Lammy to remove Juries for most cases

I've sat on a jury and I was a solicitor in a previous life.

In the cases I sat on the judge very carefully directed the jury to the pertinent points of law that they needed to focus on to decide the case - which were then completely ignored. Most people did take the role seriously, but there was an awful lot of talk about feelings and what might have happened rather than actually looking at what was proven. And, yes, one person with a high opinion of themselves did dominate in both cases I sat on.

Now that I live in a country that doesn't have jury trials, I can see that they really aren't necessary. For serious cases in my country they use a panel of professional judges and lay judges, which are essentially trained jurors, who serve a term of 4 years and have an understanding of the law, which seems far more sensible to me than 12 people who mostly don't know and don't care.

I can't help but remember the quote

"God will know his own"

They'll need a big dead cat for that, the jury thing is a mere kitten.

Can you post a link to study that found high levels of racism in Judges?

Just as a matter of interest. I am challenging you, or disagreeing.

Just interested.

The last four trials I did there was one conviction and three acquittals. If the judge alone had dealt with them it would have been four convictions.

I'm not sure if that's an argument in favour of juries or judges.

It depends on whether they were guilty or not. No-one wants to see three innocent people go to jail, but three criminals being acquitted isn't ideal either.

Equally, another member of the Jury highlighting this fact demonstrates that Juries consist of multiple individuals for entirely worthwhile reasons, and by and large, they function perfectly well.

What do you do when a single Judge is just a bit bored and wants to piss off to the Golf course?

Opie if you had ever worked in the court system or studied law you would know that juries are very unreliable. A white man is less likely to be convicted compared to a person of color.

Ive seen a lot of trials, I work within the criminal justice system. I wouldn't want to be tried by a jury.

If it’s a case that ends up heard by magistrates, you can at least be comforted by the fact they’re not being paid by the crown, they’re doing it for free.

But I can’t believe that any magistrate would ever feel any level of bias because they’ve been appointed by the crown who is also prosecuting. I imagine it could be different for judges who are paid though.

Juries have no impact whatsoever on the backlog. It is not juries that caused the backlog. If you can access it there is a very good article quoting the chairwoman of the CBA explaining the real causes of the backlog. The last four trials I did there was one conviction and three acquittals. If the judge alone had dealt with them it would have been four convictions. Judges are largely older, white, male, upper class. Defendants are generally from a total different make up.

I think discussing the merits of a jury service is missing the point - they clearly see the benefits of having a jury as they are being retained for trials of the most serious nature , rape, murder -
what concerns me here is that for lesser (but still significant) offences the safeguards and impartiality a jury offers is being dispensed with for convenience and cost cutting, not because it is an improvement on the current system. I’m not happy they are making this move to clear a backlog created by years of underfunding and mismanagement.

Anyone who has ever sat on a jury ( me) would surely welcome this. Jurors who miss salient points, let their own prejudices get in the way and let their emotions cloud their decisions ( yes, I heard ‘we know he did it but he’s two years from retirement and he’d lose his pension, so we should overlook it’). And jurors are not accountable for their decisions, so have nothing to lose.

My ILs in Europe are aghast at our system - why wouldn’t we have experts giving verdicts, why would we let lay people do this?

And I’d love to see the introduction of specialist courts for rape and SA like they have in Australia to increase conviction rates.

Woah, being found not guilty does not mean innocent and having your perpetrator not guilty doesn’t make you a liar. The burden of beyond reasonable doubt and being sure is HUGE, and that’s what’s hard for a rape conviction - and will remain hard with this change. The judge won’t be thinking well I’m pretty sure he did it so I’ll convict.

But I would never choose a trial by jury as I don’t trust the average intelligence and schooling of this country.

