps that may be taken to prevent it, the likelihood of such tampering is so substantial that it was necessary in the interests of justice to conduct a trial without jury. The first criminal trial without a jury in the High Court [now called the Crown Court] in 400 years has only now begun in England. It is a case involving John Twomey and three other men accused of a robbery of 1.75 million pounds at a warehouse at Heathrow airport in 2004. There have been three previous trials in this matter.
During the first trial Twomey suffered a heart attack in Belmarsh prison and was severed from the indictment. At the second trial the jury was reduced to nine and was unable to reach a decision. The third trial was stopped halfway through after the judge received information from the prosecution which pointed to a "serious attempt at jury tampering". In July 2009 the prosecution applied for trial without jury and the Chief Justice agreed citing among other things the cost of providing protection to jurors and the inability of the system to protect against intimidation of jurors' relatives. There is clear precedent for trial without jury and there should be no objection to extending that to serious criminal cases where attempts are likely to be made to tamper with jurors.
