The Law Society said setting up the new type of court “would take considerable time and resource, including legislative time”, and predicted that would be “very costly and disruptive to the system and those who work in it, who would be diverted from their current jobs in the administration of justice to devise the new structure”.
The body also questioned if the resources exist to find extra judges and magistrates to sit in Intermediate Courts, while pointing out that jury trials currently overlap when one goes into deliberations, saving court time, and this could not happen if a judge is doing the deliberating.
Sir Brian has been given broad terms of reference for his review, to look at the possibility of re-classifying crimes so more can be dealt with in the magistrates court, possible increases to magistrate sentencing powers, structural changes to the courts, and “the introduction of an Intermediate Court”.
“In a justice system where jury trial is considered the gold standard and is used for the most serious cases, any removal of that right to jury trial must be explicitly and honestly justified.
Lawyers say axing jury trials for some crimes is “is not the right answer” as the government hunts for solutions to spiraling court backlogs and a justice system mired in crisis.
