http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8582354.stm

Hmm. Whilst I'm sure a gang of nasty dangerous thugs has been served justice, I can't help wondering if this case sets a dangerous precedent for future cases. As the Lovely Shami Chakrabati points out;

"Jury trial has been an age-old method of boosting confidence and legitimacy in the criminal justice system.
"How will you persuade witnesses and victims to come forward if you can't even protect your jurors?"

This is true. The decision to proceed with a Jury-less trial seems to be based on the inability to keep jurors and witnesses safe, rather than anything else. I believe everything should be done, to ensure a proper trial by Jury can go ahead, even if that means jurors and witnesses are temporarily housed abroad, even if this costs a lot of money. Surely, if people can't have faith in the ability of the system to protect them, then they will feel less willing to give evidence, or sit on a jury?

Seems the authorities have been too scared to deal with these nasty bastards properly, and one even went missing during the trial; how on earth has someone on trial for a violent robbery been allowed to escape a court?

For thugs like this to become so powerful they have an extensive and effective network of people to intimidate and harass witnesses/jurors, shows perhaps there was a failure in policing; too often, it seems that people involved in cases like this have had long 'careers' that are well known. Police/authorities turning a 'blind eye' too often?

Rotten. It's all rotten…

The basic idea of a trial without jury is pretty pitiful but if the chaps in this instance kept getting folk intimidated then they get what they have coming. As for protecting jurors, how does Ms. Chakrabati suggest we do that? Police escort forever? It cannot be done.

No jury because the secret service wish it so is another matter altogether. That stinks.

The idea of trial by jury is flawed by the same problems as democracy – lost of people are **** idiots.

I agree with your general point though.

Surely, if people can't have faith in the ability of the system to protect them, then they will feel less willing to give evidence, or sit on a jury?

Very good point but a sad fact of life that has reached the courts. You only have to look at cases like Rhys Jones where everybody knew who killed him but the police couldn't do anything because of fear and intimidation. I know the person who killed him was eventually caught but would that have been so without the massive press coverage and resulting police resources put in to the case.

Jury trial is a great idea but is sadly flawed in many instances; rape (often one persons word against another), fraud (complexity) and organised crime (initimidation of witnesses).

It's not as if countries which use Civil Law as the basis of their legal systems are all hopelessly barbaric illiberal hell holes

As for protecting jurors, how does Ms. Chakrabati suggest we do that?

How on Earth, considering currrent 'security' provisions, were these thugs able to relay information to people on the outside, to 'get' at jurors? How were they able to access jurors' information, such as addresses, etc? To do so would require a pretty influential network of individuals privvy to such information, surely, and for many of those individuals to be corruptible. Why wasn't more care taken to prevent this happening? Points to a failure of the system, I'd say. So, instead of taking the 'easy option', the courts and authorities should be working to ensure this doesn't happen. At whatever cost.

If I was sitting on a jury, I would want to feel safe and protected from intimidation. I would expect the system to provide me with such assurances. This wasn't the case here, so obviously the system has let people and Justice down.

Imagine getting called up as a member of jury for that case, 6 months of going to a court every day listening to complex information then at the end 12 of you trying to come to the same decision .. it wouldn't happen. no saying we should get rid of juries but I think in some circumstances they aren't suitable. also imagine you were then whisked away to be housed elsewhere due to concerns of repurcussions and not being able ot carry on with your family life as the courts said "oh no there's the chance you will get intimidated" it would just be a crazy situation.,

How on Earth, considering currrent 'security' provisions, were these thugs able to relay information to people on the outside, to 'get' at jurors?

The thugs, more commonly known as 'defendents' were on bail…

But even if they weren't its not difficult for people in the public gallery to 'clock' the jury members and have them 'followed'.

Here though an earlier error by a judge on timing, meant a guilty verdict became a thrown-out verdict – otherwise they've have gone down already.

Trial by Jury is a fundamental corner stone of our Criminal Justice System. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. The scales of justice have just swung more in favor of the state.

Intimidation, on the other hand must not be tolerated. Jurors should watch and hear a trial anonymously (from behind one way glass screens for example). They should not just be got rid of.

The Jury is the trier of fact, the Judge is the trier of law. That is the way it should stay.