I have only had one experience of sitting on a jury, but I am satisfied
that had the chap on trial been in the hands of the police and the
judge, he would have been found guilty. It was the jury which found the holes in the prosecution case. (The defence lawyer was a waste of space.)
That is not to say that juries are infallible or always correct, but I
think it far more likely that 12 ordinary people will arrive at the
truth than one judge in an ivory tower who wouldn't let his servants
read "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and who plays golf with the chief
prosecutor and drinks sherry with the police.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever
know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on usenet
who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was
brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy
for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
On 04/12/2025 12:49, GB wrote:
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping
the deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need
ever know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on
usenet who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it
was brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered.
Easy for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
There is no perfect system and I am sure that juries do reach the wrong conclusion from time to time. I would still rather trust 12 ordinary, common-sense members of the community than one judge in an ivory tower.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 05/12/2025 07:07, Kendall K. Down wrote:
There is no perfect system and I am sure that juries do reach the wrong
conclusion from time to time. I would still rather trust 12 ordinary,
common-sense members of the community than one judge in an ivory tower.
Those aren't the only two options.
For centuries, we have had panels of magistrates - 3 usually sitting >together.
There are also courts where a judge sits with lay advisers. I think
that's the position in employment tribunals.
I am 100% sure that the present very long delays are a serious
impediment to justice. So, something needs to be done!
On 06/12/2025 14:38, GB wrote:
I am 100% sure that the present very long delays are a serious
impediment to justice. So, something needs to be done!
The justice system has been massively underfunded for years, but I think
the real cracks appeared due to lockdown.
I have read that crown courts sit between 10.30 am to 4.30 pm with an
hour for lunch. Adding an extra hour to the start and finishing time
would potentially be one answer. That would speed up the outcome of a
case by 40%.
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:38:09 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 05/12/2025 07:07, Kendall K. Down wrote:
There is no perfect system and I am sure that juries do reach the wrong
conclusion from time to time. I would still rather trust 12 ordinary,
common-sense members of the community than one judge in an ivory tower.
Those aren't the only two options.
For centuries, we have had panels of magistrates - 3 usually sitting
together.
There are also courts where a judge sits with lay advisers. I think
that's the position in employment tribunals.
One thing that isn't being mentioned much here is that there's an automatic right of appeal against any verdict delivered by a magistrates' court. So if you think the District Judge or lay magistrates bench has got it wrong then you can always get it re-heard in a different court.
But there isn't an automatic right of appeal against a verdict reached by a jury. In order to appeal a jury verdict you need to show either that there
is evidence which should have been put to the jury but was not, or that the judge erred when directing the jury. You can't appeal against a jury verdict simply because you think they got it wrong.
Part of the proposals for the new intermediate courts is that they would retain the crown court principle of not having an automatic right of appeal against the verdict, despite operating in the same way as magistrates'
courts with a single person (or panel) deciding both the verdict and the sentence.
I think that's fundamentally wrong. While there are not vast numbers of successful appeals against a magistrate's verdict, the numbers are not trivial either - typically just over a thousand successful appeals a year, according to data from the University of Law. By comparison, there are only around 20 successful appeals a year against crown court verdicts. Obviously, part of that difference is simply the fact that magistrates hear a lot more cases. But not by the same proportion.
Having no automatic right of appeal against a decision made by a judge in
the new juryless intermediate courts does, therefore, come with a significantly increased risk of a miscarriage of justice. I would oppose any move towards single-judge trials unless there is a robust appeal system.
Mark
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:32:50 +0000, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2025 14:38, GB wrote:
I am 100% sure that the present very long delays are a serious
impediment to justice. So, something needs to be done!
The justice system has been massively underfunded for years, but I think
the real cracks appeared due to lockdown.
I have read that crown courts sit between 10.30 am to 4.30 pm with an
hour for lunch. Adding an extra hour to the start and finishing time
would potentially be one answer. That would speed up the outcome of a
case by 40%.
Extending the length of the court day probably wouldn't be hugely feasible. There's a lot of admin work that has to be be done in the morning before the sitting and in the afternoon after the sitting has finished, it's not just about the time spent in the courtroom. Extending the sitting day would mean either paying significant overtime (and risking hitting the WTD limits) or setting up a shift system to cover the additional hours. Similarly,
witnesses may need to travel a significant distance to attend court, and expecting them to arrive during the rush hour in a city far from home is likely to increase witness attrition.
What is more feasible is simply for the courts to sit more days. As things stand, they don't sit every working day. Many courts run on an effective
four day week. And there are no practical reasons why they can't sit more days, it's simply a matter of cost.
On 06/12/2025 17:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
Having no automatic right of appeal against a decision made by a judge in
the new juryless intermediate courts does, therefore, come with a
significantly increased risk of a miscarriage of justice. I would oppose any >> move towards single-judge trials unless there is a robust appeal system.
Presumably, the new judges in the new system will need to provide
reasons for their verdicts. So, a robust appeals system (and I agree
with you, btw) could lead to an awful lot of appeals.
I do wonder whether the reasoning behind the proposals goes like this:
1. Something must be done.
2. This is something, so let's do it.
For centuries, we have had panels of magistrates - 3 usually sitting together.
There are also courts where a judge sits with lay advisers. I think
that's the position in employment tribunals.
I am 100% sure that the present very long delays are a serious
impediment to justice. So, something needs to be done!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 17:58:44 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
4 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,414 |
| Posted today: | 1 |