Anyone here a crown court judge?

[Thinkingaloud85]

I would love to know what you think of juries and how often you agree with jury verdicts.
I did jury service once and while I personally was happy with our verdicts I must confess it didn’t leave me with a huge amount of confidence in the process. Reading some posts on here and other internet forums also makes me question the reasoning abilities of the public in general.
I heard on Any Questions yesterday that there’s some talk of limiting trial by jury to only the most serious cases, to clear the backlog of cases awaiting trial.

I know it’s not the job of a judge to come to a conclusion, but they must form a view, having listened to all the evidence in a case? It would be fascinating to know how often judges and juries are in agreement.

It’s not possible for anyone to say whether they agree with a verdict or not , only those who have listened to the whole trial can make their own decision.

The OP is asking about the judge. The judge hears the whole trial.

Oh 😬

I think it’s vanishingly unlikely a judge would come on here and answer that.

I know it’s meant to be anonymous but there’s ways of finding out I’m sure.

When I worked for a certain govt dept we were told absolutely you don’t go on MN and talk about the sector we work in.

Quiet Saturday night?

I'm a police officer and I'd love to know this too!
Our colleagues have had interesting chats about this lately.
Most of us are happy with the idea of juries being used less. The criminal justice system is under so much pressure. A lawyer last week said they had had a trial booked in for 2030. That's when they're booking in trials. That was for a drugs offence so not a serious complex trial.

Juries often go with a gut feeling instead of dispassionate view of the facts presented to them, ime.

I've had three close family members do Jury service and they said it was staggering how some people either just did not care about the verdict and would vote any way just so they could go home or they would have their own prejudices which meant they voted a certain way and disregarded actual evidence.

Have you watched the show they did on channel 4 where they got 2 juries to listen to a trial and they both came to different verdicts? It happened because strong characters on the jury basically persuaded/bullied others in to changing their mind.

I was also the victim in a court case once, they had to accept a majority because one person would not vote guilty, I could tell you exactly who it was just by the way he looked at me when I was giving my evidence.

This was my experience of being on a jury. Several people just wanted to finish the trial earlier so were willing to go with whatever verdict would get them home sooner, and one person in particular was a bully who could not have anyone disagree with his opinion. Luckily the trial collapsed for other reasons but I had absolutely no faith in the process after seeing that.

I felt like the judge agreed with us when I was a juror. It was a case where the defendant had said 'no comment' to all police questions and then brought up lots of supossed alibis which the prosection then couldn't refute. We found guilty of the lesser count and hung jury on main charge, which meant they could go to retrial, and he was then found guilty. It was realistically the best possible outcome.
It was astounding though some of the views among the older male jurors, along the lines of 'look at her, she was clearly asking for it'. Along with another who was going on holiday the next day so very keen to wrap it up quickly

Same as my case also

Isn't it shocking

Wtaf??? My gosh !!!!!

I was a police officer ( now retired ) and I only ever lost one case at Crown court but I have heard some shocking stories. A colleague did jury service and was appalled by the irrational comments by some of the jury. Effectively saying that the defence barrister was obviously a well educated woman and there was no way she would defend someone who was guilty. 🙄. I mean thick as mince. At least comment on the quality of the evidence. I was called for jury service but not used sadly - I was interested in seeing it from the other side.

Surely there should be a certain level of education for jurors. I'm not saying they should all have a degree but it's worrying that PP found them as "thick as mince". Maybe at least insist they have GCSE Maths and English.

Juries are on the whole guided quite well by the judge

Juries are better than Magistrates who are volunteers rely on the legal experience of a court clerk to guide them.

Lots of people are unfairly sentenced due to sanctimonious Magistrates. District judges are far better in court when they sit in for magistrates

The concept of it is to be judged by your peers. That includes people without a decent education and formal qualifications etc.

I think if we were to exclude people without qualifications, then when will the line be drawn? It’s a slippery slope.

The crown court judge has no idea what goes on the jury room. I do, I’ve been in there. It was utterly appalling. I wanted to report one juror for breaking their oath (ie they weren’t making their decision based on the evidence) but I felt it would just cause a shitload of trouble. So I didn’t.

I’m afraid “thick as mince” applied to the minority of people in my jury room. But that minority was enough to fuck everything up.

Yes, our judge guided us well. But that doesn’t mean all of the jurors listened or understood.

On mine, one didn’t understand at all, but was willing for those of us who did understand to explain it. Another didn’t understand, didn’t care and wouldn’t listen to anything. Another didn’t understand, but was so arrogant - talking over people trying to explain.

This. I found the same at sheriff court.

During the discussion some people were fabricating 'evidence' which was never even presented based on their own supposition and prejudice. Completely making things up.

Was appalled and never want to be on a jury again. Have no faith in it at all.

All I know is I have a family friend who is a judge and they get very frustrated (although they sympathise) that so many intelligent educated professionals find reasons not to do jury service.

That probably tells you all you need to know

I have done jury service twice - once when I had just turned 18 and quite frankly didnt have a clue. One case a man walked in said 'he didnt do it, am not saying anything else'. He didnt contribute to the discussion or give his reason why. I found both times very interesting and both times we had a very strong professional person who 'helped' guide us though I have wondered if they weren't there would the discussions and outcome changed?

Talk about the court room but not the jury room.

I’m also a police officer, have done jury duty once. Had one case of GBH and the defendant admitted it in the box, he was trying to go along the route of self defence however in brief the facts were the victim had wound him up in another pub, they happened to bump into each other a few pubs later and the defendant launched into the victim unprovoked.

We had one lady on the jury say “he wants to become a security guard and better his life, I feel sorry for him, if we say guilty we will ruin his life”. No, he did that himself when he attacked the victim! 🤦‍♀️

We found him guilty in the end with a 10/2 majority but the deliberations were hard work! Some just didn’t get the fact we have to go off the evidence, not how we feel!

I worked in the criminal system on the defence side. I welcome this proposal. A judge unlike a magistrate is a well educated person on law. They will make their decision purely based on the facts and whether the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I do think jurors base decisions on media (even though they are supposed to disregard this) and how witnesses and defendants come across in the dock.

Yes some guilty defendants may be found innocent - guilty beyond reasonable doubt is quite a high bar compared with the civil court of balance of probability. Also innocent defendants will still be found guilty. But this already happens. But a judge will base their decision on their understanding of the the law and the evidence played before them

It must be much harder for a fair trial to be ensured with the prevalence of social media these days. Everyone has an opinion, and very confident in their assertions even though they would know they were wrong, if they’d bothered to actually read the article they’re commenting on.

So many bonkers comments on the Paul Doyle trial this week make me think perhaps involving the general public in making decisions of guilt or innocence is such a good idea.

Even though he changed his plea to guilty, so many comments say he must be innocent, as he couldn’t have possibly have planned driving into a crowd when he woke up that morning. Lots of people asserting that it must have been PTSD, although I’m not sure that’s been claimed by his defence barrister. Then there are others saying he’s not the same guy they removed from the car, or he’s been set up. Or more cryptically, “there’s some more going on”.

Not a judge but the handwringing over this in England is ridiculous. There is no right to jury trial in Scotland and we still have a proper judicial system.