|
EssexPhil
|
 |
« on: December 02, 2025, 12:36:20 PM » |
|
As per usual there is a load of complete nonsense being written about this topic. Some of it is because the usual news outlets don't actually employ many journalists, and most of the few that still exist just trot out their Party line.
There are also people trying to hide their vested interests behind rampant bollo. From Tories pretending it wasn't their underinvestment that caused the problem, to Criminal Barristers banging on about the "right" to trial by jury, conveniently omitting to mention the massive difference to their potential pay.
I'm a former Solicitor (and, before that, a Barrister-at-Law). I have no vested interest. So here is my version of the reality of this situation.
There are 3 categories of Criminal Offences. Known as (1) Summary-only; (2) Indictment-only; and (3) Either-Way Offences.
The vast majority are (1)-no right to a Jury for those. Only a very few of the most serious offences are (2), which must be heard by a Jury. (3) are the key to change-these offences may carry big prison sentences, but typically do not.
Large amounts of Courts have shut. Because they were not making a "profit". Causing a massive logjam. Currently, if someone were to be formally charged with Rape today, the logjam means the actual Case will not Start until early 2030. That has massive implications. To give 2 obvious examples, large amounts of people will either be in Prison for 4 years for something they didn't do, or large amounts of the Guilty ones will be on the Streets for the next 4 years. Secondly, a considerable number of Guilty people will be found Not Guilty, because Witnesses will die/get dementia, and memories will fade or become less convincing. That's before factoring the marginal cases dropped and/or plea bargains agreed to due to time pressures
It always used to be a close call when advising people facing "either way" offences. On the 1 hand, Juries are more likely to acquit than Judges-simply because they haven't heard the same stories a thousand times before. On the other, people convicted by Juries get harsher Sentences than those convicted by Judges. However, it is now the case that severe delays mean it is more often in the Accused's interest to opt for a Jury Trial. That in turn causes a ripple effect on future cases.
The change is necessary. The Debate should be whether it is a Temporary or Permanent change
|