Tightening the prosecution test, not curbing jury trials, could stem the flow of weak cases overwhelming the crown court, argues David Wolchover
The Courts and Tribunals Bill was passed by the House of Commons at first reading on 10 March, with only ten Labour members dissenting. However, large numbers abstained, and it is anticipated that, if the government does not relent, they may well see off the proposed ending of jury trial for offences carrying under three years’ imprisonment. The government contends that the measure—recommended in Part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts—will be a key factor in reducing the Crown Court backlog of cases, now at crisis level.
Critics of the proposal point to chronic under-investment in criminal justice as the cause, but there is a hidden factor at work—one only indirectly related to the use of juries. Quite simply, far too many prosecutions are being permitted to proceed to trial as a result of the institutional inadequacy of the statutory screening process for permitting prosecutions to proceed.
Earlier ad hoc practice
Until
