Coronavirus has stopped trials by jury, and that's not necessarily a bad thing | Geoffrey Robertson

In some cases justice would be better served, and defendants would be better off, if they could choose trial by judge alone

Non-jury trials could help clear coronavirus backlog, says QCCoronavirus – latest updatesSee all our coronavirus coverage

Jury trials for serious crimes have come to a halt. Twelve good men and women and true cannot be permitted to sit cheek by jowl in jury boxes, or expectorate in each other’s presence in cramped jury rooms, while Covid-19 remains a threat – as it will for months or even years until the longed-for vaccine.

We believe sentimentally that trial by jury is a defendant’s fundamental right – but why not give them the additional right to choose instead a reasoned verdict from a judge, as they have, for example, in most Australian states? That would get courts back up and running, even if barristers and judges have to argue through their face masks, and it would be a boon to defendants with good cases who do not want justice delayed.

Related: UK courts told not to 'overreact' during coronavirus crisis

Continue reading...