Leading Scots lawyers: England is wrecking justice by ruling to scrap trial by jury

Four men accused of a multi-million-pound armed robbery at Heathrow Airport will now have their fate decided by a lone judge after the Court of Appeal ruled that the risk of jury tampering through bribery or intimidation was too great for the trial to go ahead as normal.

After the collapse of three previous trials, Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, announced on Thursday that "the danger of jury tampering and the subversion of the process of trial by jury is very significant".

The decision marks the first time ever that a crown court case in England or Wales will be heard by a judge alone, using powers granted by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Donald Findlay, one of the most respected legal minds in Scotland, told the Sunday Herald that he was "very uncomfortable" with the idea.

Asked whether similar legislation could be brought into Scotland, he said: "I really do hope not. My view is that the jury is the last real example of democracy at work. I take the view that political democracy disappeared a long time ago.

"A jury is chosen at random, with no qualifications. It brings together collective experience, and that to me is what democracy is all about. It's at the heart of our legal system."

Findlay continued: "We administer justice for the people and it's the people's justice, so the people should feel involved and be part of it. It should not simply be something that is going on round about them.

"The risk is that justice is handed over in its entirety to a very small group of men and women who don't necessarily qualify to bring to the task the same range of experience that a larger body of members of the public have."

Another of the country's foremost legal figures, Paul McBride QC, joined his colleague in criticising the English development.

Though he said he would support the idea of judge-only hearings in certain cases, such as those deemed likely to drag on for several months, McBride did not agree that tampering was a significant fear to justify trial without jury.

He said: "We've had gangland cases in Scotland where appropriate security arrangements are put in place to prevent the jury from being bribed or intimidated. It's easily done - it's not rocket science."

The idea of dispensing with a jury because of intimidation "wouldn't wash in a Scottish court", he added, even if the relevant legislation were in place.

Civil liberty campaigners were also outraged by the court's decision this week. Isabella Sankey, director of policy at Liberty, said the trial set "a dangerous precedent".

"The right to jury trial isn't just a hallowed principle but a practice that ensures that one class of people don't sit in judgement over another and the public have confidence in an open and representative justice system," she said.

"What signal do we send to witnesses if the police can't even protect juries?"

Amidst the criticism, a Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said: "This case shows that defendants who abuse their right to jury trial by embarking on jury tampering will not succeed in defeating justice."

The situation in Scotland is markedly different from that in England, in part because the Magna Carta of 1215 - which guarantees the right to trial by jury - does not apply north of the border.

But others in the Scottish legal establishment voiced their support for the juryless trial, which they pointed out was going ahead under exceptional circumstances.

Peter Duff, professor of criminal justice at Aberdeen University, said: "I might be worried if it was a regular occurrence, but as a one-off it doesn't seem like a problem, because there was a worry the jury might be prejudiced."

Lord Judge said the trial of John Twomey, 61, Barry Hibberd, 41, Peter Blake, 56, and Glen Cameron, 49, who are all accused of the robbery at Heathrow in 2004, would "take place without a jury in due course".