It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The first trial without a jury approved in the UK

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Today sees the day when the first trial without a jury is approved in the 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.


Continue to read here:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Personally? I hope this does not trigger a trend in such trials.




posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Saw this and I have to say that its an extraordinary decision.

With modern technology, I see no reason why a jury couldn't sit in a seperate undisclosed location in complete and utter anonimity in another part of the country - instead of the case being handled by a single judge.

There is a quirk in UK law where the accused can object to certain jurors for no apparent reason, but I think its a case of being the lesser of the two evils - removing that right rather than removing the jury completely.

The UK Legal system needs some serious reform. Its old, the methods are slow and outdated and more thought needs to be put into managing cases like this.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Can't say that this is making me proud of the fact that I'm British.

I really don't buy the argument of potential juror tampering and what is particularly noticeable is the fact that the judge also admits - in a roundabout way - that the police are not up to the job of protecting jurors and their families.

This is a sad day for democracy, a sad day for the British legal system and a sad day for the British people.

I have to agree with neformore that it seems to me to completely feasible to have an anonymous jury in a separate part of the country.

This is a worrying development and I have the feeling that we may well now be seeing more of these trials.

Peace,

MGGG



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Another backdoor method of changing our justice system against the public? Ok, so £1.75m is a lot of money, the police may well not be up to protecting jurors and/or their families, BUT this is one of the primary tenets of our justice system ~ to be tried by a jury of our peers. Agreed, this could easily be done at an undisclosed location via a video~link on a secure phone line.

The main worry is this will get used further down the line for "political agitators" etc.

Mindblowing



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by machinegun_go_go
 


Yes it is somewhat depressing that this has happened in our country. And you are correct in that it shows the police force in a poor light. But there again the police force are under-funded and understaffed and protecting jury's and their families would be taxing on resources and manpower.

I agree with what neformore said. We are Digital Britain. We should be able to find a technological solution to the problem of jury's being intimidated in just the fashion he describes.

The trouble with our legal system is a lack of an injection of new blood. Yes, there are many young people doing law, but mainly with aspirations with becoming solicitors rather than baristers and court judges as well as a lack of injection of new blood into the police force.
The legal system in general needs an influx of new and innovative minds to help revamp it, I feel.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jokei
Another backdoor method of changing our justice system against the public?


A peck peck here, and a peck peck there, here a peck, there a peck, everywhere a peck peck.......

......Old Macdonald is now a slave, where did all his rights go?

Peace



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


Well while I see the wisdom of another meaning to "speedy trial" I hope this doesn't come to our shores in the US, after all our constitutions ensure that a jury of peers will be present facing the accused and the accused facing their jury.

I rather stay with what our constitution guarantee.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Granted the constitution Prevents trial without jury in the US. Here in the UK there entire legal system is designed around trial by jury, it's been that way for 200 years. To suddenly take the stand of having a trial without a jury here means that by no means is the US safe from this form of legal 'devil may care' attitude should it become a trend even in spite of the constitution.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by James Random
 


Well I hope it doesn't and that the Supreme court that usually side with the Constitution will defend the trial by jury in case some moron decides to go against it or decide that is time to ratified it.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Here in america, the 6th Amendment guarantees us the right to jury trial, if that's worth anything in this day and age. The 8th amendment bans torture and the govt ignores that.

Govts want to get rid of jury trials because they are worried about jurors practicing jury nullification.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 



Except as time wares on the constitution is starting to mean less and less as Administrations push its boundaries and distort its meanings for their own ends. Eventually there will be some 'legitimate' reason that a jury should not be present at someone's trial.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Hmm,I am wondering if this is designed to set a precedent for cases involving large amounts of money...
What a way to make sure those corrupt politicians/police/bankers don't have to air their dirty laundy in public.
I am right in thinking they tried this on a while back with some big financial case-saying that a jury wouldn't understand all those figures?



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 


I remember something like that yeah. It got rejected though. Will see if I can find the article.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 



Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Dr Love
 


Well while I see the wisdom of another meaning to "speedy trial" I hope this doesn't come to our shores in the US, after all our constitutions ensure that a jury of peers will be present facing the accused and the accused facing their jury.

I rather stay with what our constitution guarantee.



You do realize that we already have this, don't you? They are called 'bench trials'.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Actually I never heard of that before, but, for what kind of cases is this use for, for major cases or just misdemeanors.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join