• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A trial .... without a Jury? First time in UK history.

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
BBC NEWS | UK | First trial without jury approved

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.

But Liberty director of policy Isabella Sankey said: "This is a dangerous precedent.

"The right to jury trial isn't just a hallowed principle but a practice that ensures that one class of people don't sit in judgement over another and the public have confidence in an open and representative justice system.

"What signal do we send to witnesses if the police can't even protect juries?"

Dangerous, knowing our Govt. this will become common.
I don't like this at all, what the heck is going on with our system.
Does anyone even know who our law lords are and we are supposed to trust them :roll:
 
Last edited:
Why not?

It works like that in continental Europe, we have a jury only for the worst crimes (murder...).
 
Why not?

It works like that in continental Europe, we have a jury only for the worst crimes (murder...).

No thanks.

Because Judges are unaccountable, their sentences suck, i don't trust them.
 
No thanks.

Because Judges are unaccountable, their sentences suck, i don't trust them.

why? Sometimes there are 3 judges, they "vote" the sentence

but maybe our laws are different. Here, they are quite precise, everything is written and the judges only apply it
 
why? Sometimes there are 3 judges, they "vote" the sentence

but maybe our laws are different. Here, they are quite precise, everything is written and the judges only apply it

Judges may as well make laws at the way they go about things over here, i have no idea who our law lords are and they head our highest court. The PM appoints them with little to no check or confirmation process so the positions could be highly politicised.

No, this is dangerous imo.
 
Judges may as well make laws at the way they go about things over here, i have no idea who our law lords are and they head our highest court. The PM appoints them with little to no check or confirmation process so the positions could be highly politicised.

No, this is dangerous imo.

I don't know how the common law system works, but usually, when a judge does the work without jury, there are many rules that limit his power. UK is a democracy, so I would be astonished that they create a system that is anti-democratic.
 
BBC NEWS | UK | First trial without jury approved





Dangerous, knowing our Govt. this will become common.
I don't like this at all, what the heck is going on with our system.
Does anyone even know who our law lords are and we are supposed to trust them :roll:

That's absolutely astounding and the rationales for it are terrible. It's unclear however whether the defendants requested a jury trial or are content with a bench trial.
 
If the defendant was not allowed a trial by jury, it's just another reason I am proud to be an American.
 
why? Sometimes there are 3 judges, they "vote" the sentence

but maybe our laws are different. Here, they are quite precise, everything is written and the judges only apply it

We have judges who say that too, but the fact is that the act of applying a law necessarily requires some level of interpretation. The BGB and Code Civil are massive, but even they cannot cover all possible scenarios.

I don't know how the common law system works, but usually, when a judge does the work without jury, there are many rules that limit his power. UK is a democracy, so I would be astonished that they create a system that is anti-democratic.

One of the best rationales for having a judge in addition to a jury (aside from the "jury of peers" thing) is because the jury can in theory do what the judge could not - hear the proper evidence only. If there is inflammatory evidence that is not admissible, the judge can keep it away from the jury and thus avoid allowing it to taint a verdict. If there is no jury, the judge would have to rely on himself not to allow it to affect his decision.

That being said, I still think juries are mostly comprised of morons, but nevertheless would be furious if they ever tried to eliminate them without consent here.
 
That's absolutely astounding and the rationales for it are terrible.

It's horrible isn't it?
They can't be upfront about it and just say they want more power taken from people.

Judges are unelected, unaccountable and are open to the whims of politicans. No seperation of power. We are so screwed.
 
If the defendant was not allowed a trial by jury, it's just another reason I am proud to be an American.

If only we could steal your constitution and implement it here ....
 
It's horrible isn't it?
They can't be upfront about it and just say they want more power taken from people.

Judges are unelected, unaccountable and are open to the whims of politicans. No seperation of power. We are so screwed.

It's not really a separation of power issue, because no matter what a judge does, it's only subject to the authority of the judicial branch.

It's more a nostalgic sense of fairness issue.
 
BBC NEWS | UK | First trial without jury approved





Dangerous, knowing our Govt. this will become common.
I don't like this at all, what the heck is going on with our system.
Does anyone even know who our law lords are and we are supposed to trust them :roll:

In the U.S. trials by jury are usually reserved for Felony (more serious) charges, in what we call "Superior" courts.

Misdemeanor charges are handled in District courts by a single presiding judge. Misdemeanor verdicts can be appealed to a superior court judge for judicial review or for an opportunity to have a jury hear the case, but this usually doesn't happen that often.
 
I remember Diplock Courts in 1972.
 
In the U.S. trials by jury are usually reserved for Felony (more serious) charges, in what we call "Superior" courts.

Misdemeanor charges are handled in District courts by a single presiding judge. Misdemeanor verdicts can be appealed to a superior court judge for judicial review or for an opportunity to have a jury hear the case, but this usually doesn't happen that often.
The same as in the UK, we have Crown Courts and Magistrate Courts.
 
Judges may as well make laws at the way they go about things over here, i have no idea who our law lords are and they head our highest court. The PM appoints them with little to no check or confirmation process so the positions could be highly politicised.

No, this is dangerous imo.
Then you would agree how wonderful its is to be a signatory to the European Court of Human Rights
 
If only we could steal your constitution and implement it here ....
To bare arms? I dont think the monarchy would agree with that, we may end our "subject of the crown" status and become complete citizens.
 
To bare arms? I dont think the monarchy would agree with that, we may end our "subject of the crown" status and become complete citizens.

bustedtees.ef270fa215d10509c3fd5a7396959940.gif
 
If the defendant was not allowed a trial by jury, it's just another reason I am proud to be an American.

In the case of the four defendants in this case there have been four attempts to hold trial by jury but there were serious threats made against the jurors safety, As it was thought difficult to ensure the safety of the jury the trial is to be held with only the judge giving the verdict.

The serious issue is of trial without jury - but more seriously that the police can't guarantee the safety of the jury. We're becoming more and more of a society where people won't always use the law to seek redress because the criminals can threaten the innocent and get away with it.
 
We have judges who say that too, but the fact is that the act of applying a law necessarily requires some level of interpretation. The BGB and Code Civil are massive, but even they cannot cover all possible scenarios.

Of course, they're not "machines" (like people wanted them to be just after the French revolution), but still...there are lots of rules that ensure that he is not arbitrary.
- the laws contain the minimum and maximum sentence, so he can't condemn someone to death because he stole a car
- he has to give a motivation for his sentence
- if the condemned thinks that the sentence is too harsh, he can appeal the judgement and another judge will handle his case



One of the best rationales for having a judge in addition to a jury (aside from the "jury of peers" thing) is because the jury can in theory do what the judge could not - hear the proper evidence only. If there is inflammatory evidence that is not admissible, the judge can keep it away from the jury and thus avoid allowing it to taint a verdict. If there is no jury, the judge would have to rely on himself not to allow it to affect his decision.

That being said, I still think juries are mostly comprised of morons, but nevertheless would be furious if they ever tried to eliminate them without consent here.[/QUOTE]
 
Then you would agree how wonderful its is to be a signatory to the European Court of Human Rights

Very wonderful at times and at others it is annoying as hell.
It is a love/hate relationship
 
Back
Top Bottom