| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.10 pm
Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East): Hon. Members will not be surprised that I welcome the excellent Queen's Speech and the continuation of the radical changes that we are making in every sphere of government. However,I am in rather rebellious mode at present--[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I knew that that would cause some excitement. I feel the need to rebel a little in this debate. Before my hon. Friends and Members of the Opposition get too carried away by that thought, however, I must point out that I am rebelling against the greeting given by the forces of conservatism to one aspect of the Queen's Speech--against those who say that the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill is an affront to civil liberties. Those forces of conservatism seem to be members of the Bar Council and even of some civil liberties groups. It appears that one or two of my hon. Friends may also fall into that category.
When I decided to speak in today's debate, I thought that few of us would discuss that aspect of the Speech, but I am astounded by the number of Members who have done so. I should have remembered how many solicitors and barristers are Members of the House. Perhaps I, too, should declare an interest in that I have been a magistrate and a juror, and that I have a law degree although I am not a lawyer. Other hon. Members have argued about the importance of being tried by one's peers, yet are not lay magistrates also our peers? So far, no one has pointed that out. Is that because it has been a long time since some barristers in the House have been inside a magistrates court--if they have ever been inside one? Is it because magistrates deal with 97 per cent. of all criminal work and, without them, the criminal justice system would grind to a halt?
There have often been campaigns in the press against lay magistrates. Such campaigns destabilised and demoralised the lay magistracy, making them believe that we, as lawmakers, did not value them. I should like to think that I have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that we do indeed value the lay magistracy and shall continue to do so.
Mr. Leigh:
Of course, lay magistrates do superb work. However, as a former magistrate, the hon. Lady will accept that, because of the large number of cases that they hear, they often become case-hardened. The value of a jury is that its members bring a fresh perspective to cases.
Ms Prentice:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not agree with him. At present, there are about 31,000 lay magistrates. They receive training that is far superior to the one that I received; and their training continues. They are currently receiving training on all the new legislation that is being introduced, so it is not fair to say that they become case-hardened. Furthermore, they live locally and know about their communities.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy):
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Prentice:
I should prefer not to do so now, as I have only a short time in which to speak. If I have time, I shall try to take interventions later in my speech.
Magistrates are becoming more representative of their local communities, although we need to do more to encourage people to join the magistracy. They are the linchpin of our criminal justice system. I have deliberately stressed the role of lay magistrates, because its importance counters some of the comments that have been made about the Bill.
The Bill is good and it is welcome. I remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office that, when the matter was discussed previously, I pointed out that such a measure would be welcomed not only by magistrates, but by innocent defendants whose lives are turned upside down as they await trial in the Crown court.
For the sake of clarity, I shall describe what currently happens. If defendants can opt for trial in the Crown court or the magistrates court, that option is put to them by the magistrates. They are also warned that, should they choose to be tried before magistrates, they could still be sent to the Crown court for sentencing if the magistrates feel that their powers are not sufficient. It is nonsense to suggest that defendants would not continue to choose to be tried by magistrates--they would. The Bill allows magistrates to take into account important issues that could help to determine the appropriate court for trial.
I am sure that many other hon. Members received--as I did--a letter from the Bar Council. I thought its content almost hysterical; it was certainly historically inaccurate. However, I shall be gentle with the Bar Council--I am sure that its members mean well and that they are considering their clients rather than their pockets. First, the letter implies that the magistrate--the Bar Council seems to think that only one magistrate sits on the bench--will decide the matter only on the basis of a defendant's reputation. That is not true. The magistrates will consider five aspects before they decide on the place of trial.
Secondly, the letter asserts that the measure will"hit Black Britons Worst". It gives no evidence to prove that; I argue that that is because there is no such evidence. Of course, magistrates must be more representative ofthe black community, but, in my experience, black magistrates are as committed and as serious in coming to a correct verdict as anyone else on the bench. Furthermore, individuals who sit on juries can show as much prejudice as is reflected in the wider community. The Bar Council quotes statistics with no back-up and gives no indication of the type of crime or criminal record of the people involved.
It is true that a substantial number of guilty defendants deliberately misuse the system to delay their trial, and change their plea on the day of the trial. I am not as concerned as my right hon. Friend is about the cost to the system that that entails, although I dare say that it is considerable. My concern is about the effect on the police, on witnesses and, most important, on victims of crimes. It does not make for a good and fair justice system to have witnesses and victims waiting for many months, under stress and strain, only for a defendant to plead guilty at the last moment. Perhaps, for once, we should take into account the interests of the victim.
The Bar Council letter describes the Bill as
I did a little research on that point; not relying on my fading memory as a student and then a teacher of mediaeval English history, I looked up the definition of a jury in the "Oxford Companion to Law". Admittedly, the definition was written by a fellow Scot, but it must, therefore, be entirely reliable. Professor Walker writes:
I then researched when the either-way offences took shape--not at the time of Magna Carta and not writ in stone for hundreds of years but in the middle of the 19th century. The first breach of the distinction between indictable and summary offences took place in 1847, when two or more justices were empowered to try children under the age of 14 for simple larceny. I want to share the preamble to that measure with my right hon. Friend; it stated that the Act's purpose was to
I reiterate, in support of the Bill, that the innocent person standing before a bench wants, more than anything, to have the matter dealt with quickly and fairly. I really do wonder why lawyers are so up in arms. I also wonder when the barristers last entered a magistrates court. I share with the Bar Council the hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not proposing the Bill simply to save money. However, I wonder whether lawyers are so strident in their opposition because they are afraid of losing money. I believe that the Bill will make the system better, more efficient and fairer to defendant and victim. I have sat as both a magistrate and a juror, and I believe that both systems serve us well.
"a disturbing threat to our ancient liberties which date back to Magna Carta."
What nonsense--the Bar Council's understanding of history leaves much to be desired.
"An ordinance of King Ethelred II provides that in the gemot of every wapentake"--
I hope that I am pronouncing the mediaeval English correctly--
"the reeve and the 12 senior thegns should go out and present on oath all whom they believe to have committed any crime. The guilt or innocence of the accused had to be determined by ordeal or compurgation."
Thank heavens we no longer have that form of jury trial. [Interruption.] I see that my right hon. Friend warms to my theme. Professor Walker also reminds us that, until relatively recently, there was a property qualification for jurors--hardly a reflection of our community.
"ensure the more speedy trial of juvenile offenders and to avoid the evil of their detention previously to trial."
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not--as I had always believed--the first to think of fast-tracking young offenders. The general right to claim trial by jury where the maximum sentence on summary conviction exceeded three months' imprisonment was introduced in the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879. The Bar Council therefore does itself no favours by exaggerating its claims. There seems to be a blind spot among some lawyers, who do not recognise that magistrates are defendants' peers, too.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |