The UK government is in the process of preparing radical changes to their legal system. Due to the scale of these changes, they would remove the right to a jury trial for thousands of defendants. This controversial reform seeks to clear a backlog of about 80,000 court cases. Its overarching purpose is to expedite the judicial process by 2029. Justice Secretary Sackman is a fierce proponent of such changes. He thinks they do a wonderful job of balancing the need to move justice along quickly while still ensuring fairness holds sway.
Sackman recently went to one such bail hearing for a particularly bad sexual assault. He mentioned the fact the case won’t reach full trial until 2028 at the earliest. He commented that many of the crimes, including strangulation and NCII, first came on the books as offenses in 2020. The backlog in cases has drawn widespread concern, especially among victims who are often left waiting years for their day in court.
“Behind these 80,000 odd cases that are waiting in the backlog, there are individual stories and individual lives being put on hold behind each and every one of those cases,” – Sackman
To manage those changes better, under the proposed reforms judges or magistrates will deal with all but the most serious theft and complicated fraud cases. Tellingly, the proposed amendment would give defendants the ability to decide where their case is heard roughly 40% of the time across all contexts. Critics say that this decision erodes the rights of defendants and creates a higher likelihood of wrongful convictions.
Sackman made it clear that we need to tackle the backlog as soon as possible. This is particularly the case with severe sexual assault cases that he said have waiting times of up to four years. This lengthy process can sometimes result in victims feeling alone and hopeless.
“No one is being served in the case that we saw. Not the accused, who’s currently being remanded in jail, not the victim who’s been waiting since she first reported her crime years ago,” – Sackman
While we applaud the upcoming government legislation to implement most of the recommendations from Leveson’s report, it unfortunately underscores the need for judicial reform. The backlog for the most serious cases has skyrocketed to catastrophic levels. Rape now averages more than two years for resolution. By 2022, the number of pending cases more than tripled. This increase sent shockwaves through the legal community and justice reform advocates.
Sackman noted how much victims endured, some even dying, while waiting for their day in court. He pointed out that many have lost their jobs and suffered mental health issues as they dealt with months of uncertainty.
“I’ve spoken to victims and survivors who tell me they’ve lost their jobs, they suffered mental breakdown all the while that they were waiting. More victims and witnesses are pulling out of the process because they cannot wait that long. That is a compelling illustration of justice delayed being justice denied,” – Sackman
Sackman is in favor of the proposed changes, arguing that they are necessary to ensure fast and impartial justice. Almost immediately, he feels the pushback from legal communities. Approximately 90% of the Criminal Bar Association opposes the removal of jury trials for these cases, raising concerns about fairness and transparency in the judicial process.
These measures are absolutely justified, says Sackman, when you think about the nature of some crimes. He posed provocative questions regarding whether someone accused of minor theft or complex fraud should be entitled to a jury trial.
“Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a minimart should receive the right to trial by jury?” – Sackman
He followed this up by asking whether it was fair to ask jurors to serve on complex trials with complicated financial offenses.
“Do we think that someone who has been involved in a serious fraud involving cryptocurrency that we should have a jury sat in court for a year or more hearing such a case?” – Sackman
At the end of the day, Sackman sides with speedy, equitable justice over defendants’ rights to determine the venue of their trial. He articulated the danger of faded memories affecting the merits of a case after years of waiting.
“For me, the priority is swift justice, fair justice, over prioritising a defendant’s right to choose where that trial is heard. By the time that trial comes to court, everyone’s memories are a little bit more fuzzy. If you’re years away from when it took place, can you really get justice at all? That’s not fair,” – Sackman
Judicial diversity remains an urgent concern. Right now, only 12% of judges in England and Wales are ethnic minorities. Even more troubling, the black judicial representation has remained at a mere 1% for over a decade.