Lammy to remove Juries for most cases

You get an evidence bundle.

Nobody has said that @KaleidoscopeSmile , but many posters who have sat on juries are sharing their experience.

I'll be honest with you, I've sat at hundreds of meetings over many decades where people who actually volunteered to be on that meeting have not spoken "because they are shy" or "because they don't like speaking in front of other people" or "because they have said they didn't really understand / know enough about it". These are people who chose to give up their time to help on a committee or similar in pretty non-controversial organisations. Nothing intimidating. Nothing that would have life changing consequences like a jury decision could have. Why would you think any of them would make a better contribution to the judicial system than someone who knows what they are doing?
All that is before you take into account the number of people who post on here about how anxious they are.

Self-delusion is strong on this thread: "Juries are crap because everyone else apart from me is an under-educated, thick racist". Yeah, right.

BTW, lots of cases result in a not guilty verdict because the CPS case is crap

Most people who have actually sat on a jury have seen the limitations of the system at first hand. For example: I sat on the jury on a fairly long case that lasted 5 weeks. Some jurors did not take a single note during the whole trial and so could not recall accurately key aspects of witness/defendant evidence that were crucial to the guilty/not guilty verdict. Fortunately a few of us did have notes which we shared.

I agree. No system is perfect but I don’t trust the vast majority of British people to make a sound and rational judgement (Brexit confirmed to me that people are easily swayed and when faced with complexity respond based on gut feel).

I would prefer a jury made up of trained paid professionals from various walks of life .

It’s not that straightforward though is it? Proving rape isn’t always easy, and sometimes the jury feels obliged to bring a verdict of not guilty because the evidence doesn’t merit a guilty verdict. The law doesn’t always provide justice.

I’m very conflicted about this one. On the one hand I have long thought that Jury trials do not guarantee justice. Juries are biased, don’t understand a lot of the evidence, and in many cases don’t want to be there. However, having judge only trials massively increases the risk of political influence in the judicial system. If they replace juries with a broad professional panel I would support that.

I was really pleased to hear this on the news today.
Soooooo much time and money is wasted on jury service, even before you get into the fact that so many members of the public are just not capable of listening, concentrating, understanding, being rational and without prejudice, able to debate and ensure their opinion is heard in a room full of other people.

First time I did jury service 30 odd years ago, it was basically a bit of a fight in a pub car park at chucking out time. Should have been a night in a cell, a fine and a caution and all over and done with.
Having various levels of people from magistrates to judges working a full day, without having to continually wait for juries to be assembled, have things explained to them, for the final 12 to be chosen, then sworn in, then of course have other things explained to them during the proceedings, and then all other delays that happen would mean that neither victims nor the accused would have to be waiting up to 4 years with their lives on hold for their case to reach court. Presumably witness statements and recall would be more accurate as well if cases could be heard sooner.

The waste of everyone's time being called for jury service is another thing that should be considered too - it must cost the economy millions. Often, for people to sit around in the waiting room for a few hours every day then to be sent home.

The whole idea is absolutely absurd. The sooner these clowns are out of government the better

Not that this is ideal either, potential risk of corruption etc.

Well it’s not “British rights” for one thing, it’s only E and W.

What do you actually suggest OP? The right to choose jury trial risks grinding the system to a halt which is hardly justice. In Scotland there is no right for the accused to insist on trial by jury, the prosecutor decides where the case is tried. We’ve still managed to retain a functioning judicial system.

There is no way I would want 12 randoms deciding my fate

Several European countries don’t use juries at all, or if used it’s not mandatory state ordered juries. So no layperson loses their job or income due to a long trial. And people deemed suitable are selected, if to be used.

The Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Germany, France.

Frankly it’s bizarre that people think it’s removal of rights. Of whose rights? What rights?

And of course a lot of the legal world disagrees - it removes the jobs / working hours of many.

https://theweek.com/law/the-countries-around-the-world-without-jury-trials
Some countries discussed here.

Thanks very much. I knew of the racial bias in the system as a whole, but not with Judges.

Black Belt Barrister

How about the right of a lay person (potential juror) not to have their life / income ruined by a mandatory state order (to be a juror on a trial which could last weeks / months)?

How about the right of a defendant not to be judged by jurors who are likely majority quite stupid and / or biased?

The Labour Party aren’t tyrants. Just idiotic socialists for the main part. However on this particular decision, I agree. I’m surprised given that mandatory state participation is usually a socialist endeavour. Lammy and Starmer being ex barristers would know more than most about the legal world, one assumes. Though I believe Lammy has flip flopped on this issue. Unsurprising.

A lawyer wrote

https://corkerbinning.com/lord-devlins-lamp-of-freedom-covid19-jury-trial/

“The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish the right to trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject’s freedom in the hands of 12 of his countrymen.”

Having done Jury service, I would be happier if it were a professional Jury. It could be composed of trained laypeople, similar to how magistrates operate now.
I wouldn't trust half the people I was on Jury service with to make a decision based on what evidence they were presented with, as I heard comments like "well, he looks guilty". "Can we just vote so I can get off early?" "He deserved it" " I can't remember half of what was said. I was falling asleep, it was so boring". "Well, he does look older than his age"
This wasn't even a minor issue; it was regarding the SA of a minor.

I work in this area, and I know many Judges, many of whom haven’t the first idea about their own biases, privilege etc. Juries generally give the public confidence that many minds are better than just one.

That’s a particularly verbose post - sentence!

I’m surprised this has come from the disastrous Labour Party. They love state control and telling people they have to do something, and they have to do it for as long as it takes - even if it impacts their lives negatively. Some people lose much income and even their jobs, in a mandatory long trial.

As I said above I think rape and murder trials should also be included for that reason. Strange they’re not.

And the more obvious reason is that many (many) people are stupid and or biased. I wouldn’t want my life in the hands of some of the people I know who’ve done jury service. Terrifying.

It shouldn't be down to just one person imo

Yes that would be a conflict.

Expert medical witnesses who once worked for 10 minutes in the same hospital as a defendant trusts doctor are ‘conflicted’ and often step down. So this definitely would be a conflict.

Yes.