PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The BBC article which is the subject of this post reports on leaked confidential document proposing radically limiting jury trials in the UK to convictions one charges punishable by five years or more, in order to resolve the country's overloaded courts. With respect, this is a dreadful idea, first, because the problem has been caused by chronic underfunding of the nation's criminal justice system - and second, because the real source of the problem is a provision which allows convictions o split verdicts, as happened in the case of Andrew Malkison, the subject of numerous posts over the years on this Blog. As set out in The Justice Gap (link below: "Andrew Malkinson has attacked the ‘racist’ jury system which he blamed for his own wrongful conviction at the launch of a report calling for the reinstatement of jury unanimity. The legal charity APPEAL has identified at least 56 wrongful convictions in which there has been a split verdict including Winston Trews and Dr David Sellu, who both spoke at the event, as well as Sally Clark, Stefan Kiszko, Michael O’Brien and Barry George. Andrew Malkinson, who had his conviction overturned last summer, was wrongfully imprisoned for 17 years after being convicted of rape in 2004 on a 10/2 verdict. ‘That should be taken into account – that’s 17% of the entire jury,’ he said. ‘That’s not good enough to get a life sentence.’ He argued that if it hadn’t been for majority verdicts he would not have been convicted. ‘It wouldn’t have been permissible,’ he said. ‘I would have had a normal life and not had 20 years’ fighting to get at the truth whilst certain state actors deliberately withheld evidence and indeed manufactured evidence and folks witnesses.’ The report by APPEAL’s Naima Sakande and Nisha Waller argues that majority verdicts – supposedly a safeguard against jury bias – have had negative impact on the quality of decision-making, eroded the principle of reasonable doubt and increased the risk of wrongful convictions. The report for the first time reveals the problematic origins of majority verdicts which were introduced in 1967 against ‘a backdrop of racism and anti-racist resistance’."
SECOND PUBLISHER'S NOTE: An alternative approach worth considering: Fund the justice system properly so as to avoid overcrowded courts; Require jury verdicts to be unanimous; Beef up the U'K's floundering (CCRC) Criminal Cases Review Commission), so that it will no longer fail applicants, as it terribly failed Andrew Malkinson and far too may other innocent people.
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/andrew-malkinson-calls-for-end-to-majority-verdicts/
————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The plans, obtained by BBC News, show that Lammy, who is also deputy prime minister, wants to ask Parliament to end jury trials for defendants who would be jailed for up to five years. The proposals are an attempt to end unprecedented delays and backlogs in courts, and do not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland."
——————————————
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "A spokesperson for the MoJ said: "No final decision has been taken by government. We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims - with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising - which will require bold action to put right." But Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association which represents criminal barristers, said the proposals would not solve the crisis in justice. She said: "What they propose simply won't work - it is not the magic pill that they promise. "The consequences of their actions will be to destroy a criminal justice system that has been the pride of this country for centuries, and to destroy justice as we know it. "Juries are not the cause of the backlog. The cause is the systematic underfunding and neglect that has been perpetrated by this government and its predecessors for years."
-------------------------------
STORY: "Justice secretary wants jury trials scrapped except in most serious cases," by Correspondent Dominic Casciani and Journalist Anna Lamche, published by BBC News, on November 26, 2025. (Dominic Casiai is a specialist journalist and broadcaster with BBC News based in London, reporting on national news stories for TV, Radio and Online.)
GIST; 'Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test.
An internal government briefing, produced by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for all other Whitehall departments, confirms plans to create a new tier of jury-less courts in England and Wales.
The new courts would deal with most crimes currently considered by juries in Crown Court.
But the MoJ said no final decision had been taken by the government.
The plans, obtained by BBC News, show that Lammy, who is also deputy prime minister, wants to ask Parliament to end jury trials for defendants who would be jailed for up to five years.
