A very interesting final episode. I have enjoyed LIA since before I was a law student, and I was lucky enough to appear on a couple of occasions (they couldn't find anyone else probably!).
I'll leave the either-way issue to one-side, but it is very interesting that this time it is coming from the judiciary. It is also interesting to note that Baroness Carr, like her predecessor, seems very annoyed that the amount of time, effort and training that was spent on increasing magistrates powers to 12 months was wasted, and that she thinks it does remain a useful power (no doubt also reflected the speed and cost differences between Crown and Magistrates).
Her take on the PO is consistent with what she said before. I have just read R v Falcon, which came onto BAILII earlier today. The postscript is very interesting and it is probably as close as a senior judge will get to saying to Parliament "why are you doing this?". She makes it very clear that this Horizon case was progressed quickly and with limited use of resources. It can't be anything other than a shot across the bows at Parliament deciding to quash convictions. As noted before, she is absolutely right to do so.
I hope you do start your own podcast. The demise of LIA is very sad, particularly for the reasons set out yesterday. The lack of journalists with legal training and legal knowledge does mean that the nuances of the system are often not explained and that can lead to unfortunate misrepresentations that can have real consequences.
Once again, thank you VERY much, Joshua. With quite a number of others at times with one government after another having “either way” cases in their sights we faced very hostile official resistance when resisting removal of the entitlement to choose jury trial. Truth to tell I have no doubt whatsoever that those administrations for their own factional reasons wanted rid of just as many jury options as possible until the -admittedly- eccentric division into Magistrates only and those middle ranking cases might be exposed with that very objective in mind. Now why? Alright, here goes: because governments craved a greater proportion of convictions and ever more incentives to plead “Guilty” early for fear of punishment for citizens exercising their rights to have the State prove its case and for them to put forward meritorious defences. Because always Jack Straw at a meeting which he had addressed when Home Secretary (before transfer of those aspects to the later to be created Justice Secretary) told what he clearly had assumed was a friendly audience that he had finally decided to do away with jury trial for that category for fear of “lots” of defendants taking human rights points to the Crown Court (I know, as if there might not be challenges mounted in the lower tier) and consternation arose from my then disseminating his supposedly cosy announcement to my co- campaigners. His “cat out of the bag” moment was exploited to the full thereafter by me and them and in particular by lawyer M.P.s and peers. We - more or less- won that supposedly unwinnable battle and yet here we are again. Now please: in no way whatsoever do I doubt Baroness Carr’s sincerity or question the need for stopping the clock for a good, hard “think” about where our system now is and what is best to be done about it. BUT: the VERY LAST thing we should be doing is looking for the mythical “quick wins” or low hanging fruit where those facets of the whole might be dismantled to a good deal of under informed approbation. Unlike the curate’s egg (with every respect to him) of the recommendations of the Auld Review, ANY such anguished navel gazing should begin at the beginning and end at the absolute end of the process, that is, start at the police station, move on to and through the various tiers of the Courts and the appeal structures and THEN we might be getting somewhere somewhat nearer the Holy Grail of true improvements rather than introducing piecemeal bits of OTHER jurisdictions systems which superficially attract us since one nation’s on the whole honourable strivings towards a good approach may well fit its constitution which in no way is to be taken as meaning it would fit comfortably or at all in ours. Supposedly common law systems like ours when we have had cause to compare them (I HAVE to an extent) are startlingly DIFFERENT to ours- and perhaps within their own jurisdictions for VERY good reasons. The Scottish system? The distinctions? How long have you got? The State representation the nation to include complainants/interested parties/ victims rather than their being parties to prosecutions? Tell that to many jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere? Are they right or are we; which is better? These are the WRONG questions: in each truly democratic country the systems have built up over years largely in order to improve on delivery of justice. Always we must avoid some shallow quest for the final “answers” because if we are honest and searching in our thinking there ain’t any. The quest for delivery on the rule of law and due process must be a never ending one.
Oh, and a number of governments have craved in order in part to avoid executive embarrassment to start at the lower end with the abolition of “either way” entitlements and at the same time to claim that fraud cases are beyond the capabilities of randomly selected jurors and therefore better dealt with by judges sitting alone. (I have never myself bought that proposition.) And then of course with what might be left in the middle after then deciding that sensitive and/or other complex cases also should be judge only cases up would come the observation that (a) such changes were working well (whether or not!) and so why not do away with the jury trial categories still with jurors? I can see it coming. Please, someone, give me an argument, since this remains my firm and unshaken belief over all the getting on for sixty years of my being a solicitor advocate.
