On the 11th day of May 2023, “The Conversation” published an article about the Scottish Government’s proposal to conduct a pilot to test out running rape trials without a jury, and the decision-making power being left with the judge. This is called a “judge-only” trial in Queensland, and these will occur when on application the Court determines it is “in the interests of justice” for there to be such.
The article states that “only 51% of trials lead to conviction, which is simply not acceptable in a modern justice system. Reform is clearly needed to increase convictions.”
This statement completely opposes one of the fundamental principles of law, that a person is presumed innocent, and the burden of proof is on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt a person’s guilt.
The justice system, and more specifically the trial system, is not, and cannot, be designed with a fundamental purpose of finding a person guilty.
A trial is essentially a truth finding mission where half of the parties say something occurred, and the other half say it didn’t. A trial allows both parties to present and dispute evidence in an attempt to convince the decision maker, whether it be a judge or a jury, of their “view”.
What the statistic and subsequently the article fails to recognise is that a criminal matter doesn’t necessarily always proceed to trial, and in fact a great majority proceeds directly to sentence with the offender entering a plea of guilty.
When a matter is listed for trial, it means that despite a complaint being made by a person, the accused has entered a plea of not guilty and they are afforded the chance to fight the allegations. This must be a fair process, and not one which focusses or aims at finding them guilty.
A jury is a fundamental part of this process. Often calling upon their real-world experience, they are independent persons who make decisions based solely off the evidence they are presented with, and their individual judgement of that evidence.
In more sensitive matters, it is often argued that a judge is best tasked with the role of the decision maker as they are less likely to be biased or impacted by the nature of the offence or allegations and can focus on the actual state of the evidence.
Creating a system with a view of securing more guilty verdicts, rather than focussing on achieving just and fair outcomes for all persons, is not within the interests of justice or the public.
Read the Article published by The Conversation 🡲