Forum menu
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.
Just as a boring followup to jury nullification point - there was a recent acquittal in LA where (reading between the lines) the defendant was technically guilty of the offence, but the jury felt that it wasn't fair to prosecute him for it in the context of the behaviour of federal "law enforcement" officers and overzealous federal prosecutors:
“We thank the jurors for their service as an essential backstop against prosecutorial overreach in our constitutional system,” they said in a statement to The Times.
I've never knowingly had a choice between pro and anti jury parties or candidates on a ballot paper.
Because there's no popular enthusiasm for abolishing jury trials. If there were, someone would have taken a punt.