Trial by Jury

[vwdan]

All fine and well until you're falsely accused of something and need a jury to listen to your case.

Famously, no innocent person has ever been taken to court.

[Uncle Albert]

not being an habitual criminal.
IDGAFF.

All fine and well until you're falsely accused of something and need a jury to listen to your case.

[NotAllThere]

Other systems are available. There are countries in Europe that only have jury trial in specific circumstances. They're not particularly noted for their lack of freedom and justice.

However, they do have non-adversarial systems. Rather inquistorial, seeking the facts. So maybe change that as well.

[sadkingbilly]

not being an habitual criminal.
IDGAFF.

[vwdan]

Is it still the case in English law that a jury can find someone not guilty where they disagree with the law or its application even against the direction of a judge?
If so, I guess this will be lost for the cases in scope of the changes.

Not only the case, but hard fought over centuries and now enshrined in what is arguably constitutional law and we even have a plaque to it in the old Bailey.

Near this site WILLIAM PENN and WILLIAM MEAD were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Gracechurch Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the jury, Thomas Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others, who refused to give a verdict against them although locked up without food for two nights; and were fined for their final verdict of Not Guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a writ of habeas corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which established the right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions

Anybody who doesn't see these changes as a fundamental erosion of the rights of the public needs to give their head a wobble. Make no mistake, with this change we lose a substantial backstop against injustice and tyranny. The fundamental, and enshrined, right for a jury to acquit.

[vwdan]

Not sure why people are ignoring that trial by jury has already been scrapped for sentences under a year, all that’s happening is they are changing the limit from one year to three

This is a really disingenuous take, and is also fundamentally incorrect.

As it stands, the *only* time you can't get a jury trial is for summary only offences. And these really are the most minor of minor offences - minor criminal damage, some motoring offences, common assault etc. These offences are specific, and "pre selected" if you like - i.e., I can tell you whether any offence is summary or not.

For every other offence, you currently have the right to opt for a jury trial regardless of any potential sentence, big or small.

They're now expanding that to include all offences, including indictable only, based entirely on the estimated sentence. So there's not even a limit on sentencing, it's merely based on what somebody expects the sentence will be (ie., a max of three years).

It's a big deal. Whether you think it's a good idea or not, I think the discourse around it (in general, not here) is particularly dishonest. Make no mistake, it's a fundamental and major change in our criminal justice system

[SimonMac]

Not sure why people are ignoring that trial by jury has already been scrapped for sentences under a year, all that’s happening is they are changing the limit from one year to three

[Protagoras]

What do folks think of the changes to the right to jury trial in England?

Obviously a judge will simply apply the law.

Is it still the case in English law that a jury can find someone not guilty where they disagree with the law or its application even against the direction of a judge?
If so, I guess this will be lost for the cases in scope of the changes.