Trial by Jury is a fundamental right.
For the first time in over 300 years in England a criminal trial has begun in which there will be no jury. Trial by a Jury of ones peers has been a fundamental right dating back as far as the Magna Carta.
The reasons for this, are that in the particular case in question a number of trials have already collapsed of the possibility of “jury tampering”. Fears that jury members had been threatened, bullied or extorted into not being impartial had become a big fear. As well as costing tens of millions of pounds.
This case obviously raises a big dilemma, what to do in the face of organised crime trying to subvert the judicial process and prevent proper criminal trials from taking place? The government argue that the cost of protecting the juries is just too high, that money spent on this would be better spent on schools, hospitals or crime prevention.
Further they argue that changing the law and allowing this practice will only affect a very small handful of cases, and that if a jury cannot be protected it is imperative that we have a proper mechanism of convicting serious organised and violent criminals.
These arguments worry me on a number of grounds. Firstly the implication in this position for me, is that our police are incapable of protected a jury from violent criminals. For me this is a hugely worrying message for the “state” to send out to organised crime. In fact I would say that rather than making convictions more likely, it will have the opposite effect and make people, jurors and witnesses across the judicial system more wary about participation. I have no doubt that this position will give confidence and succour to violent criminals, gangs and drug dealers throughout the land.
Secondly I simply do not trust our government on civil liberties. Time and time again fundamental freedoms are being eroded by our government on the grounds of cost or public safety. For me, this erosion of what is good about liberal democratic society is a far more worrying thing that isolated incidents of crime.
Further the government argue that this will be very rarely used, and I am afraid they have a poor track record in this area. Almost every time they have eroded civil liberties in the name of public safety this line has been used and it tends to turn out to be a flagrant lie.
Examples such as laws on protest being used to target Brian Haws and his anti war vigil at Westminster, to environmental protesters at Vestas being arrested under the terrorism act paint a picture of fundamental civil liberties being eroded so the that the apparatus of state can be used to stifle dissent.
I have no doubt that this case will turn out yet again to be the thin edge of the wedge in terms of how something bought in on the basis of exceptionalism will be used more and more widely. I feel we have to say emphatically “NO” to further erosions of our essential civil liberties.
In fact criminal trial without Jury is not a brand new thing in the UK. During the “troubles” in N.Ireland “Diplcock trials” (named after the Judge who authorised them) were routinely held around fears of jury tampering by sectarian paramilitaries. Diplock trials were widely hated on all sides of the political divide. They were roundly discredited and went a long way to contributing to feelings of resentment that helped perpetuate the troubles.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the USA said two hundred years ago:-
“Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”
I would say “amen to that”, there are some things upon which everything that is right about our society are based, trial by Jury is one of them. We should fight to keep it whatever the cost, and we should not be bullied and intimidated by criminal gangs into giving up what is fundamental to our system and way of life.
