End to jury trial

[Gecko1978]

BBC News - Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo

WTF and before we start saying oh but the back log f that jury trail is a right.

[geeks]

• For cases where the sentence would be under 3 or 5 years the article uses both.

More to the point. Why are we still using stupid wigs in court?

[scenario8]

For a government that I criticised for spending 14 years in opposition, two years under the leadership of SKS in an obvious period of waiting-to-be-the-next-government and then once elected launched into a period of extensive nothingness they’ve suddenly started coming up with ideas.

This idea I might argue to be a fairly fundamental change to criminal law.

Seems to have come somewhat from nowhere. The proposal should be front page news and part of a wider public debate, I would say.

Fwiw I'm deeply unsettled.

[alangla]

If one was cynical, it’s noticeable that this story has emerged the afternoon before a budget that’s widely expected to be a complete stshow in the same way as Digital ID suddenly came from nowhere during a period of difficult headlines for the government.

[ben5575]

scenario8 said:

For a government that I criticised for spending 14 years in opposition, two years under the leadership of SKS in an obvious period of waiting-to-be-the-next-government and then once elected launched into a period of extensive nothingness they ve suddenly started coming up with ideas.

This idea I might argue to be a fairly fundamental change to criminal law.

Seems to have come somewhat from nowhere. The proposal should be front page news and part of a wider public debate, I would say.

Fwiw I'm deeply unsettled.

I think the final quote sums it up for me:

"Juries are not the cause of the backlog. The cause is the systematic underfunding and neglect that has been perpetrated by this government and its predecessors for years."

[scenario8]

I’m not going to argue against the thrust of the quote from that KC but I would note it doesn’t mention the legacy of our response to covid.

But anyway, dropping in plans to remove trial by jury in most criminal cases is a pretty big deal to me and one I would have expected to have drawn a much larger period of public discourse.

[AbbeyNormal]

ben5575 said:

scenario8 said:

For a government that I criticised for spending 14 years in opposition, two years under the leadership of SKS in an obvious period of waiting-to-be-the-next-government and then once elected launched into a period of extensive nothingness they ve suddenly started coming up with ideas.

This idea I might argue to be a fairly fundamental change to criminal law.

Seems to have come somewhat from nowhere. The proposal should be front page news and part of a wider public debate, I would say.

Fwiw I'm deeply unsettled.

I think the final quote sums it up for me:

"Juries are not the cause of the backlog. The cause is the systematic underfunding and neglect that has been perpetrated by this government and its predecessors for years."

Juries cost money, this move will save money. Less money spent on the cost of juries for minor offences means more money to spend on other things,

This government has picked up the mess the last government made by chronically underfunding the court system.

[XCP]

Sounds reasonable to me.

I have wasted more time than I care to remember hanging about the precincts of a Crown Court for absolute trivia. Shoplifters, minor assaults, minute quantities of drugs.

The system is broken.

Why on earth a professional criminal should be able to elect jury trial for a sub £100 theft is beyond me. He had over 100 previous FFS.

[bstb3]

AbbeyNormal said:

Juries cost money, this move will save money. Less money spent on the cost of juries for minor offences means more money to spend on other things,

This government has picked up the mess the last government made by chronically underfunding the court system.

If the solution to chronically underfunding something is to remove a basic right then thats a pretty stty solution to be honest. Especially at a time when we are giving away grants for EV buying FFS.

I'm sorry, but this is just too much. Petty crime resulting in fines or whatever I can see it, just like we already do for speeding etc, but jailing people for up to 3 years with no option for trial by your peers? Jesus wept if people are ok with that then I don't know what to say. Every day this government finds a new way to lower itself. If they are worried about people gaming the system just up the penalty for frivolous trials.

Imagine how much st would hit the fan if the orange one over the pond even sniffed at doing something like this. It's mental people can't see where it could lead.

[JagLover]

scenario8 said:

For a government that I criticised for spending 14 years in opposition, two years under the leadership of SKS in an obvious period of waiting-to-be-the-next-government and then once elected launched into a period of extensive nothingness they ve suddenly started coming up with ideas.

This idea I might argue to be a fairly fundamental change to criminal law.

Seems to have come somewhat from nowhere. The proposal should be front page news and part of a wider public debate, I would say.

Fwiw I'm deeply unsettled.

If it is Labour be suspicious. Likely they are planning to criminalise more thought crimes and don't want juries getting in the way.

[neilr]

geeks said:

More to the point. Why are we still using stupid wigs in court?

No they are more like long white hats.


I don't think I'm the only one to find this very worrying, an absolute thin end of the wedge. It's like Labour WANT to lose the next election.

[philv]

The most dishoneat government in modern history.

One that changes voting right s to gain advantage.

Now making fundamental changes to the justice system.

What's to be worried about?

[119]

Another day, another Labour dumb idea.

They are the gift that keeps on taking.

[The Hypno-Toad]

JagLover said:

scenario8 said:

For a government that I criticised for spending 14 years in opposition, two years under the leadership of SKS in an obvious period of waiting-to-be-the-next-government and then once elected launched into a period of extensive nothingness they ve suddenly started coming up with ideas.

This idea I might argue to be a fairly fundamental change to criminal law.

Seems to have come somewhat from nowhere. The proposal should be front page news and part of a wider public debate, I would say.

Fwiw I'm deeply unsettled.

If it is Labour be suspicious. Likely they are planning to criminalise more thought crimes and don't want juries getting in the way.

^^^^^^ This 110%

So if you take part in a protest against a government policy and it all kicks off and you get swept up in it and you find yourself in front of a magistrate who has perhaps been 'influenced' by that same government, suddenly you are looking at 3 months inside and unable to get a job?

This is a monumentally dangerous idea. It doesn't matter which government is in charge, it sets a very dangerous precedent indeed.

[FourWheelDrift]

geeks said:

More to the point. Why are we still using stupid wigs in court?

But removing them will cost the jobs of as many as 2 wig makers.

[bstb3]

The Hypno-Toad said:

This is a monumentally dangerous idea. It doesn't matter which government is in charge, it sets a very dangerous precedent indeed.

Quite. Even if you are stupid enough to believe this government wouldn't abuse such a thing, do you really want the next incoming government (because sure as hell this one is done for in the next GE assuming we get one) to have such powers? Considering the amount of bedwetting from some about Reform and the evils it brings behind the scenes I would have thought such a proposition would be terrifying.

I can't think of a single group that should be happy about this. Incredible it was allowed out as even an idea that was raised. The fact that it comes from a department headed up by quite possibly the least suitable person to be a minister in a long time (which is really saying something these days) is less surprising.

[MrBogSmith]

Fully jury systems like we have are the exemption, not the norm.

Have a look at what some of our European neighbours do before being too melodramatic.

I d far rather be tried by legally qualified and experienced people.

[scenario8]

AbbeyNormal said:

Juries cost money, this move will save money. Less money spent on the cost of juries for minor offences means more money to spend on other things,

This government has picked up the mess the last government made by chronically underfunding the court system.

You would have to provide truly exceptional evidence for me to believe you would have wholeheartedly supported such a policy had it been proposed by a Conservative government. Particularly had it been announced in the manner this has.

[ATG]

neilr said:

geeks said:

More to the point. Why are we still using stupid wigs in court?

No they are more like long white hats.

You think you look normal, your honour?

[carl_w]

I think that the right to a trial by jury should be preserved, but the option for a jury-less trial should be given.

I also think that some of this could be easily automated. agtlaw's website has the sentencing guidelines for speeding convictions. If you plead guilty it should be pretty easy to automate the sentencing without involving a JP at all. The same could be done for other "crimes" like non-payment of TV licence.