Read on Twitter
1/ 7
Prof Cheryl Thomas' research into the justice system provides the most powerful illustration of why no one who cares about racial equality would countenance suspending or limiting access to jury trials.
http://southeastcircuit.org.uk/images/uploads/Ethnicity_and_the_fairness_of_jury_trials_in_England_and_Wales_2006-2014.pdf
Prof Cheryl Thomas' research into the justice system provides the most powerful illustration of why no one who cares about racial equality would countenance suspending or limiting access to jury trials.
http://southeastcircuit.org.uk/images/uploads/Ethnicity_and_the_fairness_of_jury_trials_in_England_and_Wales_2006-2014.pdf
2/7
Her 2010 report and 2014 update provide evidence that the *only* aspect of the CJS in which BAME defendants do not suffer negative outcomes disproportionately is jury trials. The only one.
Her 2010 report and 2014 update provide evidence that the *only* aspect of the CJS in which BAME defendants do not suffer negative outcomes disproportionately is jury trials. The only one.
3/7
So when our most senior judge & the Justice Secretary talk about 'dealing with the backlog' by suspending jury trials for 60% of crown court cases, they are referring to the removal of the most effective protection for BAME people against systemic injustice.
So when our most senior judge & the Justice Secretary talk about 'dealing with the backlog' by suspending jury trials for 60% of crown court cases, they are referring to the removal of the most effective protection for BAME people against systemic injustice.
4/7
Even if we were in a situation where a backlog had been created exclusively by CV19, we should still consider the consequences of restricting jury trials to be too high a price for dealing with that problem.
Even if we were in a situation where a backlog had been created exclusively by CV19, we should still consider the consequences of restricting jury trials to be too high a price for dealing with that problem.
5/7
But in current circumstances, where over 90% of the backlog has been knowingly created by a fiscal policy which has been pursued despite loud opposition from lawyers, to adopt a 'solution' which removes a protection already in too-short supply is indefensible.
But in current circumstances, where over 90% of the backlog has been knowingly created by a fiscal policy which has been pursued despite loud opposition from lawyers, to adopt a 'solution' which removes a protection already in too-short supply is indefensible.
6/7
You see, those judges who support a removal of juries say, and believe, that they - the judges - are fair enough to make juries' decisions for them. But the evidence says otherwise and any judge worth her/his salt will accept that you have to make a decision on the evidence
You see, those judges who support a removal of juries say, and believe, that they - the judges - are fair enough to make juries' decisions for them. But the evidence says otherwise and any judge worth her/his salt will accept that you have to make a decision on the evidence
7/7
Why are criminal lawyers, overwhelmingly, implacably opposed to these proposals when this would enable the return to paid work for which most of us are desperate? Because none of us want to be part of making our system more unfair.
/End/
Why are criminal lawyers, overwhelmingly, implacably opposed to these proposals when this would enable the return to paid work for which most of us are desperate? Because none of us want to be part of making our system more unfair.
/End/
