Thread 13 Starmer - facts are for lefties

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5214955-thread-12-starmer-from-prescott-to-rayner-working-class-grit?page=40&reply=140341929

Is it me? Trial by jury for certain criminal offenses is being considered is not the same as Trial by jury being phased out. But it did remind me of the first time it was limited back in the 1930s, under a coalition government. Does anyone know whether this was related to women finally being allowed to serve on juries in 1921?

It’s the lack of criminal counsel, and the fact that people are reluctant to sit on juries. Prosecuting crime is expensive and difficult. You need skill to do it. Unfortunately the last government hollowed out counsel rates so no one wants to do this job.

I had one barrister friend, top of the class, Oxford. Did crime for two years. The pay was so dire he left to do personal injury and he is a rich man now. Law is complicated and expensive. It is a lot cheaper and simpler to explain matters to a judge than it a jury so there it is.

I see today's Labour bashing angle is that Assad could have been toppled over a decade ago if it wasn't for Ed Miliband. 🙄

Aren't some complex fraud trials already judge only? So not completely without precedent

Yes that’s correct. The issue is the election system we have. You can elect to go to the Crown Court which is for serious cases. The delay is now so long that you end up with years of delay, where witnesses decide to drop out, or they are intimidated out of the process. The victim themselves may decide not to participate.

This is a huge advantage to a defendant because the longer it takes, the more chance it may never actually happen.

Jury trials were also suspended in NI with Diplock courts. So there is some precedent.

Because on conviction you have a right of appeal the chances are this is human rights compatible and I imagine they would select offences that can be considered in the mags now but need to go to the Crown Court for sentencing. That would be legal I think.

Juries also get things very wrong. They said yes to convicting Andrew Malkinson, for instance. If conviction rates and miscarriage of justice rates are better under jury systems than non jury systems in comparable countries, I would like to see the data.

Yes i heard that, R4 and Sky gave him a right grilling, nothing said about it to Mel Stride though, whose party WAS in government....

Bit more information here -
Included in Leveson’s brief will be the possibility of creating an “intermediate” lower level in the crown court that could involve a judge sitting with two lay magistrates. That measure — which was recently promoted by Alex Chalk KC, the former justice secretary — would build on recommendations made in a report produced more than 20 years ago by Sir Robin Auld, then a Court of Appeal judge.
The creation of a lower tier of the crown court would be a profound reform of the UK’s criminal justice system, as it would do away with jury trials for a range of offences.
www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/jury-trials-criminal-courts-record-backlogs-sir-brian-leveson-h506pv6bs

The problem is that the system is broken in a number of ways, now all nicely converging.
There needs to be more court staff, more sitting days, more spent on court estate etc. If you follow Idle Courts on BlueSky you will see what proportion of courts are not in use. 20% of Crown Courts in England and Wales not sitting today.
But there is nothing that can be resolved quickly or cheaply.

The Telegraph has started to have a go at her. Why they didn’t understand the legendarily unclubbable but massively smuggable Badenoch was a dire choice earlier is a mystery.

Remember the alternatives.

The one thing I am happy to credit Cameron with was the decision to put the question of military action to parliament. Bearing in mind this was during the coalition so Cameron could have won if the vote had been whipped.

Short cuts make long delays.

Are people reluctant to sit on juries? I’d love it and have never been called.

Oh good Lord. Be careful what you wish for.

DH was jury once at a case that involved child s.a. images, it was horrible but luckily was over after a few days.

I'm not sure it's reluctant as such. Life isn't as easily modified nowadays as once was.

I'd love it. But as a carer for ds I couldn't do it.

DH did jury duty and he had a toddler who had been swung against he wall causing severe brain damage. It affected him for a long time.

It's the loss of income if you are stupid enough to work for a living. Quite a few taxpayers feel - quite reasonably - that they pay enough to the state as things are, without an extra two weeks salary going up in smoke as well.

Isn’t there an old quote ‘ tried by a jury of my peers too dumb to get out of jury service’

cant find who said it though.

I've never been called but I'd be reluctant.

I don’t think that is reasonable though. It’s not about what we pay - it’s about whether we think a jury trial is worthwhile. Better remuneration would be good though.

It also hits women harder.

In what way? Child care?

and the fact that women are more likely to be in lower paid jobs and so less able to afford this rather arbitrary "tax".

I think we perhaps need to reform the way it’s funded, but jury trials are important.