ChatterBank2 mins ago
Oh Well, Be Even Easier To Lock Up People For Wrong Think.
"Scrap jury trials for thousands of offences, says Jack Straw"
What could possibly go wrong?
Answers
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.YMB's lik is behind a paywall. The Indie's might be more accessible to some people here:
https:/
“Why don't they go the full hog and introduce Judge Dredd-like robots with AI, saves paying wages to police, judiciary and other legal entities.”
Because that’s not what the proposal is about.
Mr Straw has a very good point. At present around 95% of all criminal matters are dealt with to a conclusion in the Magistrates’ Court. No jury is involved, even in the event of a Not Guilty plea and a trial.
What Mr Straw is proposing is restricting defendants to choose a jury trial for an “either way” offence. These are offences which can be tried either in the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court (before a judge and jury).
At present, following a revision in October 2024, Magistrates’ sentencing powers extend up to 12 months’ custody. However, for many offences which would see a far lesser sentence than that, the defendant has the right to a trial by jury.
An example is theft. It is obviously a wide ranging offence but because the offence (in its entirety) can be tried “either way”, even if the Magistrates’ Court decides it is suitable for a “summary” trial (that is, a trial in the Magistrates’ Court) the final decision rests with the defendant and he can demand a Crown Court trial.
This means that for an allegation of stealing a £10 bottle of vodka from Sainsbury’s (probable sentence a fine or even a Conditional Discharge), the defendant can demand a trial before a judge and jury in the Crown Court (the cost of which – depending who you ask – can be between £3,000 and £10,000 per day).
This is a ludicrous situation when other offences which are “summary only” (i.e. can only be dealt with in a Magistrates’ Court) can attract far harsher penalties.
A start was made a few years ago when the offence of Criminal Damage was effectively split into two and now only offences where the value of the damage is more than £5,000 can go to the Crown Court for trial.
I cannot be sure but have in mind that something like that is what Mr Straw has in mind for all “either way” offences. That’s easy enough for offences where there is a monetary value involved. I’m not too sure how it will work for something like ABH or GBH.
>>> "This means that for an allegation of stealing a £10 bottle of vodka from Sainsbury’s (probable sentence a fine or even a Conditional Discharge), the defendant can demand a trial before a judge and jury in the Crown Court"
If the defendant is a member of any one of a large number of professions (such as being a barrister, a teacher, a paramedic, etc) the real 'sentence' that he/she will be facing is likely to be the ending of their career, potentially costing them a total hundreds of thousands of pounds in lost earnings over the next few decades, as well as the loss of their reputation within the community. That's why they must be given the greatest possible opportunity to establish their innocence.
"Fine NJ, but what about the "fastpath" to Jail 2YK loves?"
I don't hink that's what his is about.
"...anything with a Jail sentence should be offered trial by jury"
Then that would require a fundamental change to the criminal justice system, the reclassification of many "summary only" and "either way" offences to become "indictable only", and the expansion, probably as much as tenfold, of Crown Court capacity.
I have an idea that may not be forthcoming.
What I would like to see is the removal of District Judges (Magistrates' Courts) from the ability to preside over Magistrates' Court trials. I do not like he idea of a single lawyer determining the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a criminal offence - however trivial that alleged offence may be.
"That's why they must be given the greatest possible opportunity to establish their innocence."
Of course they do not need to establish their innocence. The Crown needs to establish their guilt.
But leaving that aside, no other country, to my knowledge, provides for jury trials for (relatively) trivial offences. The UK has a perfectly good appeal process for those convicted in the Magistrates' Court (which I accept also does no involve a jury). Jury trials place an enormous burden on the CJS and present many practical problems - not the least of which would be securing sufficient premises to hold them and the services of suffient numbers of jurors.
Providing jury trials for the enormous number of matters which are currently concluded in the Magistrates' Court is simply not a practical possibility.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.