Letter to Echo

Currently being debated in the House of Lords

Sir,

In reply to Mr Hawksworth’s letter. I accept that the trials are complicated and involve many documents. The real blame is with the CPS who I believe in the case of the Blue Arrow and Maxwell cases over complicated the prosecution. In the Guinness trial the jury resulted in a conviction and the three judge panel resulted in an acquittal.

Conrad Black in the USA is under trial by Jury and the conviction in the Enron case was done by a jury. Thus my argument is more that the juries should be better prepared and the judge should direct the prosecution and defence barristers and solicitors to make the case less complicated so that the jury can understand the case being made.

The issue of trial by jury in my view is important in a free and democratic country. The low convictions rate must also lie with the prosecution barristers and solicitors for not making as good a case as they should that would result in conviction.

We have a government that openly asks for higher rates of conviction I do not accept that it is the government’s position to do this (this you might say is idealist) the legal system should be outside the political remit.

If you were to remove trial by jury then at the same time I believe that the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General should not be political appointees as they do have an influence on appointment of judges.

The cost element is only one issue the Savile enquiry has been going since 1998 and no result near and at a cost of over £140 million; this has no jury and is only feathering the nests of barristers and solicitors’.

I believe that the removal of Jury trial is a political move which is not in the best interest legal system of this country. You can make a case that murder cases are complicated and that they involve many different specialist people thus should they held by a panel?

In conclusion I would trust 12 ordinary citizens of Southampton than a panel appointed by Judges.

Regards