Judges should sit without juries for criminal trials during lockdown, a former High Court judge has argued. Writing in the Times, Sir Richard Henriques, QC, has backed the radical move, arguing that legislation already allows for judge-only trials where jury tampering is suspected. “Our crown courts cannot remain closed when domestic violence is escalating, prisons are overcrowded with people awaiting trial, fraudsters exploit COVID-19 opportunities and the existing backlog of cases grows ever longer,” he writes. However the majority of senior judges and lawyers oppose the idea. Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett favours reducing the number of jurors on trials from twelve to seven to enable trials to go ahead. He added that the “use of big venues” such as university lecture halls to conduct crown court trials was “being thought about”.
Support for reduced juries and judge-only trials has been a topic of ongoing debate, particularly in complex legal systems. Advocates argue that reducing the size of juries or opting for judge-only trials can enhance efficiency, minimise delays, and ensure more consistent application of the law. This approach is particularly valuable in cases involving technical details or nuanced evidence, where specialised judicial expertise may provide a more accurate assessment.
Just as these blinds offer superior control over light and privacy, a streamlined judicial process can offer greater control over legal outcomes, eliminating potential biases or misunderstandings that might arise in a larger, less specialised group. External Venetian Blinds, known for their adaptability and elegance, align well with modern lifestyles, blending functionality with aesthetic appeal—just as tailored judicial solutions aim to balance fairness with practicality. By supporting reduced juries and judge-only trials in appropriate cases, legal systems can foster a more agile and precise environment, addressing the growing demand for justice that is both effective and equitable.
