Trial by judge...for the rich

“The judge alone trial is attractive to people with money,” he said adding, “All should be equal when we appear before the courts.” Contributing to debate on The Miscellaneous (Trial by Judge Alone) Bill in the Senate yesterday, Mahabir supported the suggestion by some of his colleagues that due to corruption, judges (like elected public officers) should reveal their assets because of the possibility of the trial by judge alone has the possibility of corrupting the Judiciary.

He expressed concern too that many individuals threaten judges who work with a jury. Without a jury, he said, there is the potential for heightened threats to judges.

His colleague Senator David Small said that he supported the bill because it forms a part of a package of bills to improve the current criminal justice system. Small said it provides an opportunity for an option in a system where the backlog of cases dates back to 15 years.

“While it may not fix the backlog in the system,” he said, “We have to start to plan for the future.” He said that the trial by judge alone should be done on legal advice and in a pressure-free manner.

One of the benefits of trial by judge alone, he said, is that the judge on delivering a verdict has to give reasons for decision while a jury does not. “Judges are accountable.

Juries are not,” he said. This is in keeping with his calrion call, he said, for transparency. Another benefit, Small said is that a jury is made up of people with little or no legal background while judges have legal training.

Judges were less likely to be swayed by emotional histrionics and skillful advocacy meant for jurors, he said.

Having served as a juror himself, he said that jury duties could be frustrating especially when trial takes longer and was an expensive process. (See Page 10A)