• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Ohh... that's interesting - UK trials without juries"

Collapse

  • BrilloPad
    replied
    I have witnesses thrown out of public trials before. During commital proceedings which is illegal.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Lone Gunman
    replied
    Originally posted by SallyAnne View Post
    I guess the key point here is educated laypeople - most of the brain dead fu*kwits in this country are not my peers thanks.
    Well said, I think I would object and press the "jury of my peers" option. Oddly, I think I would trust must of the CUKers to be fair.

    Alternatively I would like to see us scrap the adversarial legal system we have. A clever lawyer can get a guilty person off by manipulating the system or intimidating a witness to best represent their client.
    I would rather we had legal councils charged with representing the law who would come to a decision based on the evidence and interviews with all the witnesses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by SallyAnne View Post
    I couldn't agree more actually - although a jury system works great on paper, they're so heavily steered by the judge anyway, it's a bit of a farce.

    They need something a little more in the middle - a mixed panel of educated laypeople with legal professionals maybe.

    Or I'd settle for a whole jury of educated lay people with no interfierance from the judge.

    I guess the key point here is educated laypeople - most of the brain dead fu*kwits in this <part of the> country are not my peers thanks.
    Yeah, I've been to Sunderland and Newcastle...

    Leave a comment:


  • SallyAnne
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Clarkson wrote an article on this. He makes the point that a jury isn't exactly a great system - if we as educated types would often be biased anytime we see a chavy type on trial, it's a frightening thought having Joe Public decide your fate.
    I couldn't agree more actually - although a jury system works great on paper, they're so heavily steered by the judge anyway, it's a bit of a farce.

    They need something a little more in the middle - a mixed panel of educated laypeople with legal professionals maybe.

    Or I'd settle for a whole jury of educated lay people with no interfierance from the judge.

    I guess the key point here is educated laypeople - most of the brain dead fu*kwits in this country are not my peers thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • centurian
    replied
    Originally posted by Menelaus View Post
    True but then what would one have in its place?
    A chunk of western Europe do not have jury trials. Most of those that do have jury trials do so for the most serious crimes and tend to have far less than 12 people along with a panel of judges.

    These systems are generally regarded as robust and fair...

    Leave a comment:


  • darmstadt
    replied
    The main reason for this happening in this case is due to just nobbling but who's not to say that the judge can be nobbled too?

    They also put the case acroos that it was a very serious crime in that the men went to commit armed robbery and some other points yet nearly every crime of this sort is pre-meditated which means that in the not too distant future I would suspect that you will see more and more non-jury trials. Its then not a big step to start using them for other cases. Roll on the police state where you'll soon be guilty until proved innocent

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Menelaus View Post
    True but then what would one have in its place?
    That's the question... a judge should be better since they are trained, but then it only takes a few bad apples and we have the whole MP expenses kind of scandal again.

    Leave a comment:


  • minestrone
    replied
    Most trials are done without a jury.

    I am a sad fecker who likes to head down to the courts when benched to see a laugh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Menelaus
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Clarkson wrote an article on this. He makes the point that a jury isn't exactly a great system - if we as educated types would often be biased anytime we see a chavy type on trial, it's a frightening thought having Joe Public decide your fate.
    True but then what would one have in its place?

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Clarkson wrote an article on this. He makes the point that a jury isn't exactly a great system - if we as educated types would often be biased anytime we see a chavy type on trial, it's a frightening thought having Joe Public decide your fate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Menelaus
    replied
    Originally posted by Board Game Geek View Post
    Oooh...is that the new ice cream flavour this year ????
    Might as well be for all the effectiveness it seems to have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Board Game Geek
    replied
    Magna Carta
    Oooh...is that the new ice cream flavour this year ????

    Leave a comment:


  • Menelaus
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll View Post
    All very Stalinesque

    Still we have nothing to fear if we have done no wrong eh?

    Who selects the judges btw?
    And the dissolution of Magna Carta continues.

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    started a topic Ohh... that's interesting - UK trials without juries

    Ohh... that's interesting - UK trials without juries

    All very Stalinesque

    Still we have nothing to fear if we have done no wrong eh?

    Who selects the judges btw?

    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.

    It is the first time the power has been used since it came into force in 2007.
    The case concerns four men accused of an armed robbery at Heathrow Airport in 2004. The judge said jury "tampering" was a "very significant" danger.
    Lord Judge told the court the cost of the measures needed to protect jurors from potential influence, such as the services of police officers, was too high and that such measures may not properly insulate them.

    For example, they "did not sufficiently address the potential problem of interference with jurors through their families," Lord Judge said.

Working...
X