UK: First trial without jury approved

UK: First trial without jury approved

news.bbc.co.uk

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a criminal trial can take place at Crown Court without a jury for the first time in England and Wales.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, made legal history by agreeing to allow the trial to be heard by a judge alone.

It is the first time the power has been used since it was introduced in 2003.

The case concerns four men accused of an armed robbery at Heathrow Airport in 2004. The judge said jury "tampering" was a "very significant" danger.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, I'm flabbergastered.

Unfortunately, I don't have much to say apart from how this sets a terrifying legal precident, and that I believe it is the beginning of the end for the free, democratic and lawful society that Britain fought so hard to become.

"Lord Judge told the court the cost of the measures needed to protect jurors from potential influence, such as the services of police officers, was too high and that such measures may not properly insulate them."

Well, great. I'm glad you think that, Lord Judge. Brilliant.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

There are no laws anymore.

They just make things up as they go along.

It is the New Freedom.

reply to post by The Last Man on Earth


they don't want witnesses to the fact that it was a secret government or foreign government mission.

makes sense because there is absolutely no reason for such a precedent

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth

 

they don't want witnesses to the fact that it was a secret government or foreign government mission.

makes sense because there is absolutely no reason for such a precedent

Yes indeed. If the police cannot prevent "potential influence" and "properly insulate" them, then we really need to take a step back and ask ourselves what we're doing wrong, rather than just abandon our ancient and fair system of governance.

My God, the more I learn the more scared I become...!

Originally posted by Exuberant1
There are no laws anymore.
They just make things up as they go along.

Wise words.

It's too bad that most people don't see it for what it is.

As if any common peon has a chance going up against the (il)legal, (in)justice system, expecting to be treated fairly.

Firstly, is the Lord Chief Justice really called "Lord Judge"?!?!? That's a bit of a shoe-in isnt it. How fortunate was he to rise through the ranks with a name like that, it's as if he was destined for the role...........!

Anyway, whilst I can see this as a dangerous precendent, in this case where you are talking high-level criminal gangs, it makes sense. These people have the means and the power to intimidate witnesses and the Jury. If you can erradicate that possibility by removing the jury then I can sort of understand.

The danger comes when they use this measure more and more to ensure conviction. Hmmm, difficult one to call to be honest.

Is this not a good thing if there is such a high chance of the jury being swayed, threatened or similar?

If it were for ALL cases, i would be highly concerned, but for ones where there are risks like this, i think it's ok.

You know what our judges are like anyway....the suspects will probably get off with it and be awarded damages.

CX.

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth


Yes indeed. If the police cannot prevent "potential influence" and "properly insulate" them, then we really need to take a step back and ask ourselves what we're doing wrong, rather than just abandon our ancient and fair system of governance.

Indeed.
Instead of abandoning one of our basic human rights we should be investigating why the police are failing in one of their basic duties.

This is the thin end of the wedge and will become increasingly more common unless we protest now.

But as usual we do nothing except complain and moan on internet forums.

Originally posted by 0010110011101
Anyway, whilst I can see this as a dangerous precendent, in this case where you are talking high-level criminal gangs, it makes sense. These people have the means and the power to intimidate witnesses and the Jury.

Effectively, that's an admission that the entire legal and justice system is broken, pointless and useless.

The whole system, from the very first page onwards, might as well be tossed out and rewritten.

If anyone is prepared to admit that jurors are not safe, then there is potentially no justice for any impartial verdict - ever. It also sets the precedent for an unknown number of false verdicts, based on jurors being harrassed.

I'm not trying to defend the justice system. I hate it. I don't believe in it. I find it humourous that some people do try to defend the system, when it is fatally flawed.

Without dragging the thread off topic, there would be many witnesses who would also be too intimidated to testify. Again, a completely broken, corrupt and evil system.