A very interesting final episode. I have enjoyed LIA since before I was a law student, and I was lucky enough to appear on a couple of occasions (they couldn't find anyone else probably!).
I'll leave the either-way issue to one-side, but it is very interesting that this time it is coming from the judiciary. It is also interesting to note that Baroness Carr, like her predecessor, seems very annoyed that the amount of time, effort and training that was spent on increasing magistrates powers to 12 months was wasted, and that she thinks it does remain a useful power (no doubt also reflected the speed and cost differences between Crown and Magistrates).
Her take on the PO is consistent with what she said before. I have just read R v Falcon, which came onto BAILII earlier today. The postscript is very interesting and it is probably as close as a senior judge will get to saying to Parliament "why are you doing this?". She makes it very clear that this Horizon case was progressed quickly and with limited use of resources. It can't be anything other than a shot across the bows at Parliament deciding to quash convictions. As noted before, she is absolutely right to do so.
I hope you do start your own podcast. The demise of LIA is very sad, particularly for the reasons set out yesterday. The lack of journalists with legal training and legal knowledge does mean that the nuances of the system are often not explained and that can lead to unfortunate misrepresentations that can have real consequences.
Once again, thank you VERY much, Joshua. With quite a number of others at times with one government after another having “either way” cases in their sights we faced very hostile official resistance when resisting removal of the entitlement to choose jury trial. Truth to tell I have no doubt whatsoever that those administrations for their own factional reasons wanted rid of just as many jury options as possible until the -admittedly- eccentric division into Magistrates only and those middle ranking cases might be exposed with that very objective in mind. Now why? Alright, here goes: because governments craved a greater proportion of convictions and ever more incentives to plead “Guilty” early for fear of punishment for citizens exercising their rights to have the State prove its case and for them to put forward meritorious defences. Because always Jack Straw at a meeting which he had addressed when Home Secretary (before transfer of those aspects to the later to be created Justice Secretary) told what he clearly had assumed was a friendly audience that he had finally decided to do away with jury trial for that category for fear of “lots” of defendants taking human rights points to the Crown Court (I know, as if there might not be challenges mounted in the lower tier) and consternation arose from my then disseminating his supposedly cosy announcement to my co- campaigners. His “cat out of the bag” moment was exploited to the full thereafter by me and them and in particular by lawyer M.P.s and peers. We - more or less- won that supposedly unwinnable battle and yet here we are again. Now please: in no way whatsoever do I doubt Baroness Carr’s sincerity or question the need for stopping the clock for a good, hard “think” about where our system now is and what is best to be done about it. BUT: the VERY LAST thing we should be doing is looking for the mythical “quick wins” or low hanging fruit where those facets of the whole might be dismantled to a good deal of under informed approbation. Unlike the curate’s egg (with every respect to him) of the recommendations of the Auld Review, ANY such anguished navel gazing should begin at the beginning and end at the absolute end of the process, that is, start at the police station, move on to and through the various tiers of the Courts and the appeal structures and THEN we might be getting somewhere somewhat nearer the Holy Grail of true improvements rather than introducing piecemeal bits of OTHER jurisdictions systems which superficially attract us since one nation’s on the whole honourable strivings towards a good approach may well fit its constitution which in no way is to be taken as meaning it would fit comfortably or at all in ours. Supposedly common law systems like ours when we have had cause to compare them (I HAVE to an extent) are startlingly DIFFERENT to ours- and perhaps within their own jurisdictions for VERY good reasons. The Scottish system? The distinctions? How long have you got? The State representation the nation to include complainants/interested parties/ victims rather than their being parties to prosecutions? Tell that to many jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere? Are they right or are we; which is better? These are the WRONG questions: in each truly democratic country the systems have built up over years largely in order to improve on delivery of justice. Always we must avoid some shallow quest for the final “answers” because if we are honest and searching in our thinking there ain’t any. The quest for delivery on the rule of law and due process must be a never ending one.
Oh, and a number of governments have craved in order in part to avoid executive embarrassment to start at the lower end with the abolition of “either way” entitlements and at the same time to claim that fraud cases are beyond the capabilities of randomly selected jurors and therefore better dealt with by judges sitting alone. (I have never myself bought that proposition.) And then of course with what might be left in the middle after then deciding that sensitive and/or other complex cases also should be judge only cases up would come the observation that (a) such changes were working well (whether or not!) and so why not do away with the jury trial categories still with jurors? I can see it coming. Please, someone, give me an argument, since this remains my firm and unshaken belief over all the getting on for sixty years of my being a solicitor advocate.