End of juries but for the most serious cases - end of a historical right?

[mids2019]

History GCSE: The Jury - BBC Teach https://share.google/8pIFUsLZqABANYA

Since the magna carta I have always thought trial by jury though not a constitutional right was something enshrined within our legal system. Is getting rid of juries for a lot of cases a good cost saving measure or an undermining of rights as citizens?

I thought it was risky eg in rape cases they didn’t want to see the smart ,polite young man have his life ruined because of one over enthusiastic sex act.

No it isn't. Plenty of democratic countries don't have trial by jury and manage perfectly well,

Excellent. I know of a few people who had mental breakdowns after serving on juries of horrific cases, such as deliberate torture and murder of children, absolutely horrendous gang rape and murder of a young woman etc. They were subject to the horror of it for months with details they never wished to see or hear. Two were never able to return to paid employment. There’s an offer of some bullshit such as 5 free counselling sessions after such cases which is completely inadequate.

When my own kids have received jury summonses, I’ve organised medical certs for them, as frankly no one’s mental health should be risked in this way and there’s no way to know if you are going to get a dull fraud case or a real chamber of horrors. Judges, lawyers, court officials willingly sign up to be exposed to this, Joe Public does not.

ETA many first world countries don’t have jury systems and manage it well, so it can be done.

Did you all watch the Channel 4 programme about juries. It's quite the eye opener.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-jury-murder-trial

As Juries will be retained for rape, murder and manslaughter, this change wouldn't help in the way you think it would.

While I do think we fiddle with rights that have existed for nearly 1000 years (and the Blair constitutional tinkering has done a lot of damage), I do agree with this. I can't imagine having to be on a jury for a child violence or sex abuse case for example.

Although Im not sure what you mean by organising medical certs for your children to get out of jury service??

Exactly - we only think it is because we have it and because the US/Canada/Australia follow our common law system they have it too so most media representations we see have it

one of the first things you learn in law is that whilst we have the common law system most of Europe follows civil law system and the use of juries varies from none (Germany) to hybrid (Italy)

many decisions get made in family/housing/immigration law without a jury

it is time we reduce it at least

I came out of jury service with a much better opinion of the jury system than I had going in. Only a couple of ignorant people in the group. Maybe we got lucky?

Is it working fine? I think people aren't protesting as most have never been in a magistrates court.

BTW anyone can go in and watch. I recommend it - it's eye opening and horrifying.

Thats because our system is mostly based on case law unlike in Europe. We have an existing system that is centuries old.

Then be prepared for a: more tax rises and b: ever larger backlogs.

The backlog in Magistrates courts is almost 400k.....

Germany & France manage perfectly well, with only juries for the most serious cases.

As Juries will be retained for rape, murder and manslaughter, this change wouldn't help in the way you think it would

Well, that’s utterly shit. So, only for ones that cause boredom for a jury, or ones requiring understanding of forensic accounting etc? But still on for ones that may adversely mentally affect people?

@Snowonground Although Im not sure what you mean by organising medical certs for your children to get out of jury service??

You really don’t have to be Sherlock to understand what that is saying, surely? Maybe that’s a case in point of why we shouldn’t have juries if people lack basic comprehension?

Absolutely this. A judge is one person, expert on the law or not and they bring all their human foibles and prejudice to their job like everyone does. You only have to look at the judges on the US supreme court to see that

We already have magistrates for minor crimes and I personally have experience of an appalling severe ( for a mamagistrate sentence that was overturned the very next day when appealed by the solicitor, so ridiculous was it

Will we have a 3 tier system for severity of crimes? Magistrate, Judge, Jury?

If so, then in my opinion the Judge one needs more than one judge, maybe 3? to ensure fairness. Is that going to be feasible /affordable ?

I think getting rid of juries is a real step away from democracy

I don't think Labour are planning to take us out of the ECHR are they? Yet if they can still remove the right to jury trial, so much for that protection!

Judges aren't a breed apart unfortunately and they're as fallible as anyone else - more probably because as we've seen sentencing can too often be influenced by whatever side of the political spectrum they're on and there are no checks or balances barring appeal.

On balance, I'd definitely prefer a jury of my peers. Hopefully, if I ever commit a dastardly crime, I'll gey lucky and have a jury made up of the mumsnetters on this thread who are obviously so much more intelligent and possessed of critical thinking skills than anyone else 🙄. I wonder if the other jurors thought the same.

While I understand I think this is a really dark and dangerous path to go down. If you or I can decide today what disqualifies someone from voting, so can anyone else down the line.

Too black to vote. Too gay to vote. Too female to vote. Those can very easily follow on from 'too stupid to vote'.

Democracy isn't perfect, but it is the best we have.

Many European countries don't have juries but are still in the ECHR.

The amount of scare mongering on here and lack of thought is incredible.

the replacement system will be a panel, not one judge & a better qualified panel then you get in a magistrates court.

I was called up twice but due to work and pregnancy didn’t serve.

there has been chatter about this for years. Historically you had to serve if called but rules now somewhat more relaxed and it was noted that of those serving many did as nothing better to do and biases were at the forefront.

Yes, I have been personally protesting since 1552🙄. Just because there are some cases tried without jury, doesn't mean extending it is a good idea. That is like saying we have restricted some of your historic liberties, so we might as well take them all away. Ancient rights need to be defended not removed, particularly when it is being done by bean counters purely to save money.

Yes you are of course 100% correct. That’s the thing with democracy, you have to defend even the bad outcomes. A bit like free speech.
One of the key pillars of democracy is accepting an outcome that you fundamentally disagree with.
But I still think judge only trials is a pretty good idea for some crimes.

I don't know what I did in my previous incarnations to deserve this but have been called FIVE times and served three. It was a truly mind boggling, horrific experience each time. Comments ranged from "but he's got such a nice face", "I think the Police fitted him up, that's what my relative says everytime he gets pulled in when everyone knows it's the [derogatory term]" and "it wasn't a very big Machete".

I think most of the people who are Pro-Jury have never sat on one. Some of the jurors when I did it had barely enough English to follow the judge’s instructions let alone the nuances of the case, and one other guy was so uninterested in the whole business he sat reading a book during the deliberations.

I took part in two trials and I was also shocked by the difference in quality between the two defence barristers - one mumbled and stumbled through while the other performed like a Hollywood actor. Many of my fellow jurors were very swayed by the quality of that performance. Given one was clearly provided through legal aid and the other paid by the defendants family, it didn’t seem particularly fair. I would hope judges would see through that better than the public can.

edited just to add - I was only 21 and found it very hard to make a decision on one of the cases. We ended with a majority verdict I was on the minority side of, but I honestly still don’t know. So I’m not above the other jurors, it was just beyond all of our abilities.

I think it reveals quite how badly the country is doing.

Well, either shes a doctor and wrote them herself. Which would be illegal. Or she made her children lie to get out of jury service. Which would be illegal. Or her children do have psychiatric disorders which prevent jury service. I'm just asking which.

I do have a tiny bit of "basic comprehension" about the legal system.

Germany hasn’t had a jury trial since 1924 is a democracy a well run country with a well run legal system and in the ECHR

as long as it is done well with thought and with the proper experienced people taking over it should be fine