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?

Unfortunately we have no one that does anything with any discernable thought in government. So it probably won't be fine.

I did jury service in 2014 and soon realised that I wasn't the best person for the job,. Never having had a strong feeling or persuasion for anything/much in life, I was far too easily swayed into the general opinion and didn't push to get my voice heard. Fortunately the case was only a he said she said over a mobile phone which imo should never have got to court. Thankfully I missed out on the subsequent case which involved a 30 year old man and underage sex.
I never want to do it again

@Snowonground You do know, as a Dr you can’t treat your own family, right? But other doctors can. The honest truth is anyone does what it takes to protect their children. Fucked if I’m risking their mental health after some cases I know of (see above).

Irrespective, it would not be hard to not be selected. Just say the most horrendous things possible in responses, ‘everyone knows all men are rapists etc’. It’s the only time when it’s ever acceptable to become racist/misogynistic/sexist/against disabled people etc for 10mins, whatever you think it will take to get you out of it. Basically, just lie in an Oscar worthy performance so you won’t stand a chance of being selected. Yes, everyone will think you are vile but I guarantee everyone would do it if it meant not having a limb cut off, and I don’t see why potential destruction of mental health is any different.

Genius. It's weird no one will have thought of that before.

Illegal doctor's notes....always good to have a tame doctor on hand.

If you want to see what happens if we remove trial by jury, look at magistrates courts. Whilst they are only supposed to convict if the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the reality is that they operate to a much lower standard of proof. "I preferred the police officer's evidence" is something you will hear far too often. If I am ever charged with an offence and have the option of a jury trial, I would definitely take it as they are more likely to operate to the required standard.

See also Denning dismissing the Birmingham Six's civil claim against the police - "If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’." Of course, the police were guilty of perjury. They were guilty of violence and threats. The confessions were involuntary and they were improperly admitted in evidence. And the convictions were erroneous.

There are cases where the defendant is clearly rolling the dice, hoping that the jury get it wrong. However, there are also cases where the defendant is hoping that the jury is more in touch with current mores and attitudes, so will give them a better chance of a correct verdict. And, of course, juries can acquit defendants when they don't agree with the law - something which a judge would never do. See, for example, Clive Ponting who leaked papers about the sinking of the General Belgrano to a Labour MP. A judge would undoubtedly have convicted him. The jury, to the fury of the government, acquitted him.

Jury trials are an important right and a protection against an authoritarian state. I am disappointed that so many are keen to throw away this protection. As David Lammy said 5 years ago, "Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea."

Germany does not have juries as we understand them, but cases are heard by a panel consisting of both professional and lay judges. The lay judges are unpaid (apart from travel expenses and some compensation for loss of earnings), serve for three years, do not have access to the case file, have the same rights and duties as the professional judges (deciding both the facts and the law) and can outvote them. Most decisions that are unfavourable to the defendant require a two-thirds majority. That is very different from allowing cases to be heard by a single judge, which is what Lammy is proposing.

After serving on a jury x 2 I’d rather it was scrapped. I was stuck with some dreadful people who I would not want deciding my fate. I was on a rape trial where one of the jurors thought it ok to ask what the victim was wearing and if it was provocative. Urgh.

Okay, here's some more lack of thought and scaremongering for you because that's obviously the only reason anyone could ever disagree with you.

Article 6 protects the right to a fair trial but does not mandate jury trial, that's undeniable. But any new system would need to comply with Article 6 which would be impossible in the medium term upheaval from the change.

Also, Leveson's findings are arguably biased because his presentation of the opposite argument is lacking in the depth and research he gives his own side. We also have to consider whether the acknowledged common law tradition of trial by jury is separate from a constitutional right and Leveson's argument that it does is unconvincing imo.

Finally, I believe the preferred model was a judge and 2 magistrates. However, the Law Society Gazette has reported that Lammy 'wants to scrap the magistrate element' so it's wrong to automatically assume there will a panel. Just as in the Assisted Suicide Bill, we already have ideological and incompetent mission creep.

