Prime Minister Dean Barrow today penned into force historic but controversial new provisions of the Indictable Procedure (Amendment) Act and the Juries (Amendment) Act, passed by Parliament in late June, putting an end to the century-old institution of jury trials.
As of today, Monday, August 1, 2011, all new cases of murder-related trials that are to be lodged in court MUST happen without a jury. It means that it will be entirely in the power of the presiding judge to make a pronouncement on the guilt or innocence of the accused person.
When we raised the issue of trial without jury with Prime Minister Barrow just over a week ago, he had told our newspaper that, “Trial by judge alone will prove to be a boon in terms of securing convictions…”
As Amandala revealed last year, murder convictions have been as dismal as 5% to 7% annually.
One reason Barrow has cited for eliminating jury trials for murder cases is the threat posed to jurors. We told the Prime Minister that some people have said judges can also be, and some of them have actually been, threatened.
To this, he responded that whereas police can provide full-time security for judges, they cannot provide this service for the 12 jurors who would sit on those cases.
Over the past few months, the proposals to eliminate jury trials in Belize have attracted public opposition in some legal quarters, and there continue to be concerns over what positive effect, if any, such a move would have on the administration of justice in Belize.
“This trial by jury is over 100 years old [in Belize],” Fred Lumor, SC, told Amandala in an interview today, Monday, adding that taking trial by jury away is “weakening the system.”
He noted that since jury trials predate the Constitution, “…it has become so fundamental that some of us even see it as a constitutional right” to appear before a jury of peers.
He said that the Barrow administration should take a second look and repeal the relevant laws enabling trial without jury, pending a comprehensive review by a constitutional reform committee, which, he said, should be installed to review the full gamut of constitutional amendments of public concern.
In addition to being spelt out in the Juries (Amendment) Act, a trial without jury provision also was included in the recently recalled Belize Constitution (8th Amendment) Bill. It was part of a suite of measures Barrow had introduced, along with preventative detention and anonymous witnesses, in response to skyrocketing rates of murder, particularly in Belize City.
“I want somebody to tell me the justification for saying the abolition [of the jury trial] is going to solve the crime problem [in Belize],” said Lumor, adding that he has heard no complaints from jurors claiming they are unable to serve because of being intimidated. “I have only heard about witnesses,” he said.
Lumor questioned: “Which is easier to intimidate [jury or judge]? I insist that this is one issue on which we should go to referendum.”
The Barrow administration takes the view, as stated in today’s press release, that, “The jury system is now diminishing in importance worldwide, and there is a growing list of countries which have either abolished jury trials in criminal cases or have given a discretion to the trial judge to order a non-jury trial on the application of the prosecution or the defense.”
Government has detailed how the trial without jury provisions could be applied: “Under these laws, every person who is committed for trial for the offence of murder, attempt to murder, abetment of murder or conspiracy to commit murder, shall be tried before a judge of the Supreme Court sitting alone, without a jury. A non-jury trial in such cases is mandatory,” said an official press release from the Government today.
It added that in certain other cases, where the prosecution makes a special request to the judge for trial without jury, “on certain specified grounds,” a non-trial jury may also be done.
Instances in which the prosecution can ask for no jury “…include cases where there is a danger of jury tampering or the intimidation of jurors or witnesses, or the complexity or length of the trial is likely to make the trial so burdensome to the jury that the interests of justice require that the trial should be conducted without a jury,” the release expounds.
It also notes that a person accused of a crime can also ask the presiding judge to have the trial without a jury, “on the ground that, in view of the pre-trial publicity attracted by the case, he is unlikely to have a fair trial with a jury.”
When Amandala contacted DPP Cheryl-Lynn Vidal, seeking her comments on this new provision, she told us: “I think that it is apparent to all that the main factor affecting the conviction rate at this time is not perverse verdicts, but the inability of the prosecution, in most murder and attempted murder cases, to secure the testimony of witnesses to enable a case to be put before the jury.
“In recent weeks, several cases have collapsed when witnesses were put on the stand and they simply refused to assist the prosecution.
“Last Thursday, one of these persons, who had actually testified in a previous trial and had indicated his willingness to testify in the retrial, when called to the stand, gave a completely different version of events, which did not allow the prosecution to proceed with the case.”
Vidal said that person “…will be charged for perjury shortly; but this will not, of course, compensate for the fact that justice, in that case, may have been denied.”
On the question of intimidation of jurors, she said, “We have been informed in certain cases that there were attempts to intimidate or even bribe jurors, and it has always been a matter of concern for us, but we were never in a position to take action. This has been mostly in gang-related cases.”
She expressed the view that, “I do not see that there is a necessary correlation between non-jury trials and the conviction rate, since the problems which the prosecution is facing in putting up a case are not addressed by a change in the fact-finding tribunal.”
The Barrow administration said, via the press release, that as many as 22 Commonwealth countries have done away with jury trials: “In a few other countries, including the United Kingdom, an application can be made to the trial judge to order a trial without a jury on certain grounds,” the release added. “In fact, the first juryless trial was held in the United Kingdom in March 2010, on the ground that there was a danger of jury tampering,” it added.
That case to which the Government release was referring is dubbed The Heathrow Case, in which four men were tried for a multi-million dollar armed robbery at the Heathrow Airport, in the first non-jury trial in England and Wales in more than 350 years, allegedly for fear of jury tampering.
According to BBC News, “The trial [was] the first Crown court case in England and Wales to be heard by a judge alone, using powers under Sections 44 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that came into force in July 2007.” The case ended in a conviction in 2010.
National Assembly Clerk Eddie Webster told our newspaper that the Heathrow case was discussed during the House Committee meeting to look at the Belize Constitution (8th Amendment) Bill, which also had a provision to give constitutional backing to the law enabling trial without jury, but which has been recalled by the Barrow administration.
The view was taken that since the Constitution is silent on jury trials, new provisions in the Constitution are not needed.
Amandala understands that the Bar Association of Belize has submitted a 25-page position paper, detailing its concerns to Parliament on the 8th amendment, which Government retracted last week and which also contained provisions for trial without jury.
Lumor had told us previously that in certain parts of Africa, jury trials no longer exist, but he explained today the main impetus came due to ethnic tensions that were a concern when persons of different ethnic backgrounds were put to decide the fate of accused persons from other ethnic groups.
Lumor also told Amandala that one of the problems that are the cause of many of the lower court judgments from Belize being overturned by the Court of Appeal is that in 70% to 80% of the cases, the trial judge did not direct the jury properly on the law.
“Taking the jury away does not solve the problem,” the senior counsel said, emphasizing the need for wider judicial reform, as well as continued bolstering of both the persons serving on the bench and the prosecutors who appear before them.
Lumor said that the major concerns are witness intimidation, improper policing, inadequate preparation of prosecutors, lack of thorough evidence—and especially the lack of modern forensic evidence—as well as the misdirection of the jury during criminal trials.
“The way these fundamental changes and constitutional changes are being made,” Lumor recommended, “it is high time for Government to appoint a constitutional reform commission and refer all these things [to them], so that it can be reviewed with public participation, with full discussion and deliberation; and if necessary, some of the ones already passed can be repealed.”