Victims’ advocate emphasizes the importance of hearing victims’ perspectives amid the heated discussions between legal professionals and policymakers regarding the potential reduction of jury trials. Claire Waxman, the newly appointed Victims’ Commissioner, has highlighted the necessity of challenging longstanding legal norms to address the current logjam in the court system.
Amid criticism faced by the Government over its proposal to decrease jury trials to alleviate the backlog in courts, Waxman, a former stalking victim, emphasized the urgent need for significant reforms to prevent victims from being failed by the justice system.
In an article for The Mirror, Waxman acknowledged the contentious nature of the government’s proposals, including the consideration of judge-only trials to expedite proceedings. She stressed the importance of acknowledging that the current court system’s inefficiencies are detrimental to victims, citing instances where survivors of crimes like rape endure prolonged waits for justice, rendering the system ineffective.
Waxman expressed concern that maintaining the status quo is unsustainable and could lead to victims disengaging from the legal process, allowing offenders to evade accountability. She urged for decisive action to address the crisis and ensure that victims’ voices are not overshadowed in discussions on legal traditions and procedural changes.
The proposed reforms, influenced by a comprehensive review led by retired judge Sir Brian Leveson, advocate for a new court division model involving a judge and two magistrates, with an additional consideration for judge-only trials. The proposal has sparked debate within political circles, with Labour facing internal dissent over the suggested changes.
Government officials defend the necessity of reducing jury trials to tackle the mounting backlog in courts, which has left victims waiting years for resolution. Justice Minister Sarah Sackman emphasized the need for bold reforms to address the prolonged duration of jury trials, stressing that mere financial investment is insufficient to resolve the systemic issues.
Critics of the proposed changes, such as Riel Karmy-Jones KC from the Criminal Bar Association, argue that the existing jury system is effective and ingrained in the justice system’s foundation. Concerns have been raised that altering this system could erode public trust in the legal process.
The ongoing debate underscores the complexities surrounding the potential reforms and the need to balance efficiency in court proceedings with safeguarding victims’ rights and maintaining public trust in the justice system.