Trial by jury

[Psamathe]

@secretbarrister suggests that rather than trying to save money by getting rid of juries, the backlog could be better dealt with by improving things like prisons bringing prisoners and witnesses to the court, CPS actually delivering documents, the IT system / roofs / ceilings / toilets not collapsing etc.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2025...hy-is-the-government-overlooking-the-obvious/

BBC NewsNight yesterday has a member of HoL specialising in legal issues (can't remember her name) and she was saying the delays in trials for cases where victim is badly impacted by delays could be addressed easily by setting eg rape and abuse trials must be started within 9 months and delay those trials where impact on victims is less severe.

 

[Electric_Andy]

I agree with scrapping jury duty. But something else has to be in place, you can't just get rid. I'm thinking employed staff who have had foundation training in law, ethics, criminology etc. They'd be in court already so no need to pay expenses to random members of the public on jury duty. If a case is postponed then they attend another case or travel to another court. It seems to be a more efficient way of doing it.

I can't think of another scenario where you pay members of the public to make ethical decisions that could significantly affect a person's life. There will inevitably be prejudice based on what has happened to a member of the jury in the past, e.g. I was burgled once so any burglar I'd probably say was guilty, especially if they sound like a wrong'un

 

[Electric_Andy]

And also, technology has changed since the jury was introduced 800 years ago. Why the need for someone's opinion if there's CCTV, DNA etc i.e. clear cut

 

[All uphill]

Also, how much ovcerhead does there being a jury add. Even with judge only each trial still needs to be scheduled, eveidence and cases presented by both sides, witnesses heard all exactly thge same whether just 1 judge listening or with all members of the jury. Judge will still need to deliberate over evidence presented (maybe a bit quicker than some juries) but will that be such a saving as to shift the massive backlog?

I don't think that's right.

Explaining their duties to the jury, summarising the issues for them and ensuring the jury understand what is happening takes time.

Having the jury file in and out half a dozen times is also time consuming.

I have done court work and seen judges can absorb information and apply the law at an astonishing pace.

 

[Pblakeney]

I don't think that's right.

Explaining their duties to the jury, summarising the issues for them and ensuring the jury understand what is happening takes time.

Having the jury file in and out half a dozen times is also time consuming.

I have done court work and seen judges can absorb information and apply the law at an astonishing pace.

I was about to post similar. Pre trial with the jury takes hours. Multiply that by many cases and the savings are clear.
I'm sure there is a balance between low risk/high evidence and the more serious cases to be made.

The one I was at had high evidence and was a complete waste of time.

 

[First Aspect]

And also, technology has changed since the jury was introduced 800 years ago. Why the need for someone's opinion if there's CCTV, DNA etc i.e. clear cut

Because it isn't.

 

[Psamathe]

I don't think that's right.

Explaining their duties to the jury, summarising the issues for them and ensuring the jury understand what is happening takes time.

Having the jury file in and out half a dozen times is also time consuming.

I have done court work and seen judges can absorb information and apply the law at an astonishing pace.

I was about to post similar. Pre trial with the jury takes hours. Multiply that by many cases and the savings are clear.
I'm sure there is a balance between low risk/high evidence and the more serious cases to be made.

The one I was at had high evidence and was a complete waste of time.

Streamline jury selection. Delegate to court officials, even magistrates so the trial can be ongoing for a different case whilst another jury is being prepared?

For years out trial by jury system has been working fine. We are being told that crime is down. Offset with evidence becoming more complex but I cannot believe maintaining current threshold for trial by jury is beyond the capabilities of the UK.

 

[Pblakeney]

Just a guess/theory but part of the issue could be social media. None of the jury can have any connection with anyone involved in the case.
This is becoming more problematic the more people are connected. Just a thought.

 

[spen666]

Just a guess/theory but part of the issue could be social media. None of the jury can have any connection with anyone involved in the case.
This is becoming more problematic the more people are connected. Just a thought.

None of the reasons given for abolishing jury trials relate to this issue

 

[Pblakeney]

None of the reasons given for abolishing jury trials relate to this issue

Maybe, but it is time consuming and therefore has an impact.

 

[spen666]

Maybe, but it is time consuming and therefore has an impact.

how is it time consuming if its not an issue .
Its just an irrelevant comment by you that is not part of the debate about the reasons for Lamy wanting to abolish Jury trials

 

[Psamathe]

I have no idea what impact it has on numbers or delays but I do wonder about the defendant getting to decide if they want a jury trial of just a magistrate. Just seems really weird and must mean defendant gaming the system (at least often).

I can appreciate that for a given offence complexity and/or severity might make different courts better suited but under those circumstances maybe for CPS or even a judge (based on prosecution & defence submissions) to decide on which court.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Germany have run a similar system and don’t seem to be falling apart.
no system will ever be perfect

Aren't they 'Schoffen', a panel of citizens who serve with a judge to decide cases? So like a jury made up of the public but trained a bit and you get the same jury every time.

"The Schöffen are elected by local councils; government officials, doctors, clergymen, and persons more than 65 years of age may be excluded, while persons under 30 are always excluded".

I think very complex fraud trials would be better served by not having a jury of the public but perhaps a panel of judges, but I'd worry that single judges would be open to personal bias in things like rape cases.

 

[Pblakeney]

how is it time consuming if its not an issue .
Its just an irrelevant comment by you that is not part of the debate about the reasons for Lamy wanting to abolish Jury trials

Time does seem to be part of the issue but, whatever.

"Against a backdrop of criticism from the legal profession and political opponents, Mr Lammy, who is also deputy prime minister, insisted the reforms were “bold but necessary” because victims are facing “agonising delays” in the system – with the crown court backlog projected to reach 100,000 by 2028."

 

[spen666]

Time does seem to be part of the issue but, whatever.

"Against a backdrop of criticism from the legal profession and political opponents, Mr Lammy, who is also deputy prime minister, insisted the reforms were “bold but necessary” because victims are facing “agonising delays” in the system – with the crown court backlog projected to reach 100,000 by 2028."

He may have talked about delays but your irrelevant unsubstantiated claim about social media is not one of the delays anyone has mentioned, because its not a delay is probably the reason. Far bigger delays are caused by lack of court rooms available. lack of judges and lack of lawyers prepared to work for peanuts paid for legal aid work