Background: While many of the proposed legal reforms are technical, others should stimulate public debate, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent
For most people, the workings of the criminal court system only impinge on their consciousness when a particularly heinous crime is committed, or when they, or someone they know, is charged with a minor offence. Much of the business of the criminal courts goes unnoticed.
The vast majority of criminal cases - 95 per cent - are dealt with in the District Court, which deals with about 450,000 cases annually.
These range from traffic offences to minor assaults and robberies. About 10 per cent of these could be tried on indictment, that is, before a judge and jury in the Circuit Court, and in the majority of these cases the accused can make this choice.
In fact, less than 2 per cent do so. This probably relates to the fact that an accused person knows that the maximum sentence which can be imposed by the District Court is 12 months, while they would be exposed to a higher sentence in the Circuit Court. The District Court imposes custodial sentences in only 2 per cent of cases.
Most serious crime is dealt with in the Circuit Court, which hears about 2,500 cases annually. About 85 to 90 per cent of defendants plead guilty. Of those who contest the charge, about 40 per cent are found guilty by a judge and jury.
Rape and murder cases must be tried in the Central Criminal Court, the criminal division of the High Court, and these, naturally, command a high profile.
Here the level of guilty pleas is lower than in the Circuit Court, with 25 per cent of murder defendants and 50 per cent of rape defendants pleading guilty, the remainder going to full trial, where the majority are convicted. Because of the increase in the volume of rape and murder offences in recent years, delays have built up and can only be reduced by the temporary allocation of more High Court judges to the Central Criminal Court.
These statistics were to the fore in the collective mind of the Working Group on the Criminal Jurisdiction of the Courts when it prepared its report, the first analysis of the system in 80 years. However, its terms of reference included recommending any changes which would lead to "the fairer, more expeditious and more economic administration of justice", and to carry out such research, both locally and internationally, as would assist in this.
The report identified blockages and anomalies in the existing system and made recommendations to assist in overcoming these. The one which, if implemented, will have the most impact is that recommending that rape and murder trials can be tried in the Circuit Court. This would relieve the pressure on the Central Criminal Court and reduce delays.
However, those campaigning on behalf of rape victims will be concerned that their right to confidentiality may be compromised if trials take place in the Circuit Court, although this consideration will have to be taken into account in any referral. The proposal that the decision on which court should try a case is itself decided by the Circuit Court may prove controversial for those involved in the process.
Legal practitioners will also look with interest at the proposal for a pilot scheme for pre-trial hearings to sort out legally-contentious issues. At the moment, such issues, such as the admissability of evidence or the extent of discovery to the defence, are debated by lawyers in the absence of the jury, often prolonging cases. For members of the public, this is mainly of interest in that it will make jury duty less onerous.
The Working Group devoted considerable attention to the fact that in recent years many new offences of a minor nature did not give the accused person the right to opt for a jury trial. Its majority recommended that this right be the norm, even though, in practice, only 2 per cent exercise this right where it currently exists.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued trenchantly against this recommendation, suggesting that jury trial is not appropriate for many offences of a regulatory nature. However, the Working Group argued that there is no clear logic for the present division of offences into those that offer this option and those that do not.
Many of the proposals are of a technical nature, of interest mainly to professionals. But for the public, concerned that crime is dealt with speedily and fairly, the report provided an invaluable source of information and analysis for future public debate.