Lammy to remove Juries for most cases

[Bumblebee72]

It being reported by the Times that Lammy is going to remove the right to choose a jury for all but a few cases. This is a shocking role back of British rights.

And they say we need to worry about Reform........

Having sat on 2 juries, I have a dreadful fear of being tried by one. It's a whole new level of batshittery. There will be MNers who have sat on decent juries, but it's luck and these things shouldn't rely on luck.

David Lammy only believes in what helps David Lammy. So obviously that can change like the wind.

I agree . It’s important that there’s a certain level of intelligence and understanding and some appropriate training so that evidence can be understood etc.

The post office scandal is fairly poor example when juries found innocent post masters guilty of crimes they hadn’t committed.

I think it’s a good idea.

• Having been on jury service I was shocked by how thick or heavily biased some people are. I don’t think they should help decide a person fate.
• its unfair if it’s a months long case. A juror could lose their job. And they don’t get paid the same.

I would. I worked as a small cog in the wider justice system for a long time so I am not coming at this from a place of no knowledge. Germany has no jury system, they use panels of judges, both professional and lay judges, similar to our tribunals system now. They retain right to appeal within their system as well.

The court system is not functioning as it is now and I support developments that may improve this and I would like to see this go hand in hand with suitable funding and the reopening of some of the local courts that have shut to enable to justice to happen more quickly.

The history of the jury trial is obviously very important but I am not convinced it is the only way to deal justice.

Again, I'm amazed at the continual zeal the UK public shows for hurling itself toward machinations of State which used to be the preserve of Despots, Demagoguery, Police States, Fascists, and sundry other examples of the worst way to go about Statehood. It's baffling.

There is no suggestion of more funding or local courts opening is there?

Leveson speaking on BBC PM programme (Radio 4) right now.

Do you think that a panel would have found the man in your example guilty of sexual harassment on the hearsay "evidence" that we were given in the thread?

And if your answer is yes, are you not worried that he wouldn't be able to appeal?

At the moment many older, experienced teachers are being railroaded out of their jobs because there are no checks and measures that they can turn to because the processes have been followed.

The removal of juries puts us in a poor situation.

Not that I have seen so far...but given the belt tightening and the commentary around the budget I am not surprised. I would just like to see it. It's a wish!

Something to do with Labour proposing it, same with digital ID.

I am a lawyer, I've researched this in my dissertation 35 years ago, and I haven't changed my mind since then...but my first thought when I saw the story on the news was...

Dead Cat

Budget tomorrow, quick, we need a distraction!

@Muddywelliescleansocks It’s difficult to get 12 people with common sense and wisdom or, frankly, sufficient intelligence for some trials. I’d rather fewer than have poor quality jurors.

There’s a lack of criminal barristers because they don’t get paid enough. Many barristers swerve criminal. It’s not as if 12 people know better than a judge very often and juries wrongly convict. The conviction rate isn’t necessarily going to be higher but we’ve got a need to do something about waiting times. People aren’t getting any justice right now.

Actually I’ve just seen the ‘except for alleged rapists and killers’. Well that doesn’t make sense. They’re often the longest trials 🙄

Yes possibly. But it won’t last long!

Completely agree.

When you are having to point out to someone that being bored and wanting to go home, is not justification for why everyone should just agree guilty / not guilty - it tends to clarify your thinking on the reliability of 12 strangers deciding someone's fate.

Do you have any examples of laws that have been repealed by juries? Enquiring minds etc.

A juror can - and in many cases has - used their conscience.

Remove that from the process and no one will ever challenge a bad law in court.

Remember the case that enshrined the right of a jury to use their conscience ? If that had been tried with no jury, then a bad law would have been perpetuated and people transported for saying the Kings hair looks funny.

There are 2 parts to a guilty verdict. removing a jury means we will be left with one. I don't think that is conducive to justice. Although I admit our legal system isn't really based around justice, so maybe we are just moving into being honest.

No, I don't. And they shouldn't do on the basis of the evidence on that thread! There was no evidence.

But I would hope they would have sufficient understanding of the law to not throw the case out on the basis that the woman had 'breached patient masseuse confidentiality' or 'broken GDPR' or any of the other batshittery that was on that thread.

It's not about whether the man was guilty or not, it was about the woman being judged for a range of made-up data protection offences not to mention shamed for being 'a gossip'. You'd hope legal experts would at least understand the law and be slightly more able to review the evidence in a dispassionate manor.

I'm not saying a panel would be perfect, but I'd take a panel of legal experts over the Mumsnet jury any day of the week.

I’ve never been called to jury service, so can’t comment on the logistics. DH has done it twice and I seem to remember that our local court likes jurors to start with “nicer” crimes before putting them up for selection in murders and rapes.

Would the absence of a jury really speed things up that much? Presumably Counsel and judge can find plenty of things to fill their day if deliberations overrun?

If things are speeded up, is there space in jails for a possible increase in custodial sentences? Surely you need to work backwards from the probation service, then prisons/non-custodials before you start fiddling to speed up the start of the process?

If Joe public the prospective juror is as disinterested as suggested here I can see merit in having a judge and panel of 2+ (as per many Employment Tribunals).

I'd agree with you there, but I can't reconcile my experiences of being on juries. I'm just not sure what the answer is.

Juries were massively progressive. In the Middle Ages.

How judges operate and their relationship to the government is incredibly different from how things were when juries were introduced. There is much less chance of the system being abused.

Juries meanwhile can basically do what they like with no accountability. I'd be much more worried that a jury trial was unfair!

Perhaps a middle way would be to reform the way juries work. E.g. they decide the facts (did X stab Y, did he do it on purpose, were there mitigating circumstances etc.) and the judge decides the verdict on the basis of the facts and the law. Or juries have to submit a report explaining their reasoning, and this report is publicly available. I doubt either of these would help with the fundamental issues of the courts being under resourced, however.

I totally agree with it. I think being a juror is quite a burden anyway, and having trained magistrates and judges will be better. I think most people don't like the idea because they think it's easier to get acquitted at a jury trial.

But I often find myself on the wrong side of opinion on some of these things. I also can't see the issue with digital ID cards either, as long as they are all we need to open bank accounts etc and they don't still demand non-existent paper versions of utility bills etc.

Woah, being found not guilty does not mean innocent and having your perpetrator not guilty doesn’t make you a liar. The burden of beyond reasonable doubt and being sure is HUGE, and that’s what’s hard for a rape conviction - and will remain hard with this change. The judge won’t be thinking well I’m pretty sure he did it so I’ll convict.

But I would never choose a trial by jury as I don’t trust the average intelligence and schooling of this country.

What worries me about this is WHO will be making th see decisions instead. The magistrates court is already on its knees for trials, and judges I’ve spoken to have said they’re often not comfortable with finding of fact, or are not skilled at it, or do not enjoy it as in vast majority of cases it’s not their role, it’s the jury’s role. Are these the people we will now be asking to find fact? And alone or in a panel? And are they willing to do that…