Jury-less Trials Terrify Me

Not because juries are perfect, but because they are the only real safeguard when judges go unchallenged

By Victoria

I haven’t slept properly since the Government mentioned abolishing jury trials for some offences. This is not because juries are perfect – they’re not- but because they’re the only form of oversight within the justice system.  

When I first started speaking out about the judges’ lack of accountability a couple of years ago, I did so because of something my family lived through and something that opened my eyes to a problem I never knew existed. Most of the public don’t know about this either.

My daughter was a witness in a rape trial. We were reassured that her questioning would be tough but fair. We felt the judge was there to ensure the rules were followed. We trusted in the system.

After the trial we obtained the court transcript and saw for ourselves that the judge repeatedly failed to intervene when unlawful, prejudicial and humiliating questions were asked over two days of cross-examination. There were questions asked that weren’t permitted. Questions that broke the very law designed to protect rape complainants. Questions that left her feeling suicidal for months after the trial.

We assumed there would be a way to challenge this. The law had been broken, by the judge, and there must be some independent process to review his behaviour. We were wrong and that is what changed my view of our Criminal Justice System.

You cannot hold a judge accountable for their case management

What we found out was that the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office does not review case management decisions even if these break the law. You cannot challenge a judge for allowing prohibited questioning, failing to intervene when rules are breached, showing bias or misunderstanding the law.

A judge can raise their voice, snap at a witness or be sarcastic and we are allowed to complain but if that same judge fails to do their job or they misapply the law, ignore statutory protections or are silent as rules are broken, this is seen as acceptable. Tone matters more than law. A raised eyebrow is treated more seriously than a breach of legal safeguards. A sharp remark may be viewed as ‘misconduct’ but failing to protect a witness as required by law is not.

The system is effectively saying that judge’s manners matter more than their mistakes. That politeness is worth more than justice. That the protection of a witness’s feelings is more important than protecting their rights. Being rude is an offence but getting the law wrong is acceptable.

Juries aren’t perfect BUT….

They are made up of twelve different minds and twelve different life experiences. They don’t all see the world the same way. One person might believe a rape myth and another reject it outright. Juries can, and often do, see through what they’re being fed. Should they do so, they are the only thing standing between bias and a verdict. A single judge has one perspective. A jury offers twelve. That difference should be seen as the safeguard. Also most judges come from a narrow strata of society. Often privately educated they are far removed from the everyday lives of the people they pass judgement on. A jury brings in the voices of people who understand real life with all its mess and chaos. The courts need people who live in the real world.

Judges get things wrong for many reasons and why wouldn’t they? They are human. They’re not infallible. They have frailties like the rest of us. If judges can ignore safeguards and get away with that now, what will happen when they are both judge and jury behind closed doors? No public conscience. No diversity of opinion. No common sense to balance legal arrogance. It hands absolute power to a system that has no effective checks.   

This is not the moment to remove juries. Not whilst judges hold unchallengeable power.  Reform must begin with accountability not the removal of oversight. Until judges are answerable for how they run a trial, the jury is not optional. It is essential.