Lammy to remove Juries for most cases

I’m a criminal barrister although I very rarely do jury trials nowadays. I did spend many years in court doing trials pretty much back to back. The criminal bar association is opposed to these changes. If you introduce judge only trials the conviction rates will go through the roof. Under resourced and incompetent Police will have a field day and the prison population will increase. It’s outrageous to remove one of the few safeguards from the system for cost reasons. There have been many studies and juries can understand complex information such as fraud trials so long as the advocates break it down. There is a lack of judges and barristers due to all the cuts to the criminal justice system. This is a badly thought through plan which will harm the many innocent people prosecuted- not everyone before the courts is guilty and there are many shocking examples of recent miscarriages of justice which will only increase if you remove the common sense and wisdom of 12 ordinary people. It’s one of the few things I believe in so strongly that I will march against it and boycott the courts if this becomes a serious move by Lammy who at every turn proves himself to be incompetent.

What do juries have to do with the repeal of laws? That’s a parliamentary process.

I think I’d prefer the idea of jurors doing it as their professional job. People who are vetted properly, pass some kind of critical thinking test, interviews to check they’re intelligent enough to absorb the material then we pay them to do this professionally. I don’t love the idea of someone’s fate being decided by a random selection of anybody’s. I worry that I’ll be picked for jury duty and I won’t understand or be able to cope with the subject matter. I don’t feel like I’m the right person to make those decisions. So it sounds like a good thing to overhaul the system.

I think the idea of judgement by one’s peers is a good one, but the reality is very different. I was pretty horrified by some of what I heard in the jury room when I did jury service. I now work with a lot of judges and most of them are intelligent and fair-minded. I would rather be judged by them if I were wrongly accused of something.

Removing juries means bad laws will never be repealed. No matter how many people want them gone.

If Judges did a normal working day then they could double the number of cases dealt with overnight

Anybody that has watched the C4 programmes showing jury deliberations would be cheering at this news. People entirely incapable of considering evidence dispassionately, bringing their own life experiences in to bear on the decision making, worrying more about being high in the group pecking order than doing their duty in considering the evidence and weighing this up against the requirements of the law.

Same

I agree

There is no automatic right of appeal. There’s a right to apply for an appeal. Not the same thing. Many requests for an appeal are not granted. If there was u fettered access to appeal we would never get them through the Court of Appeal.

I think there’s some sense in having a panel. Maybe not all judges as this would take them away from other work but legally trained people could be on the panels with sufficient experience.

Surely things like theft, fraud there's enough evidence not to need a jury?
All the bigger cases are still by jury, no? It's for crimes that get up to 5 years, so not huge, important cases. If anything speeds things up then all for it, especially when you hear about poor women waiting 2-odd years to have their rapist in court, must be hell on earth with them still walking around your neighbourhood. Perhaps the knock on means those cases are seen to quicker than at the moment.

Honestly, that is a good thing. I haven’t been on jury service myself but everyone I know said at least 50% of people in the jury pretty much do not understand the procedure, or even understand the evidence. If I was a criminal, I would want an intelligent, informed person making the decision. Who understands all of the law all of the relevant caselaw and the appropriate legal test and sentencing.

I do not want to be judged by a jury of my peers when the average reading age in this country is about age 12. I want to be considered by an intelligent person who understands the law and the repercussions.

I don't think you've ever sat on a jury. If you had you'd have a different opinion.

It depends on what alternative is offered.

But I'm definitely of the view that it's worth looking into alternatives to jury trials.

I don't find the mere suggestion of doing away with jury trials to be problematic. I wouldn't want to face a jury of under-educated, prejudiced, bored people who just want to go home if my freedom was hanging in the balance. But what we don't want is a system that's even worse! Which one judge and no appeal would be.

What?! that's very concerning.

This would also help with overcrowding in prisons. You could be on to something with the victim tax.

It sounds shocking and I don't really agree on principle. However I have done jury service once and was not impressed.

A dominant man took charge and basically directed the proceedings, most people were too intimidated to cross him. It was quite a while ago and I was in my early twenties and did not have enough confidence to stand up to anyone. And on top of that most of the jurers wanted to get it done quickly and would have made a quick judgement to go home. It did not leave me confident in the process.

I understand this. I once did some admin work on a complicated insurance/ finance fraud case. It was a jury trial, no way on earth could you realistically expect 12 random members of the public to understand it. It was very complicated and very “boring” but serious finance consequences.

Good. Faster trials and better outcomes is best for us all.

It depends entirely on what it's being replaced with.

The jury system is not great.

If anyone saw the thread yesterday about the masseuse who was sexually propositioned at work and the responses to it, you'd have no faith in 12 members of the public holding your fate in their hands. There are a shocking number of people who are hard of thinking or just plain sexist/racist/homophobic.

A panel of people educated and experienced in the law would be better imo. We would need an efficient and effective appeals system as well.