Isn't It Time To Do Away With Trial By Jury?

[dave50]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3164477/Juror-narrowly-avoids-jail-causing-sex-attack-trial-collapse-Googled-defendant.html
There are too many thick people nowadays with no common sense able to sit on a jury to ensure a fair trial. Maybe the judge should decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty and the jury should decide the punishment.

[Peter Pedant]

so do I

RSA abandoned jury trials only about twenty years ago

[chaptazbru2]

Not very long then ..

[New Judge]

Of course dozens of trials without a jury are held across England and Wales daily. Trials in the Magistrates' Courts are held either before a bench of three Lay Magistrates or before a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) sitting alone. And there are far more of these than jury trials.

[mikey4444]

Good point NJ !

But as I understand it, serious cases need to be tried at a Crown Court, with a jury, although I am unsure what the criteria is, that decides if its serious enough.

[EDDIE51]

Do we think then that increasing the range of offences that can be tried by Magistrates would be a good idea? Say to offences with a maximum of 2 years jail ( it is 6 months at present I think)

[New Judge]

Indeed it is, Eddie. In fact there are (or rather were) plans to increase their powers to 12 months but these have been quietly shelved.

The criteria for where a trial is held are not entirely straightforward, Mikey. Basically all “summary” offences must be dealt with to a conclusion in the magistrates’ court. These include almost (but not quite) all motoring offences, common assault, assault on PC, animal cruelty, drink driving. These cannot be dealt with in the Crown Court under any circumstances (unless they result in an appeal against conviction and/or sentence).

“Indictable only” offences can only be heard in the Crown Court (although they begin their journey with a hearing in the Magistrates’ court). These offences include murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, causing death by dangerous driving.

In between are “either way” offences. These can be heard at either venue. If the case goes to trial the Magistrates decide whether or not to retain jurisdiction (based on the facts they hear). But if they decide to retain the case the defendant has the right to trial by jury (but he does not have the right to a Magistrates’ Court trial if the Bench declines jurisdiction). Either way offences include theft, ABH, dangerous driving. These offences have maximum sentences in excess of six months but if they are sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court six months is the maximum. The Magistrates however retain the right to send the matter to the Crown Court for sentencing if they consider their powers are insufficient.

[mikey4444]

Thanks NJ...that is a little clearer now.

[agchristie]

We can't always rely on judges sitting alone either. In the Massereene Barracks Diplock Court Trial, the Judge found co-accused Brian Shivers 'guilty'. A surprising verdict in many circles and no surprise that it was later overturned.

[New Judge]

I think just about the worst of alternatives is trial by judge alone.

[agchristie]

^ especially if they nod off for a bit!

[Peter Pedant]

oh God can you imagine being tried by the late great Justice Melford ( Melly, Old Melly, Good Old Melly ) Stevenson ?

when they abolished hanging the dear old codger used to go on carrying his black cap on circuit

[agchristie]

Melford,ah yes, 'the worst judge since the war' according to Dunn!

Unsuccessfully Defended Ruth Ellis, maybe went on a mission after that!

[Peter Pedant]

exactly right ag

also help Sir Reginald Manningham Buller screqw up R v Bodkin Adams

the last one's nick name was Sir Reginald Bullying Manner

[agchristie]

Ha ha! Like it PP.

[PankySmooch]

Been on jury service twice, second time was a nightmare, black bloke stabbed a white bloke in the stomach with a 12" kitchen knife which he took from a kitchen at a party, stabbed the white bloke so hard his stomach was strewn across the pavement, one jury member wouldn't go for the guilty verdict because he wasn't sure he intended to cause him serious harm?

Surely if you stab someone with a 12" knife you intend to cause them harm?

[agchristie]

/// There are too many thick people nowadays with no common sense///

And eligible to vote!

[EDDIE51]

Panky just wondering if the disagreeing juror was black? Only reason I can see for such a choice. Playing the race card?

[PankySmooch]

No EDDIE51 he was white and in his late 50s, middle class guardian reading tree hugger to be more precise

[PankySmooch]

andy hughes, I was answering EDDIES51 question, he wasn't black he was middle class, late fifties and read the guardian, the tree hugger bit was made up so what's your problem?