I'm quite interested in what people's thoughts are on this. It has been announced in the context of massive backlogs in the court system. But I don't really understand how the people required turn up and give their time for free are a factor in that backlog. But is that the case? That there just aren't enough people to summon?
I'm no expert in these matters but it seems to me that the previous government closing nearly 300 courts would be more of factor in those courts that remain being over subscribed. Fewer courts and fewer trails seems to mean fewer jurors by default anyway doesn't it?
What's made it a fairly simple action to take politically is trial by jury isn't enshrined in law, it has just been around so long we've come to assume it is. A fair trial is our legal right, but having a jury as part of that trial is just one way of achieving that. We've been doing it that way for about 800 years which has presumably been long enough for us to stop thinking about other models and I think we assume its a sort of universal - that thats how all trials operate. What other 800 year old methodologies would we cling onto - GP's clinging to the theory of the four humours? Bring back a bit of Trivium and Quadrivium to the school curriculum?
Personally I don't really think Juries are a good idea - lots of countries don't have them and seem to manage. I was quite surprised that Judges and Barristers have been up in arms about the announcement - from my experience as a juror their appreciation juries didn't seem to extend to providing any ****ing chairs for them to sit on. But I don't really grasp what it is about having jurors present that makes them think a better version of a trial can happen (other than maybe they enjoy having an audience to perform to. I'm guessing there aren't many court room dramas set in Dutch court rooms)
Don't think its a particular bad idea. From what ive seen going on in this country I'm dubious about the critical thinking abilities of a large proportion of the population
From what ive seen going on in this country I'm dubious about the critical thinking abilities of a large proportion of the population
A relative says the same, after she was called up for jury service.
Said half of them just didn't give a shit, made no effort to think critically about the case and just wanted to say whatever would let them go home as quickly as possible. A really depressing experience. Says that if she was on trial, she'd much sooner have a judge do it - at least they're actually paid to try and come to a fair decision.
When I did jury service there were a couple of people who didn't really care, a couple who seemed totally overwhelmed and would have gone along with the consensus regardless, but the rest were sufficiently engaged that I think overall it worked well. One or two almost cared too much in that they really didn't want the defendant to go to prison because they felt sorry for him. There was a decent representation of society, I think, and I believe that we came to a fair decision.
I was elected chairman because (a) nobody volunteered and (b) a chap said "this bloke's been taking notes so he's obviously been paying attention!"
How would you feel about being judged by people Lord Far Far has appointed ?
I've been on a jury and was equally dismayed. However, I can also see the point that a jury is less likely to have been "bought" or otherwise politically swayed than a couple of members of the judiciary. Perhaps I'm also less convinced given that the party found guilty at the trial I juried at was subsequently cleared on appeal after the original judge was found to have misdirected the jury.
How would you feel about being judged by people Lord Far Far has appointed ?
How are judges appointed?
I think the acid test is to put yourself in the dock as an innocent person and decide what you'd prefer. Personally I think given the choice between a relatively intelligent, educated and experienced judge or a group of my peers who if statistically average would have the critical thinking skills to have voted Brexit/Boris, currently reform curious, and in favour of capital punishment......I'd be going for the judge even if there was a chance they were bent (or incentivised for a particular verdict by political influence).
Juries are out of date, however, I don't think that scrapping juries will make a huge difference to the backlog.
The difference will be made by increasing the use of Magistrates Courts by increasing sentencing powers so that fewer cases make it to Crown Courts and jury trials.
It does mean that Mags will see more trials, which will slow them down, but Mags are more numerous because they aren't trained for years.
Mags are drawn from wider society so have many of the good points of a jury, with added experience and training.
Barristers are already in Mags Courts, so that experience remains to benefit the defendant.
This government didn't start well by reducing court sitting hours from that of the Conservative government.
The Criminal Justice system has been broken for decades and needs huge reform. The jury trials proposal is a response to one specific issue
I do understand the reasons. I don't think they justify the changes. I would actually be happier for juries to be scrapped in really complicated trials and have the outcome decided by a trio of judges.
Was called as a professional witness for a case in the High Court and hung around to see the outcome. The judge was absolutely past it - clearly unable to hear half the witnesses, being coached by his assistant, and having a blinding refusal to understand any nuances in the whole thing. It was either yes or no, black or white.
On top of that I also wonder if this has partly come about from a few high profile cases around protestors where the jury has returned a not guilty verdict in defiance of the judge's orders and embarrassed the judiciary (and the government at the time).
The problem is several governments of various colours underfunding the entire justice system*, Police, courts, access to legal aid, prisons, rehabilitation and probation.
While I appreciate the arguments for scrapping some jury trials, as ever, other governments will no doubt choose to extend it and do away with more rights.
Though plenty of western countries don't have jury trials and haven't become authoritarian regimes.
It's complicated.
*obviously underfunding family support, social housing, childrens services, education, out of school youth services, apprenticeships erc etc has created more likelihood of criminal activity as well.
Judges have their own biases too.
I think even if they do, they also know what job they should be doing - the people putting the case in front of them do too.
So if the judge comes to a decision that ignores the facts that have been put in front of them everyone knows whats going on.
The problem with a jury is although you know what evidence has been presented in court you don't really know what grasp of that information they have - the decisions they make don't come with a narrative. When can come back with a totally baffling decision it can't be challenged. The story ends there - the jury leave and its over.
I've only been on a jury once - I'd say more than 2/3rds of that jury didn't have a clear grasp of what was evidence. The defendants lawyer had repeatedly asked the same question to various witnesses about one aspect of how the police interview of the defendant had taken place - suggesting that the interview hadn't been done correctly - everyone they asked that question of answered 'its not like the movies - this is how interviews are conducted, the procedure was absolutely correct in these circumstances '.
Most of jury took the question rather than the answer to be evidence. Just because it had been asked so many times. Weirdly these people were also satisfied that the guy had done what he'd been accused of (it honestly couldn't have been a more open a shut case) but the repeated question about process meant they also believed he'd also been fitted up. Even when in discussion they pretty much all agreed he'd done what he was accused off they wouldn't change their verdict to guilty because they felt somehow 'it taught the police a lesson'. Of what I've no idea - and of course it taught nobody anything because their reasoning wasn't available to anyone outside of the room.
