Lammy to remove Juries for most cases

I am a lawyer, I've researched this in my dissertation 35 years ago, and I haven't changed my mind since then...but my first thought when I saw the story on the news was...

Dead Cat

Budget tomorrow, quick, we need a distraction!

Something to do with Labour proposing it, same with digital ID.

Not that I have seen so far...but given the belt tightening and the commentary around the budget I am not surprised. I would just like to see it. It's a wish!

Do you think that a panel would have found the man in your example guilty of sexual harassment on the hearsay "evidence" that we were given in the thread?

And if your answer is yes, are you not worried that he wouldn't be able to appeal?

At the moment many older, experienced teachers are being railroaded out of their jobs because there are no checks and measures that they can turn to because the processes have been followed.

The removal of juries puts us in a poor situation.

Leveson speaking on BBC PM programme (Radio 4) right now.

There is no suggestion of more funding or local courts opening is there?

Again, I'm amazed at the continual zeal the UK public shows for hurling itself toward machinations of State which used to be the preserve of Despots, Demagoguery, Police States, Fascists, and sundry other examples of the worst way to go about Statehood. It's baffling.

I would. I worked as a small cog in the wider justice system for a long time so I am not coming at this from a place of no knowledge. Germany has no jury system, they use panels of judges, both professional and lay judges, similar to our tribunals system now. They retain right to appeal within their system as well.

The court system is not functioning as it is now and I support developments that may improve this and I would like to see this go hand in hand with suitable funding and the reopening of some of the local courts that have shut to enable to justice to happen more quickly.

The history of the jury trial is obviously very important but I am not convinced it is the only way to deal justice.

I think it’s a good idea.

• Having been on jury service I was shocked by how thick or heavily biased some people are. I don’t think they should help decide a person fate.
• its unfair if it’s a months long case. A juror could lose their job. And they don’t get paid the same.

The post office scandal is fairly poor example when juries found innocent post masters guilty of crimes they hadn’t committed.

I agree . It’s important that there’s a certain level of intelligence and understanding and some appropriate training so that evidence can be understood etc.

David Lammy only believes in what helps David Lammy. So obviously that can change like the wind.

Having sat on 2 juries, I have a dreadful fear of being tried by one. It's a whole new level of batshittery. There will be MNers who have sat on decent juries, but it's luck and these things shouldn't rely on luck.

Juries are not perfect as highlighted by the experience of many who are on this thread and have served as jurors but it is by far the best and fairest way we have to resolve issues of guilt. If this really does happen it will be devastating for anyone unlucky enough to find themselves before the courts and absolutely anyone can find themselves prosecuted for things they haven’t done - the Post Office scandal provides hundreds of examples of people of all ages, from all religions, many previously thought to be pillars of their communities.

Exactly.
Even David Lammy doesn’t believe his own stance on this.
As David Lammy MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor, and Secretary of State for Justice himself said in his Review in 2017:

“Juries deliberate as a group through open discussion. This both deters and exposes prejudice and unintended bias: judgements must be justified to others. Successive studies have shown that juries deliver equitable results, regardless of the ethnic make-up of the jury, or the defendant in question.”

He’s got every choice. This needs thorough debate in Parliament. Arguably this needs a referendum. Jury trials have their antecedents before the Norman Conquest. They are the bedrock of a free society. Withdrawing civil rights in the recommendation of one ‘expert’ or even a committee is a gross distortion of the concept of representative government.

Yes. In the course of my working life I’ve had lots of contact with people in various parts of the justice system, and let’s just say, I wouldn’t like to leave it down to just one of them to make the decision if I was ever accused of a crime. They’re only human and they have their own prejudices which they don’t always cast aside a they should.

Agree with this entirely, also oppose it for a couple of other reasons not yet mentioned.

Anyone who thinks judges would invariably be impartial and fair is at it.

In Scotland we have Sheriffs. You can pretty much predict precisely what sort of sentence someone is likely to receive depending upon which particular Sheriff is hearing their case. They all have peccadilloes, grudges, and grievances of their own, they are only human after all. Judges would be no different.

Obviously this is relevant to sentencing, but not necessarily determining Guilt, however, it helpfully demonstrates that concerns about Juries being impartial, unfair, or inconsistent are rather moot, because replacing them with Judges or panels does nothing to resolve that particular concern.

The State acts on behalf of the public. You are tried on behalf of your peers because you have committed some sort of offence against the public. It's entirely appropriate then that you are judged by the very same public. It's a fundamental precept of Justice and in no way do I support anything that proposes to discard it.

Do you trust juries to make fair and unbiased decisions?

Thank you, that is a very persuasive argument.

I’ve served on a jury several times (high court and sheriff court) including once in a very high profile murder case and I think is an excellent idea, I’ve been saying it for years. The idea that a jury is composed of average people is just not true. In my experience professional and working age people (who would probably be pretty good at defending their own opinions and evaluating evidence) usually find a way to avoid it. This is partly because the compensation is so poor - although most people’s employers might cover a certain amount of time at full pay there is no guarantee and if you are self employed you are stuffed. Partly I think because of the uncertainty about trial lengths and waiting about. It is truly unbelievable how much time is wasted in court. The consequence is that the people who are left are usually the retired and unemployed. - hardly a good representation of the population as a whole. I would have to say that at least half of the jury members I have seen were simply not intelligent enough to understand the evidence being presented to them. On jury I sat on, I was the only person taking notes! On the murder trial I mentioned there were several people who were more concerned about what was for lunch rather than what was going on in the court. It’s terrifying how much people are influenced by American court procedural tv shows.

In my considerable experience of representing defendants before Crown Court judges many are not fair minded and there remains high levels of racism. Any study on sentencing shows this to be the case.

The right to a trial by jury is a bedrock of democracy. Looking at some of the decisions made by judges, i wouldnt trust them to make fair and unbiased decisions