Life wasn't meant to be lived by following the laws and rules that are written by other men.

reply to post by tezzajw


I think juror system is horribly flawed in any case ... "a jury of your peers" is a joke ... with jury picking manipulation - there are people who make careers out of being able to pick jurors that will help win cases.
Whether it is a judge or a jury ... there will always be problems but it is the best our society can do until there is no longer crime, and that is not about to happen.

I don't see why there is so much fuss. One judge can be more as or more impartial than a whole lot of ignorant "peers" who can sometimes make trials verdicts look like a lottery.

One only has to look at US system for proof of that - a nation of lawyers where doctors have become too afraid to help injured people on the street in case they get sued.
In fact the suing people and companies is widely regarded by some people as a "get-rich" scheme. Am I wrong?

This is against English Common Law! Unless you agree to it, you have the right, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, to a trial by your peers.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by 0010110011101
Anyway, whilst I can see this as a dangerous precendent, in this case where you are talking high-level criminal gangs, it makes sense. These people have the means and the power to intimidate witnesses and the Jury.

Effectively, that's an admission that the entire legal and justice system is broken, pointless and useless.

Yep, I would say that is pretty much true.

A different point, look at the mother of Baby P and partner. She is elegible for parole in 5, he in 12, if that isn't de facto proof that the entire legal and justice system is broken, pointless and useless, then I dont know what is.

I'm not saying a police state is better. I'm not saying that this is neccesarily the right move. I can undersatnd the motives though.

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
I don't see why there is so much fuss. One judge can be more as or more impartial than a whole lot of ignorant "peers" who can sometimes make trials verdicts look like a lottery.

I'm not arguing with you, just making a comment on this point.

One judge could be a lot easier to buy or rent, than a couple of jurors.

I have less respect for judges than I do for used-car salesman. I don't know why they think that a few years at University gives them the right to pass judgement on other people's lives. Hell no. Judges can be as biased and corrupt as any other person, maybe even more so.

I'd rather no legal system than the one we have now. The one that we've got makes us all slaves to the grind, forever shackled.

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember


I don't see why there is so much fuss. One judge can be more as or more impartial than a whole lot of ignorant "peers" who can sometimes make trials verdicts look like a lottery.

But lets be honest, one man is far more easily bribed as well.

I agree with your points about the US system though; I hate the culture of sheer greed they have fostered.

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember

One only has to look at US system for proof of that - a nation of lawyers where doctors have become too afraid to help injured people on the street in case they get sued.
In fact the suing people and companies is widely regarded by some people as a "get-rich" scheme. Am I wrong?

True.
But we are not talking about US Law or lawsuits; these people are charged with Armed Robbery.

It is a basic right of British Law to be tried by a jury of peers.

As has been pointed out, it is far easier to bribe or threaten one person than it is a jury.
In addition, there is a danger that one person can be guilty of prejudice when judging.

This is where it starts, one small step in order to prevent the innocent from being harmed. within a few years there will be more and more trials without Juries, at first there is a trickle of violent cases followed by a local minor criminal facing trail without a jury because his or her friends could tamper with the jury. This then opens the gate for more and more trials of this type until it is so commonplace that they are no longer reported. Eventually ministers and judges can choose for a suspect (We are still innocent until proven guilty) to have a trial without jury in whatever circumstances suit them and the judge presiding over the case could easily be a government crony.
In short the police state is almost upon us. Anybody will soon be accused of anything and be convicted for it at the governments behest.
Stalin would be proud.
Oh ! and what the hell happened to the Magna Carta. is that now dead ?

I fear for my country, unfortunately the people of Britain are to apathetical to actually do anything about it. Feed them Big Brother and mind rotting TV shows and drip feed them the carefully selected news of current events and they will sit fat dumb and happy on their behinds whilst their freedom is taken away from them one step at a time.

it has been happening in n.ireland for over 30 yrs.....

Originally posted by fatdad
it has been happening in n.ireland for over 30 yrs.....

Oh really? Could you give us some examples? I was not aware of this...

If this is allowed to happen then it is absolutely imperative that there are cameras rolling in the court room and that all proceedings are open to the press.