It concerns me a bit that decisions are even made as to whether charges even get brought as based not of the evidence of what has happened but whether a jury would be likely to convict. So a bias exists just in the assumptions the subjectivity of juries, and the limits of laypeople's grasp of the process. And that just seems to be accepted as a prevailing condition.
Mags are drawn from wider society so have many of the good points of a jury, with added experience and training.
My mother was a magistrate. After a lifetime of being unreasonably and irrationality judged.....I'm not going to use my lived experience as positive proof of that being a good idea!
but Mags are more numerous because they aren't trained for years.
Mags are drawn from wider society so have many of the good points of a jury, with added experience and training.
But theres also desperate shortage of magistrate - the numbers have fallen by more than half over the last decade. More than half of the magistrates we do have are close to retirement.
Most of jury took the question rather than the answer to be evidence. Just because it had been asked so many times.
The most depressing thing about that is that the barrister in question would have known this would be the impact and that was precisely why he was asking the question. Playing on the stupidly/naivety/ignorance/prejudice of the people ultimately charged with making the decision.
The more I think about it, the less I find to like about the concept. If I was ill, or a member of my family or hell - a random stranger - I would not need the evidence of my best course of treatment to be presented (in easy to understand terms) to a group of 12/15 random members of public before a rest of my life altering decision be made. I'd hope the medical professional would talk to another professional or a medical board of professionals, but not a random lady thinking about when she can get home to the kids and the pissed off bloke desperate to get back to his sole trade business that's being shafted by his absence to listen to this stuff that is taking way way longer than his ADHD allows him to focus.
The only reasonable justification I can see for jury trails is nothing to do with the fairness to the person charged with the crime but more the visible non-closed shop nature of the way the verdict is made to the wider public. A lot fewer judges probably get murdered by vindictive cons in the current system too - 'be the person directly responsible for putting away this psychotic murderer that will be released in 20 years' is not a great strapline on a job advert.
Even when in discussion they pretty much all agreed he'd done what he was accused off they wouldn't change their verdict to guilty
But isn't stuff like this an excellent reason for jury trials? They felt the guy had been stitched up and acted as they saw fit.
I'm quite interested in what people's thoughts are on this. It has been announced in the context of massive backlogs in the court system. But I don't really understand how the people required turn up and give their time for free are a factor in that backlog. But is that the case? That there just aren't enough people to summon?I don’t think we have any problem with no of Jurors. It *might* be argued that empanelling a jury, the judge giving them their charge, jury deliberations and some of the basic logisitics of moving juries in and out of the court room (eg when point of law are debated) adds time to each case - but it’s difficult to image that is more than 20%?
I heard someone (I think he was a barrister) on the radio describe a situation where by having a jury trial it would be 2028 or 2029 for offences than allegedly took place at the end of 2023 and was charged now (another problem). If the evidence is mostly eye witness accounts the best legal strategy might be to plead not guilty and let it go to trial. Best case the witnesses are so fed up they don’t show up and the case is dropped. Worst case they show up and you make sure the jury have front of mind how long ago it was and plant the doubt about anyone remembering that long ago. It then becomes possible to “game the system” and the more people who see that as a possible best option the more jury trials you have scheduled and the problem self perpetuates.
indeed - and it’s not just the courts, if you don’t pay defence agents credible legal aid rates then they won’t be reading the evidence early and potentially discussing with their client the prospect of success; nor will they be well prepared for trial - and why should they when so many get postponed at the last minute but they won’t get paid till the end; and similarly an under resourced prosecution service who only really prepare the high level cases (probably those now going to juries); if you don’t fund forensic services or computer/phone analysis then you either delay charging or trials or both.I'm no expert in these matters but it seems to me that the previous government closing nearly 300 courts would be more of factor in those courts that remain being over subscribed. Fewer courts and fewer trails seems to mean fewer jurors by default anyway doesn't it?
yes - but actually its not how most trials operate on the continent. Indeed it’s not how most trials operate here in terms of volume but in many European countries they don’t use juries. They also have an entirely different approach to trials - we, like the Americans and most commonwealth countries, have an adversarial system whilst most Europeans have an inquisitorial system - the judge digs into the subject matter rather than merely observing the battle before him.What's made it a fairly simple action to take politically is trial by jury isn't enshrined in law, it has just been around so long we've come to assume it is. A fair trial is our legal right, but having a jury as part of that trial is just one way of achieving that. We've been doing it that way for about 800 years which has presumably been long enough for us to stop thinking about other models and I think we assume its a sort of universal - that thats how all trials operate.
well I think it would be wrong to suggest there has been no modernisation in the courts in 800 years! The majority of cases in the UK are summary cases tried without a jury. Digital evidence, forensic science, etc all have forced modernisation - even within our lifetimes, and clearly sentencing has moved on leaps and bounds in that time period. I’d have been more impressed though if he was going to explain how he would reduce reoffending or give judges new powers that actually deter offending without choking up the jails further (and I don’t mean hanging!).What other 800 year old methodologies would we cling onto - GP's clinging to the theory of the four humours? Bring back a bit of Trivium and Quadrivium to the school curriculum?
if I was going to be accused of a serious crime, and we should remember any of use could be wrongly accused tomorrow, then I’d probably want it to be in a country with a jury! Professional judges have, by their very nature come from a particularly well educated background, you don’t get to be a judge without first being a well regarded lawyer and you don’t achieve that without first being a successful law students, and you don’t do that without first having a successful schooling and too often that doesn’t happen without a supportive family life. Can a judge who has never been threatened with a knife, nor been in the sort of personal circumstances where that sort of thing happens assess if the witness who fought back and ended up stabbing his assailant was in fear of his life and unable to escape? Can a judge who has never been in or known someone in a controlling relationship really assess if the victim of domestic violence was manipulated to staying for months on end or just made it all up out of spite when the relationship ended.Personally I don't really think Juries are a good idea - lots of countries don't have them and seem to manage.
probably as much about not actually fixing the root causes and a lack of consultation as concern about the fundamentals.I was quite surprised that Judges and Barristers have been up in arms about the announcement
I’m not sure people who are a mix of resentment for being there, some who already made up their mind the moment they walked in and some who don’t really understand the evidence is a better audience than a judge who will understand the clever legal point or the significance of the way a question was worded. It does make it harder to debate legal points which would normally be outside the view of the jury, like the admissibility of some evidence - although magistrates manage this.- from my experience as a juror their appreciation juries didn't seem to extend to providing any ****ing chairs for them to sit on. But I don't really grasp what it is about having jurors present that makes them think a better version of a trial can happen (other than maybe they enjoy having an audience to perform to. I'm guessing there aren't many court room dramas set in Dutch court rooms)
If I was going to question the benefits of juries it would not be about throughput but reliability. It’s clear to me that certain trials are probably too long or complex to put before ordinary juries - fraud cases are an example. I think it would be far better to have pretrial hearings to establish much more what can be agreed and which bits of a case really need tested by a jury.
Mags are drawn from wider society so have many of the good points of a jury, with added experience and training.
There is and will always be, a difficulty in selecting magistrates that represent a broad spectrum of society - unsurprisingly previous convictions would bar you, but there is also a self selection bias. How many car mechanics, postmen or bus drivers put themselves forward? And like jury duty the “expenses” won’t cover all of a typical professional or tradesperson’s loss of earnings, so often public sector people and retirees are who do it.
On top of that I also wonder if this has partly come about from a few high profile cases around protestors where the jury has returned a not guilty verdict in defiance of the judge's orders and embarrassed the judiciary (and the government at the time).
Judges can’t order juries to convict; they can to acquit. I don’t think any member of the judiciary has been embarrassed by a jury, in recent times. They may be frustrated although I suspect in the cases you refer to the judge is ok with it sending a message to parliament whether they think the jury got the decision right or not the judiciary are staunchly protective of their political independence.
it is interesting that Scotland tried to get rid of juries in rape cases and failed to get over the political hurdles despite everyone being agreed that increasing conviction rates is desirable, and widespread recognition that inherent jury biases are part of the problem there. Ironically E&W is set to preserve Juries for rape cases despite them being the sort of case where training and understanding of the offence, offenders and behaviour of survivors might be helpful.
A relative says the same, after she was called up for jury service.
Said half of them just didn't give a shit, made no effort to think critically about the case and just wanted to say whatever would let them go home as quickly as possible. A really depressing experience. Says that if she was on trial, she'd much sooner have a judge do it - at least they're actually paid to try and come to a fair decision
when I did jury service last year, It was a dull and frustrating process mostly, interspersed with a couple of cases. One of which was quite traumatic in its nature.
My fellow jurors all took it very seriously and I like to think we did a good job.
I’m glad I can’t be called for a few years, but I do think the system works pretty well.
I did notice the we, the jury were blamed for a delay in the precedings on day when we’d all been sat waiting for a day?
it is interesting that Scotland tried to get rid of juries in rape cases and failed to get over the political hurdles despite everyone being agreed that increasing conviction rates is desirable,
Indeed - it's a bit odd that the Lammy announcement is to restrict use of jury trials to 'import' cases like rape and murder. I think rape trials are too important to be held with a jury and the problem of juries isn't just a factor in the success of failure of any given case but in whether cases even reach court.
I was listening to arecent episode of 'The Crime Agents' podcast (which is excellent by the way) had an account from a rape victim who has been waiting years for her case to come to trial. Then, suddenly, out of the blue the case was dropped for no reason other than the defence were going to introduce the notion of 'sexomnia' and that basically just the introduction that idea in court would result in the jury will likely returning a not-guilty verdict regardless of the rest of the evidence, so the CPS decided not to even try.
There was also quite an alarming and counter-intuitive statistic that juries that are mostly female are more likely to side with the rapist than the victim.
If I was going to question the benefits of juries it would not be about throughput but reliability.
A few people have said this: is there any evidence that juries are unreliable? One thing that concerns me is that juries have an absolute right to acquit, which is useful when the law is clearly an ass. That would be lost under these changes.
but Mags are more numerous because they aren't trained for years.
Mags are drawn from wider society so have many of the good points of a jury, with added experience and training.
But theres also desperate shortage of magistrate - the numbers have fallen by more than half over the last decade. More than half of the magistrates we do have are close to retirement.
Which coincides with the numbers of Mags Courts falling in less than a decade between 2010 and 2019 for a saving of "approximately £233 million, a far cry from the £1.5billion needed."
Granted, some of these were combined into larger regional courts, but you need people willing to take on the increased travel and time wasted to serve as Mags
Over half of magistrates courts shut down in last nine years
https://www.thejusticegap.com/over-half-of-magistrates-courts-shut-down-in-last-nine-years/
The Criminal Justice system has been broken for decades and needs huge reform. The jury trials proposal is a response to one specific issue
Mags are drawn from wider society so have many of the good points of a jury, with added experience and training.
There is and will always be, a difficulty in selecting magistrates that represent a broad spectrum of society - unsurprisingly previous convictions would bar you, but there is also a self selection bias. How many car mechanics, postmen or bus drivers put themselves forward? And like jury duty the “expenses” won’t cover all of a typical professional or tradesperson’s loss of earnings, so often public sector people and retirees are who do it.
I think the issue going forward for the magistrate system is the kinds of jobs/roles those volunteers are drawn from are becoming pretty scarce. A minimum requirement is 26 half days a year plus training - so thats something like 3 weeks of absence that their employer is 'required to allow' as a minimum. And I can't think of many work settings theres days where the resources are such that you can just absorb the consequences of an employee will often being absent.
Mags are drawn from wider society so have many of the good points of a jury, with added experience and training.
There is and will always be, a difficulty in selecting magistrates that represent a broad spectrum of society - unsurprisingly previous convictions would bar you, but there is also a self selection bias. How many car mechanics, postmen or bus drivers put themselves forward? And like jury duty the “expenses” won’t cover all of a typical professional or tradesperson’s loss of earnings, so often public sector people and retirees are who do it.
And that's one problem with juries; people could be elsewhere earning a wage and just want the trial over and done with. If our car mechanic was called for jury service then he and his business partner would need to consider shutting shop for the duration because of H&S, wrestling a gearbox out on your own, etc. He'd be as professional as a juror as he is as a mechanic, but not all will be.
You'll see a wider range of diversity in Mags than Crown Court judges, but both clearly suit the older demographic, which is partly due to a 2021 rise (COVID) in the retirement age for judges, magistrates and coroners to 75. 75yrs is also the max age for jury service
You could have a Mags bench filled with retired mechanics, posties and bus drivers and the stats won't show it 😉
The magistracy is one of the most diverse parts of the justice system, but there is still much room for improvement. Latest available government statistics (July 2023) reveal that: 57 per cent of sitting magistrates are women, 13 per cent are from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups and 82 per cent are aged 50+. https://www.magistrates-association.org.uk/news-and-influencing/media-centre/facts-and-figures/
Compare that to the figures for judges
1. Main facts and figures
on 1 April 2024, 89.6% of court judges and 87.0% of tribunal judges were white
Asian people made up 5.3% of court judges and 7.4% of tribunal judges – the second highest percentages after white people
black people made up 1.3% of court judges and 1.7% of tribunal judges
On diversity in juries:
In conclusion, examining the historical context, challenges, and significance of D&I in jury selection within the UK highlights its crucial role in enhancing fairness and impartiality in trials, reducing biases, and fostering public trust in the judicial system. Historically, UK jury selection has struggled with underrepresentation, stemming from systemic biases and socio-economic barriers despite reforms aimed at broadening eligibility. Challenges such as socio-economic barriers, implicit biases in selection processes, and a lack of awareness among minority communities persist, hindering diverse jury composition.
However, initiatives such as community outreach, implicit bias training for legal professionals, and reforms to enhance inclusivity in jury summons lists offer promising solutions. These efforts are essential to ensuring that juries accurately reflect societal diversity, thereby promoting fair trial outcomes and bolstering public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process. https://thestudentlawyer.com/2024/07/22/the-role-of-diversity-and-inclusion-in-jury-selection-and-fair-trials/
to be clear I have no data - and neither does anyone else on how reliable or otherwise juries are. Some people have their doubts. Of course single judges wont be faultless either - I was simply suggesting that IF you want to abolish juries it should surely be to make a more reliable system. That first needs us to understand how good juries are. One of the challenges there will be what you think is a good thing might, objectively be considered a jury getting it wrong. Death by driving cases are something that gets people here animated - juries seem to have more empathy with an accused who just made an error of judgement than people would like. Really the time for “compassion” is in sentencing not conviction.If I was going to question the benefits of juries it would not be about throughput but reliability.
A few people have said this: is there any evidence that juries are unreliable? One thing that concerns me is that juries have an absolute right to acquit, which is useful when the law is clearly an ass. That would be lost under these changes.
I wonder how often in the less serious cases you get hung juries, and how often that goes to retrial. There’s so much polarisation and conspiracy theory nonsense that I could see that happening more often - you only need 3 people to say “I know the evidence is weak but he looks like a paedo” or “I never trust the police” and you can’t get a verdict. I don’t know if CPS bother to try again in those circumstances, in Scotland they don’t get another chance but only need 8/15 so don’t get hung juries.
If I was going to question the benefits of juries it would not be about throughput but reliability.
A few people have said this: is there any evidence that juries are unreliable? One thing that concerns me is that juries have an absolute right to acquit, which is useful when the law is clearly an ass. That would be lost under these changes.
There's a public interest part in the decision-making process before charge. That could be strengthened so that these cases never see a court
On top of that I also wonder if this has partly come about from a few high profile cases around protestors where the jury has returned a not guilty verdict in defiance of the judge's orders and embarrassed the judiciary (and the government at the time).
Hadn't thought of this, but now you mention it, it does fit very well with this government's leanings. Which is incredibly worrying.
David Lammy was on the radio news yesterday morning, saying "after all, justice delayed is justice denied"; and I thought to myself "yeah mate, but justice denied is justice denied, too".
Honestly, this government, the things they're trying to do to fundamental rights, and the ways they're trying to justify those things, are the best evidence that the two-party political system is utterly broken at this point.
Having recently been a juror using that perfect sample size of 1 it did feel like herding cats. We all took it seriously. What is hard about being a juror is to sit and properly concentrate for 6 hours a day listening to the evidence is surprisingly hard work. It’s not something that most people do.
I’m not convinced the lack of jurors is really the issue but the lack of investments in courts and prisons. Even if this does work, assuming the same percentage get custodial sentences, where are they going to be housed as clearing the backlog will increase the prison population as convictions will be greater than releases
I felt “up in arms” about the decision when I first heard about it, thought it was about trying to carry out justice on the cheap and would deny people long held key rights. Having read about the kind of cases where there will no longer be an option to ask for jury trial, and the delays that should/could reduce when trying more serious cases… now I’m just shrugging really.
In terms of the effect on 'throughput' I relistened to the Micheal Rosen 'word of mouth' radio programme today featuring use of language in the legal system. It was an interview with a defence advocate and examined the different way language is used when addressing a client, addressing a jury or addressing a judge. She said 'you don't use adjectives when talking to a judge'
So maybe thats it - court backlogs cleared by shorter sentences 🙂
Honestly, this government, the things they're trying to do to fundamental rights,
Ok but there isn't actually a fundamental right to a jury trial. It seems normal to us, but I'd be much more worried if the proposal was to politically appoint judges (as per USA, where Jury trials are a right [but still not used for all cases]) than apply principles found all over the world for less serious trials to be juryless - what is perhaps less common is for a single judge to have the power to try a case and sentence to 3 yrs. You already have this situation with cases that will be capped at 12 months imprisonment.
and the ways they're trying to justify those things, are the best evidence that the two-party political system is utterly broken at this point.
The problem, as so often is the case is not that there are no opposition parties, its that they aren't actually proposing credible alternatives.
Of course single judges wont be faultless either - I was simply suggesting that IF you want to abolish juries it should surely be to make a more reliable system.
Agreed. I don't think it's about fault as such, but that judges tend to be older, wealthier, white, and privately educated. It seems inevitable that will introduce a more conservative bias, for example when trying protestors.
Agreed. I don't think it's about fault as such, but that judges tend to be older, wealthier, white, and privately educated. It seems inevitable that will introduce a more conservative bias, for example when trying protestors.
I'm not sure thats where bias applies for judges. I'd expect a lack of bias in a trial involving protesters for instance as a judge couldn't allow themselves to seem to unilaterally ignore portions of law by accounting for factors other than the crime that is actually being tried. What you're describing is juries being able to exercise partiality. The jury in the trial over the protesters toppling the Coulston statue for instance a jury acquitted them - but the laws they had broken had been broken, the jury just took it on themselves (we can imagine - they might have just not been paying attention, who knows) to decide that the law should not apply to certain people or circumstances. They were able to do that becuase their decision is completely free of any scrutiny or consequence.
you'd expect a judge to know that everyone knows that they know what the law is and how it applies.
If it shouldn't apply in a particular circumstance our job collectively is to change the law rather than imagine a room full of randoms might take it on themselves to serve their own version of the law.
Judges' partiality applies more in sentencing - thats where being in or out of touch, more or less empathetic to both the victim and the perpetrator matters
Agreed. I don't think it's about fault as such, but that judges tend to be older, wealthier, white, and privately educated. It seems inevitable that will introduce a more conservative bias, for example when trying protestors.
Nothing like a bit of racial profiling
Yesterday's blog by The Secret Barrister https://thesecretbarrister.com/2025/12/02/abolishing-trial-by-jury-why-is-the-government-overlooking-the-obvious/ covers most of this but for a modest monetary outlay the following could be stopped/improved:
- Those private contractors, mentioned above, who routinely fail to bring prisoners to court, causing enormous delays on a daily basis? There is no sanction for their failure. No meaningful penalty built into the contracts negotiated by government. Let’s fix that.
- Court “sitting days” – you may think that if a courtroom is useable and a judge is available, then that court and judge will be used. Sadly not. The last government, and this one, cling to “court sitting days” as a mechanism to artificially restrict how many courtroom are allowed to be used each year. The result is that we have empty courtrooms and judges twiddling thumbs every day. The rationale is to save insultingly small sums of money on utilities and court staff. Court sitting days should not be a thing. We don’t have A&E sitting days – if there’s a building, an available professional and a person in need, they get treatment. The concept of court “sitting days” should be abolished.
- Some defendants – not all, as the government keep telling the press, but some – undoubtedly use the delays to their advantage, hoping that the case will somehow collapse, or that vital witnesses will disengage. Incentivise guilty people to admit guilt by increasing the credit (discount) on their sentence for pleading guilty early. Currently the maximum for an early guilty plea is one-third off. Increase that to 50%. Or, if you prefer a tougher framing of the same thing, make the sentence for running a trial and losing twice as long as if you admitted guilt early.
- Interpreters are frequently not booked by the court, or are booked but fail to attend. This should be a once-in-a-year error. Not daily. If the problem is with the contract, it needs to be renegotiated.
- The IT infrastructure in the Crown Courts does not work as it should. All cases are digitised and stored online, yet functional WiFi is still a bonus, not a staple. The systems themselves are prone to constant disruption, crashing and freezing at random (and the primary system, the over-budget and overdue ‘Common Platform’, is still in Beta and functionally useless). When the IT fails, literally no work can be achieved by anybody. It is infuriating.
- The Crown Prosecution Service is still beset by problems. Lawyers and caseworkers are drowning beneath the weight of hundreds of serious cases allocated to them, and every single day important evidence is not served, or a case is not properly prepared, or vital disclosure (material that may assist the Defence) is not provided. Unnecessary hearings are therefore required to sort out the mess, adding to the workload of the courts. Partly the problem is training and retention (many good CPS lawyers flee the chaos of the system), but largely it is resources. The rot set in when Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions, and the CPS lost nearly a third of its workforce. Recent recruitment drives have been insufficient – the CPS simply does not have the staff it needs to do its job.
- Ditto the police. We have not replaced the thousands of years of policing experience lost under the last government. A lack of resources, lack of training and lack of experience all impact upon the progress of cases in court. Errors mean prolonged pre-charge investigation, unnecessary court hearings, ineffective trials and years of extra delay in cases.
- Poor performance is indulged. The prosecution and police failing to comply with court directions to provide evidence and/or disclosure is usually met with a ticking off and the grant of an extension. Introduce meaningful sanctions for non-compliance. If the prosecution don’t serve evidence on time, don’t let them rely on it. If defence solicitors haven’t taken a defendant’s instructions and supplied them to the barrister in time for the first hearing, then unless there’s a good reason for the failure, issue wasted costs against the firm. Whether or not you subscribe to the ‘broken windows’ theory, there is evidence to support it in the way that a climate of decline breeds bad habits.
- Prosecutorial decisions take too long. Too often, the defence will make an offer to resolve a case, and the CPS and police will take several weeks to consider it. And then there will be another hearing at which they will ask for more time. And then another hearing once the decision has been made. It is all avoidable. CPS lawyers are – you may be astonished to learn – never at court. They are required to be at their computers all day, every day. So if as a barrister, you need to speak to the lawyer running the case, you have to get hold of them on the phone (or, God forbid, Teams). Which is not always possible. Have a CPS lawyer stationed at court, empowered to make decisions about cases.
- There are perverse incentives in the way that defence solicitors are paid, which effectively penalise firms who do their job thoroughly and advise clients properly, and rewards inefficiency. All of us in the system recognise this. It’s easily fixable, simply by tweaking the fee structure.
- The court buildings are collapsing. Fixing them will cost money. But we routinely lose days and days of court time due to leaking roofs, broken toilets, failed heating, broken lifts (meaning that disabled witnesses, jurors and defendants cannot get into court), a lack of running water, frozen pipes, overheated courtrooms in summer, freezing courtrooms in winter, falling tiles, broken panic alarms in the cells, and infestations.
- One of the most common causes of delays in charging cases is examination of digital devices, such as mobile phones. The queue in police Digital Investigation Units is usually at least twelve months, so unless the case is a priority, there is immediately a year of delay built in to the investigation. This affects not only drug cases, which almost always require reviews of mobile phones, but rape cases and those involving allegations of domestic abuse, where communications between the defendant and complainant are likely to need reviewing. DIUs have not received anything like the funding needed to keep pace with the explosion in digital evidence. Fund this properly, and you can cut out a year of delay straight away.
- Material held by third parties, such as Social Services records or medical records, is often needed. Due to the anachronistic systems used by the public sector, it can take months and months, which creates delay in the investigation, and during the court process when further material is identified as relevant. Streamlining the processes so that this material can be supplied to the police and CPS – wholesale, without unnecessary and confusing redactions made by people who do not understand GDPR – could again cut out months of delay, and save days and days of court hearings with barristers complaining that they are still, six months on, awaiting Social Services records.
- Criminal sentencing, and the threat of prison, dictates much of the behaviour of guilty defendants. Presently, any custodial sentence of 2 years or less can be suspended, meaning the defendant does not go to prison as long as they comply with Probation requirements and stay out of trouble. Other countries allow sentences of a much greater length to be suspended. If we doubled the period, say to 4 years, for non-violent offences, we would immediately open the possibility of Class A street dealers and white collar criminals becoming eligible for suspended sentences, where presently they would not, increasing the likelihood of guilty defendants pleading guilty. It’s not attractive – any offence carrying four years’ custody is by definition a serious crime – but as an alternative to abolishing trial by jury, might it be worth trying, even for just a short period?
- All cases presently in the Crown Court should be reviewed, to ensure that there remains a public interest in continuing to prosecute in the current climate, and to consider whether an out-of-court disposal might be more appropriate. That 17-year-old who allegedly grew a few cannabis plants in his bedroom, and is now in his early twenties awaiting his third trial date – is that really the best use of our limited resources? Again, not always politically straightforward – but if, as we have been told, this is an unprecedented emergency calling for radical measures, many might consider it the lesser evil to what the government is proposing.
Yesterday's blog by The Secret Barrister
The thing is, whilst the SB might write more elegantly than many the "answers" in that list are not some revalation, everyone at the coal face in CPS, the Bar associations and even the ushers who bring people into court can tell you all those issues and the sort of things that will fix them. Worryingly, its not a case of government not knowing where to go to find out what's wrong at the coal face - the PM was the DPP, he really couldn't have a better network of people to tell him how to fix these issues.
I think a real issue, across Public Services (by the way I don't necessarily agree that the concept of "sitting days" doesn't exist in other public services), is that the senior management aren't really expected to deliver a good service but are absolutely measured and managed on delivering on budget.
Seems reasonable to me. A jury is likely to be a mix of those who don't want to be there and those who swing one way or another. Soft or hard. A professional will know the score. What we do need is a government run on the same lines, not a bunch of amateurs letting personal or party belief over ride good practise.
My worry however is that it will down grade sentencing when what we need is sentencing that both deters and punishes.
@poly They succinctly give the lie to private provision of public services being inherently more efficient. It's also less newsworthy to increase efficiency without doing something big and flashy like removing the right to trial by jury.
the PM was the DPP
Who presided over some of the mess that we're now trying to clear up and addressing the listed items would show how ineffective/disastrous he was for the court service.
My worry however is that it will down grade sentencing when what we need is sentencing that both deters and punishes.
seemingly sentences in themselves aren't a deterrent - either because people don't think they'll get caught or because a lot of crimes aren't pre-meditated so a calculation about the penalty hasn't been made. It's seemingly something the UK has gotten into a bit of a doom loop over. We keep increasing the sentences for certain crimes, giving the public the belief that it will deter crime (that then makes other crimes seem under-sentenced by comparison so those sentences creep up too). It seems like a cheap way of appearing to do the 'tough on crime' thing as announcing it seems to cost nothing and the imagined deterrent effect should in theory result in less crime and therefore less cost. But it doesn't. So instead your jails fill up and your court system ends up bursting at the seams.
My worry however is that it will down grade sentencing
Juries decide on guilt, not on sentences.
My worry however is that it will down grade sentencing
Juries decide on guilt, not on sentences.
I'm wondering if the point being made is that it might be expedient for the CPS o charge people with lesser crimes so that they can go to jury-less trials. But I think the hope is this speeds the whole system up. At the moment for lesser offences defendants can choose either a magistrate or jury trial and tactically are choosing the latter because of the delays involved and hoping that will somehow compromise the outcome in their favour - either that the other side will pull out, witnesses recollections will seem hazier and so on
Says that if she was on trial, she'd much sooner have a judge do it - at least they're actually paid to try and come to a fair decision.
I used to serve lunch to a sheriff in quite a nice glasgow city centre restaurant. He'd come in and be rude, he'd order a three course meal and a bottle of wine and as he descended into a gibbering drunken bellend he would harrangue staff and start spouting off about uneducated youth, lack of education, he'd ask what school i went to (because i have an accent that doesn't place which in scotland means 'private school') and be a lecherous prick to any females.
Sherrifs can preside without a jury in a summary court and they are the ones who would likely be the first contact for a young kid from brigton. Do you think they would be treated fairly? I very much doubt it. I very much doubt it and a trip to the BarL would pretty much be the start of a illustrious criminal career.
Agreed. I don't think it's about fault as such, but that judges tend to be older, wealthier, white, and privately educated. It seems inevitable that will introduce a more conservative bias, for example when trying protestors.
Nothing like a bit of racial profiling
Judges (and magistrates) are disproportionately older, wealthier, white, privately educated (and you forgot to add, men). There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing this out - it's how things get changed.
Identifying a group of people by their characteristics, protected or not, is absolutely fine and perceived outrage at the idea actually sets things back. This is why you're asked about them on a job application in the first place.
defendants can choose either a magistrate or jury trial and tactically are choosing the latter because of the delays involved and hoping that will somehow compromise the outcome in their favour
If I was guilty of an offence I'd go for jury trial if I could, for the above reasons and random factor also, albeit over 83% of defendants in jury trials are found guilty so it's not a great chance of getting off.
I've been on a couple of juries - duty as a citizen yadda yadda. I like the idea, and my experience was better than expected and some of the above though obv it's a v imperfect human process. But it's a lot of work. Would anyone want to see it extended to, I dunno, civil child protection cases or back to incomprehensibly complex financial fraud etc? There's nothing wrong in restricting it further to meet the current crisis as per the Levinson recs.
There's nothing wrong in restricting it further to meet the current crisis as per the Levinson recs.
But the government's plan goes quite significantly further than Leveson recommended:
He recommended removing option for Jury trial in cases with a MAXIMUM sentence of =<2 yrs. The government are proposing to remove it where there is a LIKELY sentence of >3yrs. [Burglary or small time drug dealing are probably examples where the two cases are not the same thing]
He recommended a Judge + 2 magistrates and a single judge for complex financial crimes. The government are proposing a single judge for everything.
He recommended increasing discount for early guilty plea. The government are silent on that point.
He recommended increased use of out of courts cautions to avoid cases coming to court at all. The government are silent on that point.
. But it's a lot of work.
this is something that bugs me a little - not that its a lot of work, but more that its a lot of time for what you're actually required to do.
I was on the jury for a pretty straight forward case. It filled a whole week in terms of disruption and I'm self employed so that was pretty sore. But most of that week was delays and dithering. Even on the first morning they were two hours late just starting the process of jury selection so more than 100 folk were left waiting in a furniture-less room while 'something' happened. Then once selected pretty much the rest of the day was lost to whatever horse trading goes on pre-trial and lot of the contended matters were agreed away without us.
The rest of the week was maybe being called in the morning, maybe being called in the afternoon. If we were called most of that morning or afternoon was't spent in the court, and where were in there and sat down - things weren't exactly happening at any pace
I'd say across that week we were presented with about 30-45minutes worth of actual exchanges between lawyers, witnesses and defendants.
To my mind - swear a jury in at the beginning - video the trail - jurors watch the trail at the end. Theres nothing for the jury to actually do throughout other than watch and listen so I don't really understand why they need to actually be there
During lockdown my gf was on a jury sitting socially distanced in a cinema auditorium watching the trial on a monitor
Video wouldn't be accepted. Jurors (and coppers and lawyers and judges and everyone else) have a mystical belief that they can tell if someone is lying to them just by watching them. It's nonsense but you can't persuade anyone otherwise...
Judges (and magistrates) are disproportionately older, wealthier, white, privately educated (and you forgot to add, men).
Not true. Mags are 57% women.
Weirdly these people were also satisfied that the guy had done what he'd been accused of (it honestly couldn't have been a more open a shut case) but the repeated question about process meant they also believed he'd also been fitted up. Even when in discussion they pretty much all agreed he'd done what he was accused off they wouldn't change their verdict to guilty because they felt somehow 'it taught the police a lesson'.
This seems like a remarkably nuanced and sensible decision by the jury. It's this kind of thing that happens as a democratic check on the powers of police and prosecutors. "Jury nullification" (which I think is a US term rather than a UK one) is not something to be dismissed lightly.
This seems like a remarkably nuanced and sensible decision by the jury. It's this kind of thing that happens as a democratic check on the powers of police and prosecutors. "Jury nullification" (which I think is a US term rather than a UK one) is not something to be dismissed lightly.
Or does it make it easier for everyone in the “system” to say, “it’s not my job to apply common sense or discretion, the jury can always acquit”?
Professional judges have, by their very nature come from a particularly well educated background, you don’t get to be a judge without first being a well regarded lawyer and you don’t achieve that without first being a successful law students, and you don’t do that without first having a successful schooling and too often that doesn’t happen without a supportive family life. Can a judge who has never been threatened with a knife, nor been in the sort of personal circumstances where that sort of thing happens assess if the witness who fought back and ended up stabbing his assailant was in fear of his life and unable to escape? Can a judge who has never been in or known someone in a controlling relationship really assess if the victim of domestic violence was manipulated to staying for months on end or just made it all up out of spite when the relationship ended.
I totally agree with the questioning of bias and life experience. HOWEVER:
1) Judges are also victims of domestic abuse and addiction etc etc, just like the rest of the population. And conversely there's no assurance that any normal jurors will have that.life experience themselves. And in fact...
2) ...I have a friend of a friend that is (I think) a Crown Court judge that has spent a decade or so with a specialisation in child abuse and domestic violence. Fair to say she has heard more stories and seen more people talk about the most awful, nightmarish events than 99% of the general population could imagine, let alone experience. I'd trust them to be more empathetic or at least realistic about
3) There's an observed phenomenon (that tbh I have forgotten the name of and don't have any links to) where jurors hearing about a traumatic experience will disbelieve witnesses. It's especially strong in sexual assault cases. It's a form of self-protection: "that could never be me, I'd never be caught in that position, that situation is too extreme to be real". An experienced judge that had seen dozens of such cases would be more likely to accept that yes, such bad things happen and they can happen senselessly to any of us".
4) Juries can also be very harsh on victims/witnesses that don't "perform" socially in the right way - for example, people thay aren't visibly "sad enough" when their relatives are killed. Actually, people react to trauma in lots of ways - some people just go into complete denial that anything bad happened. Others totally throw themselves into their work.
There's a strong argument that Jeremy Bamber was convicted at least partly because of this. Not because of what he did before or during the murder of hia family (quite possibly by his sister) but because he didn't cry enough after. But his idiosyncratic response could have been a response to trauma, or because he was neuroatypical...or maybe even that he's just a bit of a dick. But none of that means he is a murderer. Again, you'd hope that a judge that has seen many cases and many people's reactions would approach the objective evidence more fairly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber
5) having said all that, I'm uneasy about the move further away from jury trials. If I were on trial, I think I'd prefer a jury in most cases.
