Thank you Joshua for the treat of Geoffrey Cox’s rhetorical tour de force saying it right when he argued that it is the jury which gets the balance right in making justice be fair between the citizen and the State!
Of course victims of alleged crime want to see ‘justice’ sooner, but what is that concept of ‘justice’ to be? Supposedly speeding things up by having judge only trials (most experienced criminal judges and practitioners think that’s nonsense) may result in speedier INjustice. In my career, I saw enough poor to awful decisions made by single judges deciding facts and law in English civil courts, with progressively less chance of appeal, to be sure that the same will happen in judge only criminal trials. A few civil judges were very good, some good, some barely adequate, some bad and some plain ‘ugly’ (metaphorically). It will be a lottery. Having one person decide on facts and law is a bad idea, pure and simple. At best unconscious bias, with a spectrum moving through incompetence, to partiality, to bullying and like behaviour. There’s a long list of other reasons why a panel of three is better. Leveson’s proposal for ‘medium’ serious’ cases was a judge sitting with two magistrates. Lammy - possibly the most disappointing of Labour’s ministers, in a large field of runners - inexplicably ditched that compromise proposal. As an alternative to magistrates, there would be many retired criminal lawyers, social workers, doctors and other medical staff and other suitable groups from whom ‘wing persons’ could be selected and paid a daily rate. From human rights lawyer, to prosecutor, to the Prime Minister who savaged trial by jury shows a distinct vector moving from the liberal to the authoritarian.
I do not understand one aspect of the proposal to do away with the Jury. At present, following a summing up, the jury retires to consider a Yes/No answer to guilt, without reasons. If the summing up is (as it almost always is) unimpeachable, that is the end if the matter. While waiting for the verdict, the Judge deals with other cases in Court.
How can it be more efficient to require a verdict with a reasoned judgment from the Judge which will be time consuming and difficult to produce?
And it is never an easy or formulaic exercise to produce a Judgment, whereas an experienced Judge can produce a competent summing up in a mid level case with relative ease.
How will the complainants in a criminal case like it to have the judge's reasons for not believing their evidence painstakingly explained - unlike the situation in a Jury trial? How will the Court's relationship with the local police service be sustained following a series of verdicts in which their work is subject to detailed criticism of their competence or credibility?
These proposals threaten collateral damage to the whole system and, in my view, do not begin to address the real problem of backlog and are unlikely to cure it. A major cause of the trouble is, i think, the Treasury driven cap on Judge's sitting hours which has prevented the recruitment of enough Judges and inhibited the full use of Recorders and other part time Judges. That there are people to staff them but Courts are left unused while this crisis has evolved is a scandal to be laid at the door of Government NOT the Jury system.
It is welcome news that, at least temporarily, that cap is being removed. Let us see how that works before taking a wrecking ball to a system that is trusted and practical,
Thank you Joshua for the treat of Geoffrey Cox’s rhetorical tour de force saying it right when he argued that it is the jury which gets the balance right in making justice be fair between the citizen and the State!
Of course victims of alleged crime want to see ‘justice’ sooner, but what is that concept of ‘justice’ to be? Supposedly speeding things up by having judge only trials (most experienced criminal judges and practitioners think that’s nonsense) may result in speedier INjustice. In my career, I saw enough poor to awful decisions made by single judges deciding facts and law in English civil courts, with progressively less chance of appeal, to be sure that the same will happen in judge only criminal trials. A few civil judges were very good, some good, some barely adequate, some bad and some plain ‘ugly’ (metaphorically). It will be a lottery. Having one person decide on facts and law is a bad idea, pure and simple. At best unconscious bias, with a spectrum moving through incompetence, to partiality, to bullying and like behaviour. There’s a long list of other reasons why a panel of three is better. Leveson’s proposal for ‘medium’ serious’ cases was a judge sitting with two magistrates. Lammy - possibly the most disappointing of Labour’s ministers, in a large field of runners - inexplicably ditched that compromise proposal. As an alternative to magistrates, there would be many retired criminal lawyers, social workers, doctors and other medical staff and other suitable groups from whom ‘wing persons’ could be selected and paid a daily rate. From human rights lawyer, to prosecutor, to the Prime Minister who savaged trial by jury shows a distinct vector moving from the liberal to the authoritarian.
PS: I include Masters and the like within my definition of judges.
I do not understand one aspect of the proposal to do away with the Jury. At present, following a summing up, the jury retires to consider a Yes/No answer to guilt, without reasons. If the summing up is (as it almost always is) unimpeachable, that is the end if the matter. While waiting for the verdict, the Judge deals with other cases in Court.
How can it be more efficient to require a verdict with a reasoned judgment from the Judge which will be time consuming and difficult to produce?
And it is never an easy or formulaic exercise to produce a Judgment, whereas an experienced Judge can produce a competent summing up in a mid level case with relative ease.
How will the complainants in a criminal case like it to have the judge's reasons for not believing their evidence painstakingly explained - unlike the situation in a Jury trial? How will the Court's relationship with the local police service be sustained following a series of verdicts in which their work is subject to detailed criticism of their competence or credibility?
These proposals threaten collateral damage to the whole system and, in my view, do not begin to address the real problem of backlog and are unlikely to cure it. A major cause of the trouble is, i think, the Treasury driven cap on Judge's sitting hours which has prevented the recruitment of enough Judges and inhibited the full use of Recorders and other part time Judges. That there are people to staff them but Courts are left unused while this crisis has evolved is a scandal to be laid at the door of Government NOT the Jury system.
It is welcome news that, at least temporarily, that cap is being removed. Let us see how that works before taking a wrecking ball to a system that is trusted and practical,
Like most Bills presented to Parliament, I do not expect this 'Bill' to become an Act of Parliament in the Bill's present form.