Jurors: Right of Peremptory Challenge (Hansard, 4 December 1985)

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)
My Lords, we are aware of recent concern and are keeping the matter under review. My right honourable friend the Attorney-General is arranging for a survey on the use of peremptory challenge to be conducted by the new Crown Prosecution Service when it is in place.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, is it not true that the new Crown Prosecution Service will not be in place until October next year? If an inquiry is set up thereafter it cannot report until 1987, and if legislation is necessary as a result that will not come about until 1988. Is it not necessary to do something in the meantime to make sure that juries are more representative of all the people in this country and not of one area and one age group? Perhaps my noble friend could consider reminding prosecutors of their right, which they very seldom use, to exercise the use of the challenge under the procedure "Stand by for the Crown". This, at least in the interim, would make both sides able to challenge the composition of a jury.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will note my noble friend's last suggestion, but he is right when he says that the Crown Prosecution Service will not be in place nationally until October 1986. However, in weighing up a matter such as this we must consider such questions as what would take the place of peremptory challenge if it were abolished or further restricted, and the possibility that, for example, increases in challenge for cause might take up more time of the courts. Therefore, we must examine the survey very carefully. Perhaps I may explain to my noble friend that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will shortly start monitoring the use of jury challenge in those cases for which it is responsible.

§ Lord Denning
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the right of peremptory challenge serves any useful purpose today, and is it not high time that we considered abolishing it altogether?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am sure that that is a matter which can best be taken into account in the light of the survey which I have described.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, has not the challenging of jurors been an important part of the jury system throughout the centuries, and must we not be extremely careful not to interfere with it because the challenge is an important part of the role of the jury in maintaining the rights of the subject? Therefore, although the matter can certainly be looked at, would that overriding consideration not remain? As to peremptory challenge, is it not the case that the Crown makes the call, "Stand by for the Crown"? I have done it more than once myself, and no doubt so has the noble and learned Lord. That practice will continue. Personally, I find myself wholly in disagreement, not for the first time, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning,

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that the Government fully recognise the significance of the jury system and the important role that it plays in this country's tradition of criminal justice. However, as I think the noble and learned Lord knows, there have already been alterations to the number of challenges that can be made.

§ Lord Hooson
My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister not agree that throughout history there has always been a tendency in some quarters to blame juries when there has been a verdict that does not perhaps please the Establishment? As it was the recent spy trial that gave rise to this Question, is it not correct that each juror on that panel was positively vetted? Although I was one of the defending counsel in the case, I took no part in peremptory challenges myself; nor did I attend a meeting where they were discussed. However, were counsel in that trial not exercising a right conferred by Parliament and reaffirmed only five years ago when the whole matter was debated at length?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred to the question of "Stand by for the Crown", which is the other side of the coin. I cannot go into much detail on the question of the trial, which the noble Lord knows was held in camera.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, the Minister referred to the fact that this matter will be surveyed by the Crown Prosecution Service when it is established in 1986. Is the noble Lord aware of the very serious tasks, one of which is the task to which he has referred, which will fall to the lot of that service? Is the noble Lord further aware that that service is most unhappy about the terms and conditions being offered by the Government, which may result in a calibre of service which will be unable to carry out a survey of the kind which he would wish?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord's question goes rather wider than the Question on peremptory challenge, but I note his remarks.

§ Lord Wigoder
My Lords, when the survey is carried out will the Government bear in mind the extreme importance of being even-handed as between the prosecution and the defence? Will they also bear in mind that at the moment the prosecution has, first, the 1304 right to vet in some cases, which the defence do not have; and, secondly, that what is equivalent to the right of peremptory challenge so far as the prosecution is concerned is without any restriction in number, whereas so far as the defence is concerned it is limited to three?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, all these considerations will be taken into account.

§ Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, as the noble Lord has already alluded to this matter, will he also kindly bear in mind that it was only by the Juries Act 1974 that the right of peremptory challenge in respect of seven jurors was reduced to three?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I think I have already referred to that.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, when considering representations from all parts will my noble friend bear in mind that there may be a very long wait until there is a revision of this matter? It seems to many people in this country that it is no good strengthening the forces of law and order and spending vastly greater sums of money on them if in the end no successful prosecutions can be brought.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I assured the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that the whole question of right to trial by jury was an important part of this country's tradition of criminal justice. As regards the general balance of advantage and disadvantage, all these matters wil be taken into account.