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.