Andy Hayman was Assistant Commissioner for Special Operations at the Metropolitan Police. He has managed to persuade The Times to give him some air time – perhaps it was a quiet news day? – to tell us….
Twelve good men no longer guarantee truth
As crime gets more sophisticated, sometimes the jury system will not be able to cope.
Hayman makes some ‘apparently’ perfectly reasonable – if rather well known points… about the length and complexity of cases citing a rather bizarre illustration…
In one case, an expert investigator told me that if they had printed off the relevant data from the confiscated hard drives you could have physically filled the 13 floors of New Scotland Yard.
So? Some cases may well be complex – is that a reason to chop the jury? He also tells us that unless we have served on a jury we cannot possibly know how difficult it is and that he has spoken to a lot of jurors...”most describe mixed feelings when the summoning letter arrives in the post. They feel proud to have a chance to fulfil their public duty but also dread being selected for a case that may mean a year swallowed up, poring over complex, and in some cases, distressing evidence.”
I can only assume that Mr Hayman has served on a jury in such a complex trial and he appears to be unaware of the rule that Jurors are not supposed to discuss what happens in the jury room with anyone… or has that gone by the board since those dark distant days when Professor Smith and Professor Griew wrote about Criminal Law in their respective textbooks? I cannot imagine that he was talking to jurors before the trial… well… perhaps such is imaginable but, one assumes, did not happen.
I repeat … I am not a criminal lawyer – but the fair number of criminal lawyers I have spoken to are very much in favour of the jury. Certainly, there is the well known aphorism that if you are innocent go for trial by judge alone and if guilty…try your luck in front of the jury.. but that is an aphorism and not a factual observation of scientific study supported by clear evidence.
I’m with the criminal law experts on this. We have to retain trial by jury, we have to watch mission creep and we certainly do not need to hear from policemen who should have no part in the criminal justice system following investigation and arrest.
We are not a Stasi East German style state yet…despite the best endeavours, it would seem, of some on both the left and right…. and we certainly do not want to become one.
Charon QC 
“Mixed feelings?” Andy Hayman, you’re having a laugh. People can’t wait to tweet or FB the latest hijinks in the jurors’ room.
While remembering there is no jury at the mags, you’re right that the jury tradition must be preserved. Each side rolls out their bs story – and the jury decides.
Hayman apprarently does not want the respective cases tested in court. Maybe he somehow sees a future in our common-law courts for euro-judges who conduct investigations.
As Ferris Bueller famously said:
“I’m not European. I don’t plan on being European. So, who gives a crap if they’re Socialists? They could be fascist anarchists; it still wouldn’t change the fact that I don’t own a car”.
Kris – excellent… with you on this one! Thanks for the Bueller quote….
Yes, the jury must stay. However, the Heathrow Robbery case has let the genie out of the bottle. It will not be easy in these financially tight days to put it back. I have some discussion of the jury here:
http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2010/03/nailed-at-last-men-convicted-at-first.html
and, in relation to the Magistrates’ Courts there is some comment about trial by judge alone here:
http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2010/04/easter-miscellany.html
Are you still so sure that a written constitution (say, one that guaranteed jury trials as the US constitution does) is such a bad idea?
I’m surprised that nobody points to the lack of a right to a jury trial in Scotland as support for this.
@dw – Sure, the US Constitution SEEMS to “guarantee” jury trial – but actually it doesn’t in every case.
(We’re talking criminal matters here, not civil where it’s different again).
In FEDERAL Courts, this “guarantee” extends only to crimes punishable by more than 6 months in prison. And to that extent this “guarantee” extends to the States also.
The “guarantee” is wider in many States because of the respective STATE constitution. In many States there is no such “guarantee” if the offence can be only be punished by a fine.
There are possibilities, varying State by State and in Federal Court, for a jury trial to be WAIVED, but that is not the same point as “guarantee” of course.
@Err Umm
Yes, the US constitutional guarantee is qualified, but not in any way that is relevant to this post.
It appears somewhat disingenuous to introduce the question of non-jury trials via Mr Hayman – I doubt that he commands attention even in his own living room.
Nonetheless, if one examines the question a little more seriously, it is clear that legal principles, like moral principles, are not to be viewed individually nor in a vacuum; none is sacrosanct.
In the same way that in exceptional circumstances it would be considered right to kill another human being (ie a terrorist about to blow up a school), so wider considerations may make it preferable, exceptionally, to have a trial without a jury.
Had this trial failed through jury tampering, much greater harm would have been done to the cause of Justice in general and to jury trial in principle – violent criminals would have been encouraged to target jurors as a matter of routine.
Lawyers should be seeking to shape and define the effect of this decision rather than simply deploring it (and without bothering themselves with the witterings of Hayman).
Weygand – I agree with your proposition that we should define the parameters for trial by judge alone. To some extent this has been done by the courts – trial by judge alone is ‘exceptional’ and, while the CPS has indicated that it will seek trial by judge alone if circumstances merit – the threshold for trial by judge alone seems to be high.
Of greater concern is mission creep where Parliament considers that it would be convenient to abandon trial by jury.
Weygand – as to your point that it is disingenuous … is it not the task and right of every commentator or advocate to advance an argument, a proposition, using the best available material to hand?
🙂
re 3.51 am – I am very much in favour of jury trial, but the sight of some senior barristers harumphing about this case has been unedifying. They should be taking the opportunity to define and preserve the few positive features of this precedent rather than just scaremongering.
re 3.53 – I disagree, as you conflate advocacy (particularly in the legal sense) and comment.
An advocate will present a case so as to persuade his/her audience to a particular point of view without concern as to whether that view has real merit.
A commentator seeks to win the debate on its merits and therefore presents the debate in as open, objective and well-informed manner as possible.
Although an advocate might open his argument with the words of Hayman, – a man of towering irrelevance to this issue – I feel that a commentator (which I take you to be in this piece) should have found something more substantial.
Weygand –
1. The spectacle of senior barristers harrumphing or otherwise is irrelevant to the seriousness of the issue. I regret that some senior barristers seem to do little but harrumph. Most, however, (fortunately) do not and have expressed their views cogently and with thought.
2. You will note that I made it clear that I am not a criminal lawyer – and you are, obviously, fairly new to my blog. I invite comment – rather than come down the mountain hurling tablets of stone and wisdom (or otherwise) at my readers!
3. I think a commentator on a blog is entitled to conflate advocacy in the sense of persuasion and comment – particularly if it engenders debate and persuades – but, I would agree, had I been proposing a definitive statement on the issue I would not have resorted to disingenuous methods. I would have used focused analytical argument as I have done when occasion demanded.
I am more than happy to write something more ‘substantial’ on the issue – but, as you appear to be rather good at commenting on the commenting – would you care to do so?
Sorry to have offended you.
Re your invitation to expand; as with finding oneself in a hole, I think the best thing to do when one is caught hurling tablets of stone is to put them down rather than to hurl some more.
Weygand – you misunderstand – you have NOT offended me – quite the contrary… I meant my statement as a compliment. Always delighted when people take issue and issues.
I said that i don’t tend to hurl tablets at people – especially on areas where I have no direct practical expertise – and also to encourage those who do have expertise and interest to engage by commenting and discussing.
Please… always…be my guest.
🙂
I too commented on [13 floors of info] ex copper Hayman and the case for judge only trials. He like other commentators here and elsewhere did not give thought to having eg three good lords sitting on that large bench…….but then I only sit on the lowest bench. Good Lord is that the time? Must fly
http://thejusticeofthepeace.blog.co.uk/2010/04/03/no-jury-but-three-trial-judges-8300641/