The proposals are an attempt to end unprecedented delays and backlogs in courts, and do not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
The MoJ presentation, produced earlier this month, says Crown Courts are facing record backlogs with more than 78,000 cases waiting to be completed.
In practice, this means that suspects being charged with serious crimes today may not have a trial until late 2029 or early 2030.
Officials predict in the document that the caseload will grow to more than 100,000 before then, unless there is further action.
Earlier this year, retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson recommended that the government ends jury trial for many serious offences, saying they could be dealt with by a judge alone or sitting with two magistrates.
This would be done by creating a new intermediate tier of criminal court, dubbed the "Crown Court Bench Division" (CCBD) sitting in between magistrates' courts and Crown Courts, where juries decide cases.
The CCBD would hear cases involving defendants facing sentences of up to three years, Sir Brian recommended.
The "DPM's [deputy prime minister's] decision", according to the leaked MoJ document is to "go further than Sir Brian's to achieve maximum impact".
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's PM programme on Tuesday, Sir Brian said he was "not prepared to comment" on the government's "hypothetical" unpublished plans.
However, he said "substantial, structural change is essential", adding: "Our criminal justice system is at crisis point".
The second part of his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts will be published soon, he added.
'Reforms will not compromise right to a fair trial'
The document says Lammy wants to: "Introduce trial by judge alone for cases involving fraud and financial offences - if the judge considers the case to be suitably technical and lengthy. Exclusions for rape, murder, manslaughter and public interest."
The CCBD would be introduced "as a lower-tier of the Crown Court which hears cases likely to receive a sentence of up to five years by a judge alone", the document said.
This means that while jury trial would be guaranteed for murder, manslaughter and rape - almost all other defendants facing serious offences would be tried by a judge alone.
The document continues: "The reforms will improve timeliness in the Crown Court through extra hearing time... [and] not compromise the right to a fair trial - there is no right to a jury trial."
Lammy is said by officials to have begun the "write round" - Whitehall jargon for obtaining final cross-Cabinet and departmental sign-off before going public.
Assuming he gets that approval, an announcement would come in December, with legislation in the New Year.
A spokesperson for the MoJ said: "No final decision has been taken by government. We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims - with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising - which will require bold action to put right."
But Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association which represents criminal barristers, said the proposals would not solve the crisis in justice.
She said: "What they propose simply won't work - it is not the magic pill that they promise.
"The consequences of their actions will be to destroy a criminal justice system that has been the pride of this country for centuries, and to destroy justice as we know it.
"Juries are not the cause of the backlog. The cause is the systematic underfunding and neglect that has been perpetrated by this government and its predecessors for years."
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the proposals, arguing juries "put ordinary men and women of every walk of life at the heart of justice."
Writing on X, she described Labour's plans as "a short-term decision that risks fairness, undermines public trust, and erodes the very foundation of our justice system".
"Conservatives believe in our traditions and we believe in trial by jury", she added.
Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller MP described the plans as "completely disgraceful" and accused the UK Government of "dismantling our justice system and failing victims in the process".
She said the Liberal Democrats were calling for the government to "reconsider" its plans "as a matter of urgency".
Former judge Wendy Joseph KC said the proposal represents an "absolutely fundamental change" to the principles of justice practiced in the UK.
"No one should underestimate how serious that is," she told BBC Breakfast on Wednesday.
She said a lot of judges will be "uncomfortable" about being the sole arbiter of justice.
She agreed the backlog needs addressing, but "there are lot of minus factors in what David Lammy is proposing".
Baroness Helena Kennedy, Scottish Barrister and Labour Peer, said having a jury acted as "a valve on the system".
"There is a crisis of trust in all our institutions," she told the Today Programme, adding that public participation in courtrooms was a "vital proponent" of justice.
Lord Charles Falconer, former justice secretary and Labour peer, said trust was eroded by the lack of reasons given for why people were wrongly acquitted.
People must have faith the criminal justice system has the convicted the guilty and acquitted the innocent, he said.'"
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
