OF CABBAGES AND KINGS | No More Trials By Jury For ‘Lesser’ Crimes In UK: Will ‘Justice’ Be Served? | Farrukh Dhondy

“Tears are the currency of grief

So much lost --

Love’s a thief!

Laughter is the prime portrait of joy

Of all painters

Which did you employ?”

From Delhi Berated, by Bachchoo

Justice delayed is justice denied -- is the old and possibly true maxim. Apart from summary executions, the wheels of the law grind slowly. In Britain, 80,000 cases await a hearing in a court. The Labour government says that it will tackle this by abolishing jury trials for all crimes which carry a maximum sentence of three years or below. Serious crimes such as murder, rape or robbery will still be tried by a judge and jury.

It is a radical suggestion, and though some will welcome it as possibly speeding up the functions of the courts and consequently reducing the backlog on a permanent basis, it has generated a vociferous backlash. One argument against it is that lone judges with their personal views and prejudices, as opposed to 12 random members of the public, each with their views and possible prejudices, are less trustworthy when it comes to meting out justice.

Other dissenters quote the Magna Carta and reference the unwritten British Constitution, using arguments about well-worn practice and tradition.

The move is reminiscent of the Nanavati trial in my adolescence in India. It was instrumental in abolishing jury trials in India. The trial was of Kawas Nanavati, a Parsi naval officer accused of the murder of a Mr Ahuja, a Bombay neighbour who had had an adulterous relationship with the naval officer’s British wife while he was off on military exercises at sea.

Nanavati had taken a gun out of the naval armoury in Bombay and accosted Ahuja. At the trial it was said that he demanded that Ahuja marry his adulterous wife whom he would divorce. Ahuja said he didn’t marry every woman he had sex with and, according to Nanavati’s defence lawyer, a struggle ensued when Ahuja tried to grab the gun. It went off, killing him accidentally.

The case was prominent national news and some idiots composed a variation to the lyrics of The Kingston Trio’s popular song Tom Dooley about murder and hanging, which went thus: “Hang down your head Nanavati? Hang down your head and cry…”. Then there was something censorious about marrying a foreign wife.

The jury brought in a verdict of not guilty. The judge called it a “perverse verdict”, and refused to acquit Nanavati. Through political manoeuvring, he was handed over to naval custody, and lived under comfortable house arrest, and I am told was reconciled later with his wife.

Soon after that, jury trials were abolished in India.

The argument that judges can give way to their own political bias doesn’t seem true in Britain, though it’s certainly rampant in the United States today where President Donald Trump packs some court benches with his MAGA-maniacs.

My one experience of jury service in Britain indicates that bias may not be a hurdle to justice, but cultural disparity may. I was called to jury service and had, for a couple of weeks, to attend Southwark Crown Court in South London.

With eleven others I had to hear three cases. The first two were contentious and we debated them and handed our guilty verdicts.

Then into the second week, the third case was listed. We were ushered into the jury box and a different judge then entered the court room. I could, as perhaps my white and black co-jurors couldn’t, judge from his appearance and from his accent as he addressed the jury to open the case, that he was a gentleman of South Indian origin.

The accused in the case was a young white working-class lad around the age of twenty. He was charged with having stolen some CD records from a parked car -- certainly an offence which didn’t warrant a three-year jail sentence. His defence was that he hadn’t taken the CDs from the car as he disliked that genre of music.

The judge asked what sort of music it was, and the defence lawyer said it was Country and Western. The judge looked puzzled. The defendant said one of the CDs he is alleged to have taken was called Ruby Don’t Take Your Love to Town.

“What is that?” the judge asked. His bewilderment was amusing. The defendant was asked by his lawyer to explain his dislike or disdain.

“It’s crap innit”, the defendant said. “Like, it’s this geezer saying his balls were shot off in the Vietnam war and now he’s back home and telling his wife Ruby that she shouldn’t go to town and have sex with other men, see?”

The judge was now utterly astounded.

“This is the words of the song? In public recording?” the judge asked, and the defendant said that he didn’t like that kind of guitar Country stuff.

The jury was in splits by now.

“I am sorry, members of the jury,” the judge said from the bench “I am not familiar with this sort of music.”

The song had been a hit some time before the trial and I, and perhaps the others, regarded the lyrics as par for the Country and Western oeuvre.

When we retired to consider our verdict, it was possible that the lad had taken those unwanted CDs, but we rewarded him for an amusing afternoon by finding him not guilty. Was that Justice?