The claim by Dorothy Bain, Scotland’s top prosecutor, that jury-less trials “don’t impact on the right to a fair trial” is the perfect demonstration of the authoritarian shift taking place in Scotland, from the rule of law, to the rule by law.
Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain QC has been promoting the idea that rape trials could be carried out without a jury because jurors cannot be trusted to have the correct attitudes.
She backs up her claim by citing research by Glasgow University’s Fiona Leverick who thinks that juries believe in rape myths, while ignoring the work of Cheryl Thomas who argues that it is the idea that juries are profoundly prejudiced that is the real myth.
Bain elaborates by explaining that, “I do think sexual crime requires a different and distinct approach and it needs to be trauma informed”. This “emotionally correct” response of being “trauma informed” is clearly one she does not believe fits with the way the public adjudicate on rape cases.
She further explains that she wants a “balanced debate” on the subject that is “informed by the legal profession [and] by academics’ work, and needs the input of victims too”.
Unsurprisingly in this “balanced debate”, there is no mention or thought given to the idea that to have a balanced discussion you might want to consult the public, rather than rely on the “victim’s voice” and the outlook of the professional classes. But then, why would you include the outlook of the deplorable masses when this is precisely what you are trying to get away from?
Defending the enlightened principle of jury trials – of being judged by your peers rather than a lone member of the elites – president of the Scottish Criminal Bar Association, Tony Lenehan, argues that rape trials are “ill-suited to judgment by a single mind drawn from an entirely middle aged, affluent, university-educated pool of people”.
Individuals like Lenehan recognise that jury trials are not just about the law but about democracy itself. Indeed, in the United States, so serious was this right taken by the founding fathers that it was enshrined in the Bill of Rights as a vital mechanism to prevent tyranny. In Scotland, thankfully we find defence advocates, like Thomas Ross QC, arguing that jury-less trials would be an “authoritarian nightmare” for the justice system.
I am assuming that the threat posed to democratic and legal principles by overturning jury trials will fail. Perhaps helped by the push in England by Dominic Raab to enshrine jury trials in a new Bill of Rights. But anything is possible in Scotland where the rule by law is becoming a growing threat to law itself and indeed to society.
The rule of law as opposed to the rule by law is based on the principle that law and justice should relate to the common outlook in society. The American liberal Francis Fukuyama describes the rule of law as “a set of rules of behaviour, reflecting a broad consensus within society”.
In the UK, this idea of a common set of laws was established most significantly from the 1930s, precisely at the time when mass democratic accountability was becoming a lived reality for the first time. In principle, no longer would law simply reflect the interests and outlook of the elites. Rather, through the idea of the “reasonable man”, reasonableness in law would be rooted in cultural, social and political norms.
Today, as with the elitism of law in the 19th century, we find ourselves in a situation where the new elites have developed a “progressive” sense of virtue that separates them from the perceived deplorable masses and their cultural, social and political norms. Consequently, the very idea of allowing ordinary people to judge on matters in court becomes more and more unpalatable. As a result, basic and profound liberal principles of law, and indeed democracy, are under serious threat.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel