JURY SYSTEM PUT ON TRIAL

The case of William Maggs caused a judge to explode last week. Mr
Maggs was charged with stealing a 19p can of lemonade. He opted for a
trial by jury but when he got to Newport Crown Court, the prosecution
asked for a one day adjournment even though all the legal teams were
there. One of their key witnesses failed to turn up. The judge
demanded to know whether "anyone has worked out the cost of this".
Well, Jack Straw has. His consultation paper last year showed jury
trials cost (GBP)13,500 on average compared with (GBP)2,500 in a
magistrates' court. That is one reason why he wants to end the right
of defendants in a swathe of middle-ranking offences -- theft,
handling stolen goods, indecent assault -- to opt for a trial by jury.

The Home Secretary is not alone. A succession of legal reviews -- the
James Committee in 1975, Runciman's royal commission in 1993, Nairey
in 1997 -- have called for an end to the right. It is not just the
cost. Ministers believe defendants are manipulating the system. About
20,000 a year opt for trial by jury, but by the day of the trial 70
per cent plead guilty.

Whitehall suspects defendants use this option to delay judgment day,
plea bargain for a lesser charge, or hope that witnesses will not turn
up. They are also concerned that professional criminals exploit the
system in the knowledge that whereas 25 per cent are acquitted in
magistrates' courts, some 40 per cent are found not guilty in crown
court trials.

Mr Straw produced other reasons for making the change. He noted there
was no other criminal justice system in the world that gave defendants
a choice. In Scotland it is the prosecution that decides where a
defendant will be prosecuted. And he pointed out that while jury
trials go back to the Middle Ages or even Magna Carta, a defendant's
right to choose only emerged in the last century.

So should he be allowed to proceed? No. MrMaggs's case is a useful
first reason. It was the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, who
noted that the stigma of dishonesty did not depend on the amount
taken. Mr Maggs was only on his second day as a supermarket security
officer when he was accused of theft. A conviction would have ended
any chance of such work in the future. He had every right to seek to
clear his name. He has no previous convictions. It was not his fault
the witness did not show up. The prosecution decided to drop the case.

The Home Secretary may argue that his proposal to allow defendants an
appeal against a magistrates' hearing would solve this problem. But
this could lead to two-tier justice: defendants with no previous
convictions being successful in getting a trial by jury but few
others. This would make a nonsense of a fundamental principle of the
criminal justice system: the assumption of innocence.

The problem is being exaggerated. Of some 280,000 defendants who could
opt for a jury, a mere 20,000 exercise the right. There are better
ways of increasing efficiency: earlier meetings between defendants and
barristers (in 75 per cent of cases where there is a last-minute
change of plea, defendants have only just seen the brief), and more
help to jurors. But the right to a jury trial should be preserved. It
remains "the lamp of freedom". Its light must not be diminished.