The Jury - Should the system be reformed?

[sadoldgit]

Lots of discussion about the proposed changes to the jury system in this country, driven by the huge, unmanageable backlog of court cases.

I would probably have argued against any changes previously, but having watched The Jury: Murder Trial, I am not so sure. If you haven’t seen the programme it ran a previous murder trial using actors and the actual court transcripts and presented the case to two new juries. I won’t give a spoiler but the process throws in to doubt the process of how different people process the same information and how those people can influence other people.

Of course, we already have a two tier system depending on the seriousness of the crime so not everybody is tried by their peers as things stand. The mooted change will not effect the most serious crimes.

So, good thing or not?

[badgerx16]

Perhaps the Legal system needs reform, but this won't solve the problem.

There is insufficient funding, the building infrastructure is crumbling, there is a lack of capacity within the system, and the prisons are at breaking point. This would only be a solution if the problem was a lack of jurors.

 

[sadoldgit]

I don’t disagree with the problems within the CJS, but when they are booking trials in for 2030 something needs to be done.

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t disagree with the problems within the CJS, but when they are booking trials in for 2030 something needs to be done.

But if, as reported, there is a shortage of Barristers and Judges, and a backlog within the CPS due to staff overload as it processes case files, how will Lammey's reforms help ?

Edited 23 hours ago by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

If they are putting more workload onto the volunteer Magistrates, will they be willing to give additional time ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I would probably have argued against any changes previously, but now labour are proposing it and not the wicked Tories, I’m all for it. 

Amended for you..

[egg]

6 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

If they are putting more workload onto the volunteer Magistrates, will they be willing to give additional time ?

It goes deeper, but yes, there aren't enough magistrates. If there were, they'd need court rooms and a legal advisor. There's not enough of them. The alternative is Judges, but there aren't enough of them either and the JAC recruitment process takes forever. That's before you get to the lack of prosecution and defence lawyers, and the budget to fund them. Then prison, probation, etc etc. 

The backlog needs addressing to give justice to all concerned, but throwing a new layer into the court system isn't the answer.

The system needs root and branch reform, including a serious look at a partial shift to rehabilitative justice to address re offending. 

[sadoldgit]

18 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

But if, as reported, there is a shortage of Barristers and Judges, and a backlog within the CPS due to staff overload as it processes case files, how will Lammey's reforms help ?

It’s a start and something has to be done. As we know, no one is going to take to the streets and demand that we all pay more taxes to pay for these things so the money isn’t there to do what needs to be done to make up for 14 years of neglect.

A very experienced appeal court judge put these recommendations to Lammy so it comes from inside and someone who knows the system well. In fact Lammy rowed back on one recommendation which was 5 years sentences and less rather than 3 and less for doing away with the jury.

Doing away with the either way option was a good move. Defendants used to think that they stood a better chance with a jury so usually chose that. If you are innocent you should be confident of proving that in court whether it is a magistrate, judge or jury.

The jury system is far from perfect. There is no perfect system. It is admin heavy and long over due for reform. The reforms may not please everybody, but something had to be done and the Tories did nothing but let the system decline for years.

[badgerx16]

36 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

. Defendants used to think that they stood a better chance with a jury so usually chose that. If you are innocent you should be confident of proving that in court whether it is a magistrate, judge or jury.

 

You don't have to. The prosecution have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are guilty.

[egg]

49 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It’s a start and something has to be done. As we know, no one is going to take to the streets and demand that we all pay more taxes to pay for these things so the money isn’t there to do what needs to be done to make up for 14 years of neglect.

A very experienced appeal court judge put these recommendations to Lammy so it comes from inside and someone who knows the system well. In fact Lammy rowed back on one recommendation which was 5 years sentences and less rather than 3 and less for doing away with the jury.

Doing away with the either way option was a good move. Defendants used to think that they stood a better chance with a jury so usually chose that. If you are innocent you should be confident of proving that in court whether it is a magistrate, judge or jury.

The jury system is far from perfect. There is no perfect system. It is admin heavy and long over due for reform. The reforms may not please everybody, but something had to be done and the Tories did nothing but let the system decline for years.

That's the whole point. The jury system is about being tried by our peers. 

[swannymere]

 Something had to be done, the new verison isn't perfect but unless you invest billions in the system it will continue to drag trials out for years which isn't fair on the victims or the accused.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, swannymere said:

 Something had to be done, the new verison isn't perfect but unless you invest billions in the system it will continue to drag trials out for years which isn't fair on the victims or the accused.

If there are shortages of Judges  Barristers, and Magistrates, and a lack of resource within the CPS  how do the changes help ?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Just get rid of laws and crime will go away in no time.

[swannymere]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If there are shortages of Judges  Barristers, and Magistrates, and a lack of resource within the CPS  how do the changes help ?

 Not sure, but as the current system is absurdly slow i think we have to try anything within reason. 

[egg]

15 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If there are shortages of Judges  Barristers, and Magistrates, and a lack of resource within the CPS  how do the changes help ?

Quite. The only thing being changed is how and where people are being tried. Resources are needed across the system to accommodate it. The CPS will need staff and money, police witnesses will need to attend, defendant's will need funded solicitor and barrister representation, probation will need to report then assist after sentence, prison space and staff will be needed for those imprisoned, etc. 

Billions are needed to deal just with the above. That's before we address minor issues like the judiciary to hear the cases, and court space. The only advantage in that respect is that there's scarce court space with juror seating, and I'm assuming the many civil courts will be slightly repurposed to accommodate criminal cases which is doable without a need to accommodate jurors. 

The jury system is not the issue though. 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, swannymere said:

 Not sure, but as the current system is absurdly slow i think we have to try anything within reason. 

Exactly. Anything that speeds up the process and fewer trials by jury will do that. Putting a jury trial together is a very time consuming process administratively. I know, I used to manage the process. Multiply that by 8 to 10 courts every day with 12 jurors in each.

There hasn’t been a trial by jury in Northern Ireland for decades, for obvious reasons. The justice system still works there.

The legal system in this country in very averse to change and it is no wonder there is a measure of resistance. When we worked for the CPS my wife was responsible for implementing the use of electronic files in court in the SE Area (Kent, Surrey & Sussex). It was long overdue but the resistance from the courts, chambers and a number of our own lawyers still gives her nightmares years later.

For those who think that the jury system is sacrosanct  I suggest that they watch The Jury: Murder Trial. The only thing you can be sure of with a jury trial is that there will be a verdict (unless there is a hung jury of course). It will not necessarily be the right verdict and I will refer back to the OJ Simpson verdict as evidence that even the most clear cut case can produce the wrong verdict by jury.

Juries are fallible. Judges are fallible, but have a much greater depth of experience. To look at it simplistically we are actually taking 12 fallible components out of the trial process in not so serious cases and replacing them with one not so fallible component.

                 …………..

How long before AI gets involved?

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, egg said:

That's the whole point. The jury system is about being tried by our peers. 

Not all cases are tried by our peers so where do you draw the line?

[whelk]

Presumably everyone thinks there are untold miscarriages of justice currently being presided by magistrates?

[egg]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Not all cases are tried by our peers so where do you draw the line?

For me, the line on either way cases was about right. Burglary, most assaults, theft, all of that and more should remain triable by jury. 

[egg]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

Presumably everyone thinks there are untold miscarriages of justice currently being presided by magistrates?

The quality of the tribunal determining a case is an altogether different issue to a massive change to the criminal justice system. For what it's worth, I'd prefer 3 lay magistrates deciding a less complex case to a single judge.