REACTING to a furious outbreak of protest from the legal profession, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has dropped the controversial proposal to abandon trials by jury in Scotland from the emergency coronavirus-related legislation that was put before the Scottish Parliament yesterday.
Instead, Yousaf is to seek to build a compromise in consultation over the issue, before bringing back an amended proposal on April 21.
Even though the Justice Secretary had the backing of the head of Scotland’s judiciary, Lord Carloway, the Lord Justice General, and bodies representing lawyers and victims were opposed to the plan for trials by judges and sheriffs in serious cases – known as solemn cases in Scots law.
The Scottish Government had stated that “the justice system measures proposed in the emergency legislation include a power to allow for judge-only trials for the most serious cases, a power to design a programme of release for certain prisoners if needed – similar to the position in England and Wales – and other adjustments to criminal procedure, family law and civil justice to allow many hearings to take place remotely”.
The problem for the courts is the strict time limits on bringing accused people to trial. The proposed law suggests extending the time limits, but even this might not be enough with a backlog of 1000 trials in sight.
READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: Jury trials are a bedrock of our criminal justice system
Yousaf tweeted yesterday morning: “As I head to Parliament to debate Emergency Legislation let me give assurance that my colleagues & I are listening to concerns. Where there is compromise & consensus to be found we will seek it. This Bill & the circumstances around it are far too important to do otherwise.”
Law Society of Scotland president John Mulholland said: “Juries have been an important principle of the Scottish Criminal Justice System for hundreds of years. To remove this provision for the most serious of crimes would be a significant step and have major implications.
“We fully appreciate the desire to avoid any backlog in cases which might interfere with the proper administration of justice. However, we have not reached that point and so there is not sufficient justification to warrant trials without jury for serious criminal offences. We believe the case for taking such an extraordinary measure has not been made.”
Addressing the issue of jury-less trials, Lord Carloway said: “Some of these measures impact on long-standing and well-established elements of the system designed, in normal times, to form part of a suite of protections and safeguards for all those participating in, or affected by, the administration of justice. They are not to be altered lightly.
“The most noteworthy proposal in the bill is that which would allow for solemn trials to be heard without a jury; with the verdict determined instead by a judge or sheriff. This would represent a significant, if temporary, change to the way the courts conduct business.
“We will be facing a monumental backlog of solemn criminal trials once the current restrictions are lifted and trials can recommence. Unless action is taken to mitigate the impact of this, there will be substantial delays in bringing accused persons to trial. These are likely to stretch into years rather than months.
“Ultimately, Parliament must decide how it wishes to maintain public confidence in our justice system and allows the courts to continue to administer justice effectively.
“This means balancing the legitimate concerns about removing juries for a time-limited period against the potential for excessive delay and disruption of the system that the backlog will cause.”
Scotland is in lockdown. Shops are closing and newspaper sales are falling fast. It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of The National is at stake. Please consider supporting us through this with a digital subscription from just £2 for 2 months by following this link: www.thenational.scot/subscribe. Thanks – and stay safe.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel