There was a recent case of a
woman accused of stealing a packet of teabags worth £1.49. She was charged with theft, and duly taken
before her local magistrates’ court. The
magistrates not unreasonably deemed the case suitable for summary trial, but
because theft is a ‘hybrid’ offence, they could only try the case if the
accused consented.
She did not, and the
case was committed to the crown court for trial by judge and jury. She was convicted, fined £50 with
no order for costs, as she was legally aided. The total cost to the taxpayer was estimated in excess of £50,000.
All this nonsense goes back to
the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, which defined the powers of the magistrates to
try offences. At the lowest end of the
scale came minor offences such as driving, minor criminal damage, drunk and
disorderly and the like. At the top end
of the scale came heinous crimes such as murder, rape and robbery.
Wedged in between were offences described as
‘hybrid’ or ‘either way’ offences, where the accused could elect trial by jury,
and theft fell into this category, regardless of the value of the stolen
property. No distinction was made
between a packet of teabags worth £1.49, and a Mercedes car worth £150,000.
Since 1980, efforts have been
made to address this absurdity, in much the same way as criminal damage. Originally, criminal damage was a ‘hybrid’
offence, regardless of the value of the property damaged, but after much navel
gazing, common sense prevailed, and a value of £5000 was introduced as the
benchmark between summary trial and trial by jury.
Not so with theft. The most strident opposition to any change
has come mainly from the professionals, barristers and solicitor advocates, who
argue that the stain on the character of the accused far outweighs the value of
the stolen property, and besides, the Magna Carta guarantees trial by jury, and
what was good enough for the barons in 1215 is good enough for us today, eight
hundred years later.
But this specious argument presupposes
that an accused is less likely to get a fair trial in the magistrates’
court.
In the bad old days, examples
were cited of magistrates convicting the innocent because they had a duty to
support the police, or where there was a reasonable doubt, they didn’t see why
the accused should have the benefit of it.
Even if these comments had any
basis in fact, times have changed. Magistrates undergo much more, and much more rigorous, training. Professional judges, known as District Judges,
are being used more and more, and only the most ignorant and perverse
professionals can argue that the quality of justice is diminished.
Of course, or so the argument
goes, there is a chance that some, many, or all of the jury have in their time
stolen a packet of teabags, and the only difference between them and the
accused is that they were smart enough not to get caught.
Applying this skewed thinking, there is an
outside chance of the jury returning a sympathy not guilty verdict, regardless
of the strength of the evidence against the accused, and as we all know, except
in egregious circumstances, the jury’s verdict cannot be challenged.
Statistics, as ever, are bandied
around in support of a change in the categories of ‘hybrid’ offences, and the
enormous saving of taxpayers’ money if more offences were tried by
magistrates.
Savings in the region of
£130 million have been mentioned, and a good starting point would be to bring
in the £5000 benchmark figure to theft as presently applies to criminal damage.
In passing, it is also worth
remembering that the accused has an automatic right of appeal to the crown
court if he feels he has been unfairly convicted, or that the sentence is
excessive.
The time has long gone for a
serious rethink.
- Article Word Count: 586
- |
- Total Views: 8
- |
- permalink