June 19, 2009
Times online
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
First criminal trial without a jury for 400 years
Four men accused of being part of a gang that stole £1.75 million in a raid at Heathrow face the first criminal trial without a jury in England and Wales for 400 years after an historic Court of Appeal decision yesterday.
John Twomey, 61, Peter Blake, 56, Barry Hibberd, 41, and Glen Cameron, 49, must be tried by a judge alone after claims of jury nobbling at a previous trial, the court ruled.
The four are alleged to have taken part in a bungled armed robbery of a Menzies World Cargo warehouse in February 2004. They deny a series of charges, including conspiracy to rob and the possession of a firearm.
The robbery has already given rise to three trials at a total cost of £22 million. The third collapsed last year after what the judge called “a serious attempt at jury tampering”.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, with Lord Justice Goldring and Mr Justice McCombe, decided yesterday that the case could be heard by a judge alone. A preliminary hearing for the fourth trial is scheduled to take place at the Old Bailey on July 10.
The ruling means that the new trial, which would normally be tried by a jury, will be the first of its kind in England and Wales under legislation that took effect in 2003 to prevent jury nobbling. The only other judge-only trials for serious cases, known as Diplock trials, have been in Northern Ireland.
Defence lawyers reacted with dismay, saying that they did not know the detail of the allegations and therefore were unable to rebut them. They said that they would seek an explanation from the Attorney-General, Baroness Scotland, QC, as to why safeguards agreed by Parliament to give a defendant the right to challenge a judge-only direction appeared to have been ignored.
The judge-only provisions are contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. But after concerns during the Bill’s passage, including by Vera Baird, QC, now Solicitor-General, MPs agreed that defendants must have an opportunity to make representations.
Lord Judge said: “The case concerns very serious criminal activity, including possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of a firearm with intent to commit robbery and conspiracy to rob.”
During a “carefully planned and professionally executed armed robbery” a gun was fired at a supervisor, he said. “The objective of the robbery was something in the region of £10 million in sterling and mixed foreign currency. As a result of a misreading of a flight manifest, the proceeds amounted to £1.75 million, which are largely unrecovered.”
Lord Judge added: “In this country trial by jury is a hallowed principle of the administration of criminal justice. It is properly identified as a right, available to be exercised by a defendant unless and until the right is amended or circumscribed by express legislation.”
But, he said, the constitutional responsibilities of the jury were flouted if “the integrity of an individual juror, and thus of the jury as a whole, is compromised. Such a compromise occurs when any juror, whether because of intimidation, bribery or any other reasons, dishonours or becomes liable to dishonour his or her oath as a juror by allowing anything to undermine or qualify the juror’s duty to give a true verdict according to the evidence.”
The application for a judge-only trial came after the collapse last year of the case before Judge Roberts, QC, after a trial of more than six months. As the decision over a judge-only trial involved important matters of public policy, he referred it to a senior judge.
In March this year it was considered by Mr Justice Calvert-Smith, who looked at two options with varying levels of juror protection for what would be a six-month trial: the more intensive would have cost about £6 million and required at least 82 police officers to be removed from their normal duties. The second would have cost £1.5 million and have required at least 32 police officers.
Mr Justice Calvert-Smith held that there was evidence of a “real and present danger” that jury tampering would take place at the trial and that the risk would remain throughout the trial. But he concluded that a “package” of measures to provide jury protection would be sufficient to reduce to the risk to an acceptable level.
Yesterday the appeal judges disagreed. Even if steps were taken to protect the jury, the likelihood that tampering would take place was “so substantial” as to make it necessary for a trial without a jury in the interests of justice.
Fragile justice
— George Francis went on trial in 1983 after alleged involvement with armed robbers who had moved into drug trafficking. Underworld sources said that he offered £100,000 to nobble the jurors. A first jury failed to reach a verdict and a second acquitted him amid rumours that the North London Adams family had taken up his offer.
— A string of trials in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and 1970s led to “perverse acquittals” in terrorist cases because of partisan jurors or jury intimidation. Loyalists used to bang Lambeg drums outside courtrooms to remind the jury to make the “right” choice. From 1973, Diplock courts sat with judges but no juries.
— A prosecution barrister, Brian O’Neill, was struck in the face with a brick during a drug trial in 2002. The trial was adjourned for a week and eventually halted when it was suspected that a juror had also been intimidated. A retrial was held at the Old Bailey with police protection for the jury and counsel.
— Jury nobbling used to be known as “embracery”. A spate of incidents in the 1960s, including seven in 1966 alone, led to the introduction of the majority verdict with the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
— John Goodwin was found guilty in 1983 of approaching at least four and up to eight jurors in his trial on £1.25 million burglary charges. Goodwin and eight others were implicated in the plot to offer jurors £1,000 to acquit him and his co-defendant.
No comments:
Post a Comment