Why plan for judge-only trials in fraud cases is wrong | Letters

Letters: Nic Madge and David Lindsay respond to the government’s proposals to reform the criminal justice system

The government is right to abandon David Lammy’s main proposal to replace some jury trials with judges sitting alone (Ministers drop plans to cut jury trials in England and Wales after outcry, 4 October). There are other ways to reduce the appalling backlog of criminal cases and to protect victims. However, the government is wrong to proceed with its plan for judge-only trials in some fraud cases. As a circuit judge, I presided over fraud trials with juries, including a Ponzi fraud worth £48m and a Russian identity fraud with more than 40,000 documents. The juries were totally on top of both trials and delivered sensible, rational verdicts – in both cases guilty on some charges and not guilty on others. My experience is that the key issue in fraud cases is frequently whether the defendant acted dishonestly. That is not a technical question. It is something that juries are much better able to decide than judges.
Nic Madge
St Albans

• Although the government has shelved its plan to abolish most jury trials, it still intends to double the sentencing power of magistrates to two years, to introduce judge-only trials in “lengthy and technical” fraud cases, and to abolish the right to elect trial by jury in “either way” cases, thereby greatly restricting access to legal aid. It is not clear whether or not the government still intended to abolish the automatic right of appeal to the crown court from the magistrates court. Every one of those measures must be resisted without compromise.
David Lindsay
Lanchester, County Durham