Why plan for judge-only trials in fraud cases is wrong

The jury hears a fictional case in the 2017 Channel 4 series The Trial: A Murder in the Family. Photograph: Joss Barratt/Channel 4View image in fullscreenThe jury hears a fictional case in the 2017 Channel 4 series The Trial: A Murder in the Family. Photograph: Joss Barratt/Channel 4LettersWhy plan for judge-only trials in fraud cases is wrongNic Madge and David Lindsay respond to the government’s proposals to reform the criminal justice system

The government is right to abandon David Lammy’s main proposal to replace some jury trials with judges sitting alone (Ministers drop plans to cut jury trials in England and Wales after outcry, 4 October). There are other ways to reduce the appalling backlog of criminal cases and to protect victims. However, the government is wrong to proceed with its plan for judge-only trials in some fraud cases. As a circuit judge, I presided over fraud trials with juries, including a Ponzi fraud worth £48m and a Russian identity fraud with more than 40,000 documents. The juries were totally on top of both trials and delivered sensible, rational verdicts – in both cases guilty on some charges and not guilty on others. My experience is that the key issue in fraud cases is frequently whether the defendant acted dishonestly. That is not a technical question. It is something that juries are much better able to decide than judges.Nic MadgeSt Albans