THE JURY SYSTEM ON TRIAL

The case of William Maggs caused a judge to explode yesterday. 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 UKP13,500 on average compared to UKP2,500 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 while 25 per cent are acquitted in magistrates' courts, some
40 per cent are found not guilty in crown court trials.

Jack Straw this week produced other reasons for making the change. He noted
there was no other criminal justice system in the world which gave
defendants a choice. In Scotland it is the prosecution which 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. William Maggs's case is a useful
first reason. It was the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, rejecting
Runciman's proposal, who noted that the stigma of dishonesty did not depend
on the amount taken. William 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 would 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. A person with a criminal record may be even more in
need of a jury than first offenders. Magistrates can become
'prosecution-minded' through the deluge of cases they hear. In the crown
courts, it is juries who decide guilt.

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.