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.

 

More Crown Court trials without jury may go ahead

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   

More Crown Court trials without jury may go ahead


news.bbc.co.uk

Two more crown court trials without a jury may be held, just over a month after the first juryless trial for centuries.
The applications were lodged after a trial in March, when four men were convicted of armed robbery by a judge, because of fears of jury tampering.

It was the first Crown Court criminal trial in England and Wales to be held without jurors for more than 350 years.

Critics called it an attack on a basic democratic right.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
This is terrible and a prime example of how the law can be changed to suit the needs of those in power.

It appears obvious that they wanted a conviction, no matter what.

350 years of juries have proved relatively succesful (as long as corrupt evidence was not produced) yet this case has cost 25 million pounds for a crime that saw 1.75 million stolen.

Just what type of evidence did they have to suggest that jury tampering might occur? why not simply change the jury?

Were the accused given a fair trial?
Has democracy truly fallen with this one gesture?


"Our jury trial system should not be undermined by any suspected intimidation and jury tampering.

"And we will continue to apply for a trial without a jury when we have evidence that justice would not be served otherwise."

Then it is necesary to ensure that all trials are fair and heard with a jury. It is not acceptable to have 'suspicion'. If this is the case, then every person charged with a crime and facing a court could claim that there are circumstances that could lead to an unfair trial.. This is just daft.

The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 allows for;

a "judge only" trial if there is a "real and present danger" that jury tampering would take place, and any reasonable protective measures proposed by the police are insufficient to meet the threat.

This, in itself, is the exact thing they are trying to steer clear of. Having no jury at all is jury tampering.

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



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


the law permitting this has been in effect for 6 full years - and this is the first trial - the ` evil govt ` is hardly abusing the power is it ?

also what point are you trying to make by comparing the trial cost to the proceeds of the robbery ?

i hope you are not suggesting that prosecutions should be abandoned if they cost too much



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
I think this is a slippery slope they are heading for. Degrading the rights of the people incrementally is the way the powers that be achieve their goals. If this goes forward as planned by the judges, it will set a precedent. After one or two trials by the crown succeed, more will follow and it will escalate to where it will become a common practice. Our rights should be fought for.
Why don't they change the jury and make sure that no tampering takes place? Media exposure is not a viable excuse imho. Look at Michael Jackson's trials or OJ Simpson. Those had some great media exposure and the jury was still involved.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 



what point are you trying to make by comparing the trial cost to the proceeds of the robbery ?


I'd like to know where the 25 million has come from? Where it was spent and how much the lawyers and judges took home.... It almost becomes a blur between who the real criminals are.. those who steal 1 million or those who spend 25 million trying to put someone behind bars.



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join