Trial by jury

[Pblakeney]

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

🥱

 

[BoldonLad]

The claim is that reducing the number of jury trials is to reduce the backlog in the Criminal Justice System.

A quick Google suggests that only 10% of criminal trials (now) would qualify as Jury trials, of those, only 3% actually proceed to an actual jury trial.

It seems to me that the biggest "win" could be produced by examining why the 90% are taking so long.

 

[classic33]

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.

The last time I did jury duty one jury at the same courthouse had formed a whatsapp group to keep in touch with each other. Third week in, their "secret" was heard about, the trial halted and the jury dismissed.
Presumably it started again with a new jury, at a later date.

 

[First Aspect]

The claim is that reducing the number of jury trials is to reduce the backlog in the Criminal Justice System.

A quick Google suggests that only 10% of criminal trials (now) would qualify as Jury trials, of those, only 3% actually proceed to an actual jury trial.

It seems to me that the biggest "win" could be produced by examining why the 90% are taking so long.

The idea for doing this came from the Leveson review, i.e. from within the legal profession itself.

I don't know what we can really expect from our politicians if following expert advice isn't good enough.

 

[AndyRM]

We've had enough of experts, hadn't you heard.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I don't know what we can really expect from our politicians if following expert advice isn't good enough.

By that logic we can just get rid of the politicians and have some sort of technocracy.

 

[Pblakeney]

By that logic we can just get rid of the politicians and have some sort of technocracy.

AI?

 

[AndyRM]

AI?

Just leave it all to Grok and Palantir.

Everything will be fine.

 

[Pblakeney]

Just leave it all to Grok and Palantir.

Everything will be fine.

What could possibly go wrong?
All said tongue in cheek but I think it will all go wrong as far as employment is concerned.

 

[icowden]

The idea for doing this came from the Leveson review, i.e. from within the legal profession itself.
I don't know what we can really expect from our politicians if following expert advice isn't good enough.

I think the argument is that Lammy is going a long way past what Leveson proposed:

Recommendations in the 378-page report published on Wednesday include:

• The creation of a new division of the crown court in which a judge and two magistrates hear “either way” offences – those in which the defendant can currently choose to be heard by either a magistrate or a jury in the crown court.
• Removing the right to be tried in the crown court for offences that carry a maximum sentence of no more than two years.
• Reclassifying some either way offences so they can be tried only in a magistrates court.
• Trial by judge alone for serious and complex fraud cases.
• The right for all crown court defendants to elect to be tried by a judge alone.

The top three of those recommendations would save 9,000 sitting days in the crown courts, out of a current total of 110,000, according to the report – an estimate Leveson said was conservative.

He proposed that to maximise the effectiveness of the proposals, sitting days would increase to 130,000 a year at an overall cost of approximately £1bn between 2025-26 and 2029-30.


Leveson said: “I don’t rejoice in these recommendations but I do believe they’re absolutely essential.

“Do I want to curtail jury trial? Would I like to? No … But I would ask that the report be judged not on what I am undoing, but on what I am trying to protect.”

He said in the report there was “a real risk of total system collapse in the near future”, with victims and witnesses disengaging because they were waiting years for their case to be heard or forgetting details by the time a case came around.

 

[First Aspect]

What has he gone a long way past? 3 year sentences rather than 2? Is that a long way?

 

[icowden]

What has he gone a long way past? 3 year sentences rather than 2? Is that a long way?

David Lammy is expected to back down from removing jury trials in England and Wales for all but the most serious charges of murder, manslaughter and rape, but trial by jury will still be radically reduced for more minor offences.

The UK government’s justice secretary said there had been “cabinet feedback” on the plans and suggested on Tuesday he was minded to follow the recommendation in a report by the retired senior judge Sir Brian Leveson that “either-way” offences likely to result in a sentence of three years or less should be dealt with by the magistrates courts or a new judge-only division.


A memo leaked last week had suggested Lammy was looking at going further, suggesting jury trials would be applicable only for public interest offences with possible prison sentences of more than five years, removing the ancient right of thousands of defendants to be heard before a jury.

 

[First Aspect]

Lammy is reportedly considering. What's the actual policy announcement?

 

[briantrumpet]

AI?

I'm not sure that artificial insemination will solve all our problems, but it's worth a go, I suppose, as everything else seems to have failed.

 

[spen666]

The idea for doing this came from the Leveson review, i.e. from within the legal profession itself.

I don't know what we can really expect from our politicians if following expert advice isn't good enough.

There are very few in the legal profession who agree with Leveson.