Jury Trials

[EssexPhil]

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

[Eck]

Thanks for posting that.

I was blissfully unaware of how the system has been so underfunded which is surprising as my wife is an NHS budget holder. I read the secret barristers book a couple of years ago and one of the things that jumped out was how the advice will be go to trial. Reason being that the system is so broken there's a good chance the prosecutor might not turn up given the mess of legal aid etc.

[RED-DOG]

Excellent post Mr Phil. Thank you.

[doubleup]

I knew a pretty decent defence lawyer who was also a good poker player. He tried to base his poker strategy mainly on stealing blinds and trying to read the opponent on being played back. He also read a lot of "body language reading" books etc to try and work out if witnesses at trials were lying. Though I'm not sure what good he thought that would do. Another friend said he decided criminal law wasn't for him, when, during a case it was obvious that, the prosecutor was lying, the police were lying, the accused and defence witnesses were lying and he wasn't even sure about the Sheriff.....

Anyway, on the topic, the concept of a trial (not in Scotland) is that massive variations in evidence lead to a binary guilty/not guilty. From "ironcast" dna and ten witnesses plus cc cameras to, what I suspect might be the majority, the police think this person commited a crime and have various bits and pieces of evidence and witnesses. So someone innocent and someone guilty can be put on trial with very similar evidence. Now a judge has seen this all before, many times, so does he apply "beyond reasonable doubt" the same way a jury would? I suspect not.