In some ways, getting rid of the jury and having decisions made by professional judges is quite appealing.

To whom? And why?

‘Are we the jury?’ jury asks judge

To whom? And why?

Have you tried reading this thread and the article linked at the top?

At least with a judge you can be sure they understood their role. Its a strange one and 85% does not strike me as high given we are talking about banging folk upbut using judges means letting the “state” try you and decide. Neither is a perfect.system. Perhaps some professional jurors to help the great unwashed ??

At least with a judge you can be sure they understood their role.

but professional judges make mistakes too – otherwise we wouldn’t need an appeal court. Judges misdirect juries, District Judges (if you like professional magistrates) make errors and magistrates, who whilst lay judges have undergone significant training can and do make mistakes whether acting alone or as a bench of three. I’m not suggesting they make errors regularly – but they do occasionally. By their nature professional judges are all legally qualified which inevitably makes them well paid, well educated, and intelligent. The way we select judges in the UK you would expect them to be amongst the best in their profession, successful, generally law abiding, etc. I’d hazard a guess that a disproportionate number went to private schools, and the “best” universities, and had parents who were in “professions”. Add to that a gender imbalance, an inevitable age imbalance and probably an ethnic imbalance then you rely on a ‘professional empathy’ rather than the respesentative assessment that a jury of ‘peers’ might give.

Neither is a perfect.system. Perhaps some professional jurors to help the great unwashed ??

I’m not sure this is a better system. a ‘two tier’ jury would in many cases just mean you had a group of people who have greater influence than they should and ‘ordinary’ people would be subservient to their professional colleagues. I can also imagine a few ‘trolls’ who would be determined to show their professional colleagues they were wrong. HOWEVER I could imagine a possible role for a professional who has (probably) not sat in on the trial, to facilitate the decision making process rather than using a self appointed foreman, who would be able to keep discussion on track; point our inappropriate avenues; perhaps help jurors understand the judge’s remarks; etc. And who could also alert the Judge to any jurors who are totally unwilling to follow the law.

The one advantage of a professional or lay judge making the decision is that if appealed they will have to justify and explain their logic. Unfortunately the secrecy of the jury room means that there is no transparency on this part of the process and I do wonder if this is a sensible way to get to a structured decision. It perhaps wouldn’t hurt for juries to have to explain (to the judge, if not in public) the logic behind their decision.

Have you tried reading this thread and the article linked at the top?

Yes, none of it made me think that rolling back jury trials further was desirable.

The vast majority of trials don’t involve juries anyway. Juries aren’t asked to solve questions of law, they’re asked to make decisions about facts and credibility. Judges aren’t any better placed to make decisions on those issues than people without legal training are.

I know quite a few judges and much prefer the idea of twelve members of the public deciding on the simple questions asked of a jury . Those questions normally boil down to variations on , can you be sure what happened ? who do you believe ? and given fact x what do you think was going through the defendant’s mind ? Questions most accurately answered by a group consensus rather than an individal.

The Pryce jury were very very special . We should not alter a valuable and effective system that is a fundamental part of our society because of one freak example.

but professional judges make mistakes too

What you mean people are not infallible 😯
Should we let everyone off till we are
My point is they would never ask question 5
Tes its not perfect and I don tthink i would actually support this as an idea but I would prefer ot to the shower who served on that jury [ it would only have been a small number on that jury]

a ‘two tier’ jury

I did not sugeest that and thought it was clear I meant to help and assist the jury and grass on morons and the who cares lets find them guilty i want to go home. Perhaps if jurors wer eheld to account for their decisions they would take it more seriously?

There may indeed be no better alternative to juries but perhaps some tweeking would help?

Questions most accurately answered by a group consensus rather than an individal.

Hence a panel of 3 magistrates, a panel of 3 appeal court judges (who do actually make decisions about facts and credibility).

I’m not suggesting I think they should get rid of juries, but it’s clear there is a lot wrong with the current system.

Well, you could argue that in this case, the system worked

you need ten people to agree – if there is any more than two dissenting views on the jury, then there is no verdict, and another jury gets to decide. Is a pretty good safety factor, which means that even if you had nine idiots on the jury that didn’t understand, then there’s no miscarriage of justice.

(Z11 new login, long story)

Hence a panel of 3 magistrates, a panel of 3 appeal court judges (who do actually make decisions about facts and credibility).

