More than 90 per cent of barristers are opposed to plans to axe jury trials in a bid to solve the criminal justice crisis, according to a new poll.
The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) asked members for views on Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals for a radical overhaul of the courts.
The retired judge was tasked by Sir Keir Starmer’s government with coming up with a plan to solve the justice crisis, with court backlogs spiralling out of control and prisons being full.
The centrepiece of his reform plan is scrapping juries for all but the most serious cases, with panels containing a judge and two magistrates deciding trials instead.
The CBA’s poll, of more than 2000 members, found 88.5 per cent opposed the creation of the new juryless division of the Crown Court to deal with offences with sentences of up to three years in prison.
More than 94 per cent supported the retention of jury trial for “either way” offences - crimes that can either be settled in the Crown Court or Magistrates Court, while almost 92 per cent opposed the scrapping of juries for trials involving allegations of sexual offences against children.
The poll also found 86 per cent opposed a judge and magistrate panel deciding on cases involving violence against women and girls, stalking, and voyeurism.
The CBA survey found 75 per cent of the barristers who responded are against a judge, with expert assessors, deciding on complex fraud trials instead of a jury.
The body, which represents practising barristers in courts across England and Wales, suggested the currently justice crisis could be tackled by increasing court sitting days, greater efficiency including ensuring prisoners are brought to court on time, and investment in building repairs as well as hiring judges with a criminal law background.
The government is considering Sir Brian’s recommendations, and is expected to announce the reforms it is adopting in the autumn.
When his report was published earlier this month, Sir Brian conceded his proposals are driven by the crisis and he does not “rejoice in these recommendations”.
He claimed the courts are on the brink of total collapse, that radical action is essential, and he stressed that his proposals will need to be properly financed to stand a chance of working.