I've done jury service and was staggered by the jury I was with..honestly not very clever people making really odd judgements and asking the most unbelievable questions. My mind boggled.

Having heard from people about their experiences on jury duty there is no way I’d want my fate in the hands of a jury, whether I was the criminal or the victim. Eg my best friend who was on a jury for a rape trial where the victim had been assaulted on her way home at night. A couple of the male jurors stuck with their not guilty decision on the basis that “dressed like that, she was asking for it”. No thanks.

A handful of European countries don't have juries. In most of these, however, trials are decided by a panel consisting of professional and lay judges. However, most of these countries base their approach more on the Napoleonic Code, with criminal courts taking an inquisitorial approach, rather than the Common Law, adversarial system we have in the UK.

The situation in the criminal justice system has reached crisis point.

I'd remind you of an old saying: "Justice delayed is justice denied".

Something must be done and I have no issues with abandoning jury trials in the instances listed.

I agree that sometimes juries get things horribly wrong. However, the conviction rate in magistrates courts is consistently higher than in Crown courts. Judges will never find a defendant not guilty because they disagree with the law. Juries can and do. And judges are often out of touch with current mores and attitudes.

On the evidence, if you want more innocent people in jail, Lammy's proposal is absolutely the right option.

Either way, we don't know the plans and its highly unlikely, if not impossible it will be just ONE person.
That would be more than sufficient grounds for an appeal, which incidentally seems to work well without a jury, as does the Supreme Court.

You are just scare mongering until we do know what any replacement will be, if at all.

I know a magistrate with those views. At least with a jury you get a range of views.

I wouldn’t want to be sentenced by a magistrate either, for the same reason!

Bearing in mind it is all about saving money, it could end up being one person and when they get too expensive AI can take over.

Presumably these "racist old men" thought your views were half baked and that you were maybe not very well educated or even brainwashed.

Who knows?

The point is that the juries you served on were made up of people with different views and that is exactly what a jury should be.

If one of these "racist old men" were to come in front of a single judge who shared your views, they would not have a fair hearing-they would be at the mercy of the judge's personal prejudice-because we all have them as you have demonstrated.

If you were to come up in front of a single judge who thought you were half baked or who was a "racist old man" himself, you would be stuffed.

That is why we need a jury of twelve people with differing views.

If there's any scaremongering it's being done by Lammy. The Law Gazette reported Lammy's plans, all I did was cite them. You'd be better off writing to Lammy with your objections if you think what he plans to do is scaremongering, I'm a literal nobody who's on social media.

A couple of the male jurors stuck with their not guilty decision on the basis that “dressed like that, she was asking for it”

I hope the other jurors called them out on this disgusting attitude. Of course, two jurors cannot prevent the defendant being found guilty. You need at least three such jurors to produce a hung jury, but getting a not guilty verdict needs at least ten.

Given there's been some insane judge guidance about trans nonsense I think a jury of peers is what we should continue with. (Equal Treatment Bench Book?)

Removing juries won't make the process quicker unless they're going to skip evidence.
There's some minor expense of juries compared to the cost to society if we remove this right.

Please don't talk about what happened in the deliberation room (including calling people thick or racist)
https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/discussing-the-trial
After the trial you must not talk about what happened in the deliberation room, even with family members. You can talk about what happened in the courtroom.

Try reading a few Court of Appeal judgements in criminal cases before saying it works well. It is better than it used to be, but they are still inclined to uphold dodgy convictions on spurious grounds, sometimes performing all kinds of logical gymnastics to class the conviction as safe when it is clearly anything but.

The jury system is ridiculously flawed. I was on jury duty with a lady who couldn’t work the car park machine outside and had no clue what was going on.

Yeah definitely no miscarriages of justice in Germany since 1924...

and the jury system here and in the US has had no miscarriages either?

nothing is perfect all systems are flawed