I’m not suggesting I think they should get rid of juries, but it’s clear there is a lot wrong with the current system.

I’ve had more strange decisions from Mags (usually bail apps – we always appealed and never lost one appeal)than from juries.

Well, you could argue that in this case, the system worked

Interesting argument. Unless you define having to do it all again because of stupidity as the system working.

It worked in the sense that stupidity led to no decision rather than the wrong decision.

We must say no misscarriage of justice has happened becasue as yet no justice has been dished out.

Its hard to defend some of those questions tbh and even harder to argue the systme worked this time – the checks and balance may have worked [ bit the point is to reach a verdit and they failed]. I suppose it stopped idiots affecting it but its not hard to find 3 idiots from 12 folk [ not on here anyway 😉 ]

Hence a…panel of 3 appeal court judges (who do actually make decisions about facts and credibility).

Surely questions of fact and witness credibility are a matter for the court of first instance rather than a court of appeal?

My point is they would never ask question 5

Question 5 was clearly written by someone who KNEW the answer and was making a point.

its not perfect and I don tthink i would actually support this as an idea but I would prefer ot to the shower who served on that jury [ it would only have been a small number on that jury]

Actually I found it encouraging that one or more people where prepared to ask the questions, and thus make the Judge aware of the issue.

JY – I did not sugeest that and thought it was clear I meant to help and assist the jury and grass on morons and the who cares lets find them guilty i want to go home. Perhaps if jurors wer eheld to account for their decisions they would take it more seriously?

no I’m afraid ‘professional jurors to help the great unwashed’ left an impression of professionals being paid to do the same / similar role. I’m not sure how you would hold jurors to account especially without simply encouraging people to sit quietly and say nothing.

The Pryce jury were very very special . We should not alter a valuable and effective system that is a fundamental part of our society because of one freak example.

unless of course the Pryce jury were unusual because the problem came to light and in other jury rooms similar issues never reach the judge?

Hence a panel of 3 magistrates, a panel of 3 appeal court judges.

But District Judges sit alone, Sheriffs sit alone in Scotland (or Summary Cases). Justices of the Peace sit alone in some jurisdictions in Scotland, and Magistrates can sit alone in England (but not for trials).

Interesting argument. Unless you define having to do it all again because of stupidity as the system working.

it is of course possible that the second jury will also be unable to reach a majority verdict, or will reach a not guilty verdict in which case you might question the whole process…

Having had a think about it, actually the bigger problem of the jury system relates more to the sort of cases we often discuss on here – where several members of the jury are themselves criminals, but just haven’t been caught yet. Then again, seeing how judges don’t apply the sentencing guidelines properly in such cases when the jury does manage to give a guilty verdict, I wouldn’t have a lot of confidence in them doing any better if also left to determine guilt.

Question 5 was clearly written by someone who KNEW the answer and was making a point.

Its the only thing that makes any sense but it is indicative that at least one jury member thought they could base the decision on something not presented as evidence [ as indeed was question 10] that had no factual basis. Not only this but they would not listen to the other jurors – tbh that poerson or persons should not be allowed to judge as the process is beyond them. No way would a judge do this and if a jury did this the professional could offer guidance.

The problem with having professionals is that many jurors would just follow what they say, so you’d be giving them a great deal of influence: this was part of the old tradition (now abolished?) that lawyers shouldn’t be chosen as jurors. Moreover, it would be influence without oversight: there’s (practically) no scrutiny of what happens in a jury room. How would you identify when a professional juror/adviser was giving incorrect or biased advice? If a judge does it, it happens in the presence of both sides’ lawyers so the safety valve is that either can object and if necessary appeal.

Jury dynamics can be complicated. I don’t know whether its been mentioned yet but sometimes juries will not convict because, although they accept that more likely than not there’s been a breach of the law, they nonetheless side with the defendant in the circumstances. So yes, he or she maybe technically guilty, but such is their sympathy they will acquit (and they will look to any reason to do so). It’s what I term ‘the law of the jungle’ – which probably only makes sense to me!

Just what I was referring to in my post a few above yours, deluded.