What worries me about this is WHO will be making th see decisions instead. The magistrates court is already on its knees for trials, and judges I’ve spoken to have said they’re often not comfortable with finding of fact, or are not skilled at it, or do not enjoy it as in vast majority of cases it’s not their role, it’s the jury’s role. Are these the people we will now be asking to find fact? And alone or in a panel? And are they willing to do that…

I totally agree with it. I think being a juror is quite a burden anyway, and having trained magistrates and judges will be better. I think most people don't like the idea because they think it's easier to get acquitted at a jury trial.

But I often find myself on the wrong side of opinion on some of these things. I also can't see the issue with digital ID cards either, as long as they are all we need to open bank accounts etc and they don't still demand non-existent paper versions of utility bills etc.

Juries were massively progressive. In the Middle Ages.

How judges operate and their relationship to the government is incredibly different from how things were when juries were introduced. There is much less chance of the system being abused.

Juries meanwhile can basically do what they like with no accountability. I'd be much more worried that a jury trial was unfair!

Perhaps a middle way would be to reform the way juries work. E.g. they decide the facts (did X stab Y, did he do it on purpose, were there mitigating circumstances etc.) and the judge decides the verdict on the basis of the facts and the law. Or juries have to submit a report explaining their reasoning, and this report is publicly available. I doubt either of these would help with the fundamental issues of the courts being under resourced, however.

I'd agree with you there, but I can't reconcile my experiences of being on juries. I'm just not sure what the answer is.

I’ve never been called to jury service, so can’t comment on the logistics. DH has done it twice and I seem to remember that our local court likes jurors to start with “nicer” crimes before putting them up for selection in murders and rapes.

Would the absence of a jury really speed things up that much? Presumably Counsel and judge can find plenty of things to fill their day if deliberations overrun?

If things are speeded up, is there space in jails for a possible increase in custodial sentences? Surely you need to work backwards from the probation service, then prisons/non-custodials before you start fiddling to speed up the start of the process?

If Joe public the prospective juror is as disinterested as suggested here I can see merit in having a judge and panel of 2+ (as per many Employment Tribunals).

No, I don't. And they shouldn't do on the basis of the evidence on that thread! There was no evidence.

But I would hope they would have sufficient understanding of the law to not throw the case out on the basis that the woman had 'breached patient masseuse confidentiality' or 'broken GDPR' or any of the other batshittery that was on that thread.

It's not about whether the man was guilty or not, it was about the woman being judged for a range of made-up data protection offences not to mention shamed for being 'a gossip'. You'd hope legal experts would at least understand the law and be slightly more able to review the evidence in a dispassionate manor.

I'm not saying a panel would be perfect, but I'd take a panel of legal experts over the Mumsnet jury any day of the week.

A juror can - and in many cases has - used their conscience.

Remove that from the process and no one will ever challenge a bad law in court.

Remember the case that enshrined the right of a jury to use their conscience ? If that had been tried with no jury, then a bad law would have been perpetuated and people transported for saying the Kings hair looks funny.

There are 2 parts to a guilty verdict. removing a jury means we will be left with one. I don't think that is conducive to justice. Although I admit our legal system isn't really based around justice, so maybe we are just moving into being honest.

Do you have any examples of laws that have been repealed by juries? Enquiring minds etc.

Completely agree.

When you are having to point out to someone that being bored and wanting to go home, is not justification for why everyone should just agree guilty / not guilty - it tends to clarify your thinking on the reliability of 12 strangers deciding someone's fate.

Yes possibly. But it won’t last long!

Actually I’ve just seen the ‘except for alleged rapists and killers’. Well that doesn’t make sense. They’re often the longest trials 🙄

@Muddywelliescleansocks It’s difficult to get 12 people with common sense and wisdom or, frankly, sufficient intelligence for some trials. I’d rather fewer than have poor quality jurors.

There’s a lack of criminal barristers because they don’t get paid enough. Many barristers swerve criminal. It’s not as if 12 people know better than a judge very often and juries wrongly convict. The conviction rate isn’t necessarily going to be higher but we’ve got a need to do something about waiting times. People aren’t getting any justice right now.