A-Z of Legislation: Criminal Justice Act 2003
Aim"To make provision about criminal justice (including the powers and duties of the police) and about dealing with offenders; to amend the law relating to jury service…to make provision about civil proceedings brought by offenders."
Main provisions
Scraps the "double jeopardy" rule that prevents defendants being tried twice for the same crime for 29 serious offences, including murder.
Obliges judges to hand down life sentences in a number of scenarios including those that involve abduction or sexual misconduct and a murder following a previous conviction for murder.
Obliges judges to hand down a 30-year minimum sentence in a series of other scenarios including murders involving the use of firearms or explosives.
Obliges judges to hand down a minimum 15-year sentence for all murders that do not fit into one of the above categories.
Re-classifies cannabis from a Class B drug to a Class C substance.
Expands the range of aggravating factors in "hate crimes" to include sexual orientation and disability.
Expands eligibility for jury service to occupations that were previously ineligible, such as solicitors and police officers.
Broadens the circumstances in which juries can hear evidence of a defendant's previous convictions or bad character.
Restricts the ability of defence lawyers to cross-examine prosecution witnesses about their own criminal records.
Permits greater use of hearsay evidence.
Allows the prosecution to apply for a trial to take place without a jury where there is evidence that jury tampering would take place.
Allows the prosecution to apply for complex fraud trials to be conducted without a jury.
Increases magistrates' sentencing powers to 12 months.
Increases the limit of pre-charge detention to 14 days for those suspected of terrorism offences.
Background
Tony Blair dubbed this act a "victim's justice bill", an effort to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim.
This bill marked the government's second attempt to change jury trial rules. The first ended in failure on 28 September 2000 when the Lords threw out the criminal justice (mode of trial) bill, which would have removed the right of some defendants to opt for jury trial in a crown court.
In addition to allowing the removal of a jury if the prosecution believed there was a serious risk of jury tampering, David Blunkett's draft bill included proposals to allow judges to hear complex fraud trials alone and plans to give defendants the option of electing for a judge-only trial.
This last measure was abandoned by the home secretary after it came under attack by Labour backbenchers. Vera Baird QC, the Labour MP for Redcar, said the choice would lead to forum shopping of "the worst imaginable kind", with defendants making choices about waiving their right to a jury trial on the basis of whether the judge had a reputation for being soft.
In order to save the bill from defeat in the House of Lords, Blunkett offered a series of concessions, including limiting the kinds of fraud trials that would be affected by the legislation. To get the bill passed before the end of the parliamentary session, he was forced to pledge not to implement jury-less fraud trials without a parliamentary order approving their introduction.
Criticism
The act's mandatory sentencing guidelines were criticised as a politicisation of sentencing and an unnecessary limitation on the judiciary's ability to exercise discretion in sentencing. Ken MacDonald, the director of public prosecutions, criticised as "grotesque" the effect of the act's intention to introduce longer minimum jail sentences. McDonald suggested the act would have an "extraordinary effect on the numbers in jail". Lord Woolf, Britain's chief justice described mandatory sentencing a "politician's knee-jerk reaction to a particularly serious incident".
Liberty criticised the abolishment of the bar on double jeopardy. It described the proposal as making every acquittal for a serious offence conditional and argued that "whatever safeguards the government proposes to limit media coverage, it is difficult to see how a well-known defendant would be able to receive a fair trial".
Proposals to limit jury trials succeeded in uniting opposition from the judiciary, legal profession and civil rights groups. MPs argued that the act restricted a fundamental right to jury trial by one's peers.
The shadow home secretary, Oliver Letwin, said: "Trial by jury involves the participation of the ordinary citizen in the business of law, so preventing the court from becoming a matter of the state and opposing the citizen. That is critical to the deepest foundations of our liberal democracy.
"We believe that, by encroaching on the right to trial by jury in the areas set out in the criminal justice bill, the government may be setting a precedent which could erode the scope for trial by jury in other areas.
"We are on a very slippery and dangerous slope."