Abstract
The Coronavirus pandemic acted as a catalyst for the use of live link in criminal proceedings. Temporary measures were adopted which empowered judges to order that almost any participant attend court remotely, via live link. However, these temporary measures, quite properly, did not include members of the jury. Some four months following the removal of Coronavirus restrictions in England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 went beyond rendering these temporary measures permanent.
Indeed, the current iteration of s.51 Criminal justice Act 2003 clothes trial judges with the power to provide a direction which permits a jury to attend a trial remotely, provided all jurors are located in the same physical space. This notion of ‘trial by remote jury' gives rise to significant concerns and presents an increased risk of miscarriages of justice and, following the removal of Coronavirus restrictions, constitutes an unnecessary addition to the statute books.
Indeed, the current iteration of s.51 Criminal justice Act 2003 clothes trial judges with the power to provide a direction which permits a jury to attend a trial remotely, provided all jurors are located in the same physical space. This notion of ‘trial by remote jury' gives rise to significant concerns and presents an increased risk of miscarriages of justice and, following the removal of Coronavirus restrictions, constitutes an unnecessary addition to the statute books.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Contemporary Challenges in the Jury System: A Comparative Perspective |
| Publisher | Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group |
| Chapter | 5 |
| Number of pages | 28 |
| ISBN (Print) | 9781032506531 |
| Publication status | Accepted/In press - 12 Mar 2024 |
