Page 1673 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to a jury trial. Each can pull in different directions. If we were to have a system where all charges were heard in the Magistrates Court, under their efficient and relatively streamlined processes, we would indeed have a speedy justice system. People would have their day in court quickly, and the right to be tried without unreasonable delay would be well and truly respected. On the other hand, if were to go to the other extreme and give all defendants a full jury trial in the Supreme Court, then the wheels of justice would surely grind to a halt under the increased workload being placed on the courts.
Of course, neither extreme is realistic. The reason I draw them out is to illustrate the need for balance and to find a way through these two extremes. And we believe the amendment finds the best way through those two ends of the spectrum.
What the amendment will do is divert more cases to the Magistrates Court than are currently being heard there. This will play a part in getting the most efficient use out of our existing judicial resources and in turn work towards people having their day in court more quickly. On the other hand, the amendment will still retain access to a jury trial for more serious cases in the three to five-year sentencing bracket that do warrant it. We believe the data backs this up.
The framework gives a critical role to the DPP. It will be the DPP who makes the election as to what court a matter is heard in. The scrutiny committee made comment on this issue when it was looking at amendments I had circulated. My amendments were similar to Mrs Dunne’s and the comments it made on my amendments equally apply to Mrs Dunne’s amendments.
Scrutiny posed the question of whether it was fair to vest in the DPP the power to decide which court hears a matter and, consequentially, whether it was fair that the DPP have the power of determining whether a defendant has access to a jury trial or not. In my response to scrutiny I noted:
I hold the view that the discretion proposed for the DPP is consistent with existing discretions. At the heart of the issue is whether it is right that the DPP can make a decision about whether a case against a defendant should proceed without access to a jury trial.
I do not believe this is fundamentally different to other discretions, most illustrative of which is the discretion of which charges should be pursued through the courts. Often police will lay multiple charges. It is then accepted practice for the DPP to decide which of these charges is most appropriate to continue with. In exercising this discretion the DPP may also ultimately be exercising discretion about access to a jury trial and maximum available sentence. This is because differing charges will have different penalties and will need to be pursed through different courts if they sit either side of the relevant threshold.
Seen in this light, I believe the amendments add a degree of formality and legislative backing to the scope of current accepted DPP practice. It is worthwhile noting at this point that there are two existing published guidelines from the DPP that cover the various discretion afforded to them (Prosecution Policy and the Guidelines for Prosecutors).
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video