TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE: JURY TAMPERING
(CLAUSES 38 & 40)
97. Clause 38 will allow the prosecution to apply
for a trial to be conducted without a jury where "there is
a real and present danger that jury tampering will take place".
Clause 40 will also allow a judge to discharge a jury where "jury
tampering appears to have taken place". If the judge discharges
a jury, he will be required to order that the trial continue without
the jury, unless it is in the interests of justice to terminate
the trial. If the trial is terminated, the judge may order a new
trial to take place without a jury. Clauses 39(5) and 41 make
provision for rights of appeal.
98. These proposals have received strong support
from the police, mainly for reasons of economy. In the last two
years, the Metropolitan Police alone have spent £9 million
on jury protection.[106]
The National Crime Squad told us that it takes 72 officers to
protect one jury, with additional security costs when the jury
are at court.[107]
Despite these costs, we were also told that the police have no
way of knowing whether the protection works.[108]
The police can only protect the juror, but there is always a danger
that others—such as friends or family—may be intimidated
in the hope that the juror will be influenced.[109]
It seems to us, therefore, that as well as being expensive, jury
protection may not always be the best way of dealing with jury
tampering.
99. We accept that there are cogent arguments
for dispensing with a jury trial where there is a real and present
danger of jury tampering.
100. We note in passing that section 8 of the Contempt
of Court Act 1981 prohibits research into juries' reasons for
their verdicts. As a result, we do not know enough about how the
jury system operates. The question of whether to repeal section
8 has been a matter of some debate. While the Royal Commission
on Criminal Justice (1993) was broadly in favour,[110]
Lord Justice Auld was against it.[111]
101. We invite the Government to consider the
merits of repealing section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981,
in order to permit meaningful research into how the jury system
operates.
92 The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill 1999
and The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial)(No.2) Bill 2000. Back
93
Rt Hon Lord Justice Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of
England and Wales: Report (2001), p 200, para 172 and p 280,
para 35. Back
94
See Justice for All, Cm 5563, para 4.31. Back
95
Ibid, paras 4.28-4.29 and 4.31. Back
96
Q 358, Ian Chisholm. Back
97
Q 356. Back
98
Q 245; Serious Fraud Office, Annual Report 2001/02. Back
99
See for example Q 245, Peter Rook QC. Back
100
Justice for All: A Response from the Society of Labour Lawyers,
October 2002, p 12, para 22(5). Back
101
Qq 358-359. Back
102
Q 372. Back
103
Rt Hon Lord Justice Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of
England and Wales: Report, 2001, p 180, para 117. Back
104
The General Council of the Bar and The Criminal Bar Association,
Response to the Criminal Justice White Paper "Justice
for All", October 2002, p 20, para 15. Back
105
Q 242. Back
106
Q 98. Back
107
Ev 82. Back
108
Q 98. Back
109
Q 102. Back
110
The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice: Report, Cm 2263
(1993), chp 1, para 8. Back
111
Rt Hon Lord Justice Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of
England and Wales (2001), p 166, para 82. Back