My worry however is that it will down grade sentencing
Juries decide on guilt, not on sentences.
I'm wondering if the point being made is that it might be expedient for the CPS o charge people with lesser crimes so that they can go to jury-less trials.
That already exists in substance, at least in E&W. Loads of offences are triable either way ie mags (no jury, lighter sentences) or crown court. And of course you could just charge a less serious offence to begin with - possession of class A instead of possession with intent to supply.
does it make it easier for everyone in the “system” to say, “it’s not my job to apply common sense or discretion, the jury can always acquit”?
I don't think so because every decision in every step leading up to trial is soaked in discretion, and the two part test for prosecutors takes account of public interest anyway. I don't know if COPFS or PPSNI works in the same way but I assume there's something similar.
Also - perhaps slightly contradicting myself - I don't think that jury nullification is that common or systematic that it is a check on every case.
pca - I agree with your 1-5 above, although judges are a spectrum so you may get “lucky” or not. A bad judge can affect a lot of cases - and they aren’t easy to fire!
there is of course discretion at every step of the way, but often those who could show it are not institutionally or culturally empowered to do so. There are rarely consequences for continuing a pointless prosecution, but no shortage of people willing to be outraged if you drop a case.
pca - I agree with your 1-5 above, although judges are a spectrum so you may get “lucky” or not. A bad judge can affect a lot of cases - and they aren’t easy to fire!
there is of course discretion at every step of the way, but often those who could show it are not institutionally or culturally empowered to do so. There are rarely consequences for continuing a pointless prosecution, but no shortage of people willing to be outraged if you drop a case.
Part of the problem is that the police, CPS and courts operate in separate "bubbles". The CPS doesn't publish statistics, preferring management information
About CPS data
The CPS does not publish official statistics. CPS data is operational management information, which can be used as an indicator of CPS performance.
Official statistics relating to crime and policing are maintained by the Home Office and Office for National Statistics.
Official statistics relating to criminal courts including caseload, timeliness, convictions, and sentencing outcomes are maintained by the Ministry of Justice. https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-data-summary-quarter-1-2024-2025
This has been highlighted multiple times as a problem, as well as the CPS changing procedures (i.e paperwork) to improve management rather than necessarily justice
"The inspection also found that overly bureaucratic systems, a lack of co-ordinated IT and processes, police file quality, timeliness of CPS charging advice, and changes to what needs to be included in police files were causing inefficiencies and frontline frustrations."
“Successive inspections by HMCPSI and HMICFRS have identified the need to improve case management between the police and the CPS."
“That is why we are calling on the National Criminal Justice Board to publish a clear strategy to ensure all parts of the criminal justice system are aligned and are working towards the same goal – improving performance and delivering justice for victims.” https://hmcpsi.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/news/the-police-and-crown-prosecution-service-need-more-effective-communication-to-reduce-inefficiencies/
I don't really understand how the people required turn up and give their time for free are a factor in that backlog. But is that the case? That there just aren't enough people to summon?
I appreciate the thread has moved on from this comment, but having done jury duty twice during which time I spent days sat in a waiting room getting on with my work and zero time actually being on a jury, I can't believe that a lack of juror resource is an issue.
Video wouldn't be accepted. Jurors (and coppers and lawyers and judges and everyone else) have a mystical belief that they can tell if someone is lying to them just by watching them. It's nonsense but you can't persuade anyone otherwise...
What has it got to do with what jurors think? Jurors get what they're given. They have no input into the process whatsoever other than nominating one of their group to say either one or two words right at the end.
I think lawyers like the idea of having an audience to perform to.
And anyway - with video - jurors are watching - more intently and without distraction and interruption. Or are there other senses that are important? Can a juror smell guilt and innocence maybe? Get vibes?
What has it got to do with what jurors think? Jurors get what they're given...
Or are there other senses that are important? Can a juror smell guilt and innocence maybe? Get vibes?
Jurors are voters and we live in a democracy.
Vibes-based bullshit and self-delusion permeates everything around how people think they detect truth and lies.
The more I think about it, the less I find to like about the concept. If I was ill, or a member of my family or hell - a random stranger - I would not need the evidence of my best course of treatment to be presented (in easy to understand terms) to a group of 12/15 random members of public before a rest of my life altering decision be made.
The category error you're making is that there is a science or expertise to determining whether someone is telling the truth, or whether their action was reasonable, or whether it is fair or not to punish someone for their actions. There isn't. We are all as competent as each other.
I don't really understand how the people required turn up and give their time for free are a factor in that backlog. But is that the case? That there just aren't enough people to summon?
I appreciate the thread has moved on from this comment, but having done jury duty twice during which time I spent days sat in a waiting room getting on with my work and zero time actually being on a jury, I can't believe that a lack of juror resource is an issue.
I wasn't really suggesting there aren't enough people in the population to draft in (depends on your post code though, my brother and his wife seem both to be on an incredibly short rotation for jury service citations, while 30 miles away I've not had one for about 20 years.) Quite probable that a jury based trail is just a slower and more resource hungry process than one without though, in terms of the broader admin but also aspects of a trail don't happen in front of a jury, so they have to be filed out - a point of law is discussed - they get filed back in again. There'd be no need for that stop / start.
In longer trials is can be pretty extraordinary in terms of the efforts made to accommodate the jury - the 2017 Maclaren fraud trial was 320 days of evidence - there had to be breaks for jurors to get married (not to each other I don't think) for sickness and so on - (the whole trappings of the court had to be moved on one occasion to a witness's house too) . The judge even passed their retirement age mid way through the trial. So 320 days of court time resulted in a case that was 600 days long.
Given that there are countries where trials take place without juries - is there any measure being made of time and cost of comparable trials? (I think I know the answer is 'of course not')
Jurors are voters and we live in a democracy.
Vibes-based bullshit and self-delusion permeates everything around how people think they detect truth and lies.
The Dutch live in a democracy. What's the difference? I've never knowingly had a choice between pro and anti jury parties or candidates on a ballot paper.