Don't magistrates make around half of all decision to imprison without a jury at the moment? Unlike judges, they often live in the actual community affected. Plenty of people pleading guilty will hope not to be imprisoned and then hold a grudge against the specific magistrate just as they might against a judge who jailed them without a jury. Just a thought, like.
Perhaps Baroness Carr should be more concerned by judges who give out politically influenced judgements and thereby corrupt the justice system, as we are seeing in an ever-growing number of cases over the past few years. This is becoming a serious problem, undermining the confidence in and respect for the justice system, and the judiciary seems blithely unaware or unconcerned by the growing tide of anti-judiciary feeling of a large percentage of law-abiding citizens. The judiciary appear to be living in an exalted state of detachment from the general population, and happy to implement rulings and judgements that go with the flow of the political fashions and pressures of the day rather than real fairness and justice. Safety of judges is of course important, and should be ensured. However, the protection of the general public from political manipulation and bias within the judiciary is even more important.
One of the features of jury trial is the near impossibility of nobbling one. That is not to say people haven’t tried but in my 37 years at the Bar I have only encountered it once. The improbability of succeeding in such a venture is the deterrence.
By comparison, a judge only trial is a different proposition.
And that is only to consider how a decision may be bent in a suspect’s favour. I completely understand the Lady Chief’s concern that a disgruntled party/associate may seek retribution.
These are more reasons to add to the pile of other good reasons why Lammy’s Bill needs rethinking away.
Counsel, and especially prosecutors and unsuccessfull defending counsel. have always been an easy target for angry vengeful families, only lightly protected by the anonymity of a wig. Attackers on judges snd counsel include the famous chap who "jeta un brickbat a le juge, qui le narrowly missed" , and who was forthwith taken out and hanged on the spot.
Numerous cases are held by judges and lawyers in unattended courtrooms inside court centres barely guarded with open barriers at the exit. Despite the alarms which may not be working, it is only a matter of time before some hapless judge or counsel are raped on the bench.
I understand some of the concerns about judge only trials but it seems to have been forgotten that professional magistrates (known as stipendiary magistrates when I started practice and now called district judges) have been deciding matters of guilt or innocence and sending people to gaol on the back of those decisions for centuries. They have never been anonymous. Nor for that matter have non professional magistrates who sitting as benches of 3 have fulfilled the same functions.
No-one was ever terribly concerned about their safety so far as I’m aware. I hope that they will be included in any security measures taken in the implementation of whatever changes get through Parliament.
Don't magistrates make around half of all decision to imprison without a jury at the moment? Unlike judges, they often live in the actual community affected. Plenty of people pleading guilty will hope not to be imprisoned and then hold a grudge against the specific magistrate just as they might against a judge who jailed them without a jury. Just a thought, like.
Perhaps Baroness Carr should be more concerned by judges who give out politically influenced judgements and thereby corrupt the justice system, as we are seeing in an ever-growing number of cases over the past few years. This is becoming a serious problem, undermining the confidence in and respect for the justice system, and the judiciary seems blithely unaware or unconcerned by the growing tide of anti-judiciary feeling of a large percentage of law-abiding citizens. The judiciary appear to be living in an exalted state of detachment from the general population, and happy to implement rulings and judgements that go with the flow of the political fashions and pressures of the day rather than real fairness and justice. Safety of judges is of course important, and should be ensured. However, the protection of the general public from political manipulation and bias within the judiciary is even more important.
One of the features of jury trial is the near impossibility of nobbling one. That is not to say people haven’t tried but in my 37 years at the Bar I have only encountered it once. The improbability of succeeding in such a venture is the deterrence.
By comparison, a judge only trial is a different proposition.
And that is only to consider how a decision may be bent in a suspect’s favour. I completely understand the Lady Chief’s concern that a disgruntled party/associate may seek retribution.
These are more reasons to add to the pile of other good reasons why Lammy’s Bill needs rethinking away.
You're saying it's easy to nobble a judge? I dunno, mate.
Counsel, and especially prosecutors and unsuccessfull defending counsel. have always been an easy target for angry vengeful families, only lightly protected by the anonymity of a wig. Attackers on judges snd counsel include the famous chap who "jeta un brickbat a le juge, qui le narrowly missed" , and who was forthwith taken out and hanged on the spot.
Numerous cases are held by judges and lawyers in unattended courtrooms inside court centres barely guarded with open barriers at the exit. Despite the alarms which may not be working, it is only a matter of time before some hapless judge or counsel are raped on the bench.
Wake up, HMCTS.
I understand some of the concerns about judge only trials but it seems to have been forgotten that professional magistrates (known as stipendiary magistrates when I started practice and now called district judges) have been deciding matters of guilt or innocence and sending people to gaol on the back of those decisions for centuries. They have never been anonymous. Nor for that matter have non professional magistrates who sitting as benches of 3 have fulfilled the same functions.
No-one was ever terribly concerned about their safety so far as I’m aware. I hope that they will be included in any security measures taken in the implementation of whatever changes get through Parliament.