True, deluded (!), and anecdotally I’ve been told by an extremely experienced criminal trial lawyer that he thinks women on juries are particularly unlikely to find a defendant guilty of adult sexual assault charges because they want to distance themselves from identifying with the victim/complainant.

but it can go the other way too, where juries are inclined to convict a defendant because they’re a wrong ‘un or otherwise unsympathetic people (people previously convicted of sex offences for example), even when the evidence for that particular charge is a bit ropey.

The right of a jury to acquit a defendant without explanation is an important check on prosecutors, too. If juries consistently refuse to convict persons accused of particular crimes, then that suggests the law doesn’t enjoy popular legitimacy.

True, deluded (!), and anecdotally I’ve been told by an extremely experienced criminal trial lawyer that he thinks women on juries are particularly unlikely to find a defendant guilty of adult sexual assault charges because they want to distance themselves from identifying with the victim/complainant.

Sounds like a good one to mail into CIF at the Guardian for a bit of national broadsheet trolling.

Bump.

She’s going daaaaawwnnn….

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21496566

I can’t say I’m surprised. I found it difficult to believe that the former chief economist to Williams & Glyn’s Bank, KPMG, the DTI, and former Head of the Government Economic Service, a woman at the very top of her profession and commanding a salary quite possibly larger than her husband’s, was some sort of weak and timid shrinking violet who was bullied by her husband into taking speeding points against her will.

I found it difficult to believe that the former chief economist to Williams & Glyn’s Bank, KPMG, the DTI, and former Head of the Government Economic Service, a woman at the very top of her profession and commanding a salary quite possibly larger than her husband’s, was some sort of weak and timid shrinking violet who was bullied by her husband

Then you don’t know much about how domestic violence works, really, do you?

Have a look at @fleetstreetfox on twitter for the last half hour for a far better explanation than I can give.

Well that all went well…..

Then you don’t know much about how domestic violence works, really, do you?

+1. It’s a great shame for genuine victims that Pryce relied on this defence.

Have a look at @fleetstreetfox on twitter for the last half hour for a far better explanation than I can give.

I was relying more on the jury’s verdict, was that wrong then ? Should someone tell the judge ?

I’m with ernie on this – that pretty much sums up how I’ve thought about this all along.

www – where are you getting the idea DV was involved when that’s not something she’s ever alleged?

Have a look at @fleetstreetfox on twitter for the last half hour

I took your advice, and all I found was some <got to be careful what words I use here so as not to be accused of misogyny> angry complaining about the words used to describe Ms Pryce. What is it I’m missing, as I’m really not sure I want to wade through all her soapbox outpourings to find the relevant bit?

Was she really alleging violence in the relationship? I must have missed the reporting of that bit.

She won’t seriously get a custodial will she? I guess the marital coercion charade may have angered the judge. Hope someone is looking after her, she must be in pieces.

Why shouldn’t she get a custodial? AFAICS she has now been found guilty of the same crime as Mr Huhne, and I don’t see anybody suggesting he shouldn’t get one. Arguably she should receive a longer sentence than him, as she didn’t plead guilty.

Apparently she might get the longer sentence, presumably based on claim of innocence.

I think the general area of taking the michael out of the legal system is not goign to be well received if you get nicked. Its seen as very serious indeed, and people who should know better (which both of these are), will get royally stiffed by the beak, and quite rightly so IMHO

Custodial sentences for both of them I hope.

They were actually stupid as the odious Hamiltons just claimed they couldn’t remember who was driving.

My non-legal take on it would be Huhne’s position was totally indefensible as he tired to brass-neck deny his way out of it and then folded at the last possible second.
Whereas Pryce was in receipt of some appalling legal advice to roll out a martial coercion defense, but basically I could believe she was pressured into doing it.

I appreciate that she has backed herself into a corner, though, so the judge can’t just deliver a gut-feeling, go-easy, sentencing on the back of it. He has to be seen to take action.

All over a measly 3 points!

aracer – I was responding to Ernies point about this ‘long list of accomplishments’ woman who would, therefore, be incapable of being bullied by her husband.

Bullying of a spouse is domestic violence, hence my use fo the term.

Clearly the jury have decided that any coercion involved was insufficient to pass a test in law.

It doesn’t mean that no woman (or man) with ‘long list of accomplishments’ is psychologically incapable of being bullied or the subject of actual violence by their partner in a relationship which seemed to be the point being made.