Chief Justice Bryan Sykes has again brought to the fore the perennial debate on bench vs jury trials.

People who have been following this issue know that Justice Sykes has consistently advocated judge-alone trials, not for judicial convenience, but in a bid to reduce case backlog and, just as important, observance of the law that everyone accused of a crime has a constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.

Justice Sykes revived the issue in remarks during the swearing-in ceremony for four judges and two masters-in-chamber at King’s House on Monday.

Pointing to the current backlog of 3,000 cases, of which 1,000 are before the Home Circuit Court in Kingston, Justice Sykes argued that bench trials, and use of the plea bargaining system, would contribute to slashing case backlog.

He referenced the situation in the UK in which the Government tasked Sir Brian Leveson in 2024 to solve the problem of a backlog of 78,000 cases in that jurisdiction as trials were being set for four and five years down the road.

He said that among the more controversial recommendations in the UK was the curtailment of jury trials.

“The home of jury trials is now saying maybe we need to rethink the jury system having regard to the cases that are in backlog and the estimate is that, unless something is done, the backlog will reach 100,000 by 2028 going into 2030,” the chief justice said.

He also pointed to the use in the US of the plea bargaining system, among other things, which, he said, helped that country achieve a significant reduction in case backlog.

“In the federal system, over 97 per cent of cases there are disposed of through the plea bargaining system,” he said.

The plea bargaining arrangement is already in use here under the Criminal Justice (Plea Negotiations and Agreements) Act, so there is no issue with that, save that maybe there can be greater use of it.

That seems to be Chief Justice Sykes’ thinking as he told his audience on Monday: “I am suggesting to the prosecution that, in every single case that they have, they come with a position that they are prepared to present to the defence as to how to dispose of the matter properly and fairly. The current system simply cannot continue.”

As we have argued, Justice Sykes has a credible case in this matter as Jamaica still has a problem getting citizens to sit as jurors. The upshot is public frustration and distrust of the judicial system.

However, we reiterate our position that we should not ditch jury trials, even as we acknowledge that in a number of instances jurors may arrive at verdicts on emotion, rather than the law.

We hold that there are some matters that are extremely technical and ought not to be subjected to raw emotion. In those instances, bench trials should be the preferred, although there could be a compromise, as in matters of cybercrime that would require jurors with knowledge in that area.

However, the problem, as we stated, is convincing citizens to serve as jurors. Some people fear that adjudicating criminal matters can place their lives at risk, others regard serving as a waste of time as there is no great financial benefit. Lots have been done to get Jamaicans to accept that serving is a civic duty designed to hold the State to the principles of the constitution. This is one of those tough problems that will take consistent
effort to resolve.