Hansard

I will try to be as speedy as I can be, to allow everyone to speak.

At the Justice Committee meeting, one witness—Iain McKie—made the good point that

“we cannot put the genie back in the bottle”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 October 2012; c 1775.]

He could very well be right. Of course, we cannot stop—and, perhaps importantly, some people would not want to stop—the growth of certain media and people’s access to it.

It is important to debate the role of the media in the justice system in order to listen to both sides of the argument, and I hope that we can move towards a consensus on the best way forward. Some argue that we need to look more closely at the juror system and even suggest that we should explore the possibility of having professional jurors. I take on board the minister’s comments on jurors, but I would like to touch on that aspect. The idea of professional jurors involves jurors being trained to understand the complexities of some cases and have expert knowledge, or being given a better understanding of the media and social media in particular.

A recent—unintended—case of expert jurors in America springs to mind. In a patent dispute between two very well-known companies over the use of software, one juror was revealed to have expert knowledge of software. In his words, he was quickly able to see that copyright had been infringed. In an interview after the trial, he said that he was able to inform the other jurors of his knowledge, and the reasons for his decisions helped the jury to reach a verdict much more quickly than it might have done without him.

In that case, having a juror with expert knowledge of a complex issue seems to have helped in reaching a verdict, but I am still to be convinced that moving towards a system in which all jurors are professionally appointed is the way to go. The professionalisation of the jury service could raise a number of questions about its impartiality, which is of serious concern, although I take on board what the minister said.

We all know that our jury system is intended to represent a broad section of society and to involve people of many differing backgrounds, professions and opinions, who can reach some form of consensus. However, I admit that, given the complexity of some criminal trials, many jurors may feel somewhat overwhelmed—other members have mentioned that. In such cases, it would be a good idea to explore the possibility of offering impartial expert advice on the issue and on points of law that are being discussed.

On broadcasting criminal trials, I have sympathy with the idea of having wider access, transparency and therefore oversight of trials in general, but it is important for any move towards more coverage to ensure that the principle of protection for the victims and the accused is paramount. Many witnesses expressed concern to the Justice Committee about the need to protect victims and witnesses from any undue stress as a result of the media’s role. Going to court can be a difficult experience for many, as they have to relive the crime that was perpetrated against them and face the accused. That can be traumatic, as Lewis Macdonald said.

As was mentioned in the committee’s evidence session, it is true that many witnesses come forward reluctantly. However, if they did not come forward in the first place, we might not get a conviction for many crimes, especially those of a violent or sexual nature. That issue is of paramount importance in informing any proposals.

Conversely, it is also important to protect those who are accused. Many people have mentioned Aamer Anwar. In his evidence, he noted that it is important to protect the rights of the accused who are subsequently acquitted. I agree that that is important. We have all read about cases—some have been mentioned—in which the police have released the name and details of their suspect, only for that to be the wrong person. In the time that it has taken for the mistake to be corrected, the media have seized on that information and, in the process of reporting, put the suspect and their family under considerable stress.

That can also be the case with trials, which are highly publicised. Even if the accused is acquitted, they may find themselves having to live with the public perception that they are somehow guilty by association for many years to come.

If reform is needed—and I say “if”—it must be done as carefully as possible to ensure that people have the right to a fair trial by their peers and that those who are involved in the criminal trial are protected at all times.

The genie cannot be put back in the bottle, but—as in many stories involving genies—we must be very careful about how we deal with the issue once the genie is out of the bottle.

16:00