Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Injin

First Criminal Trial Without A Jury Approved

Recommended Posts

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6528322.ece

A criminal trial will go ahead without a jury for the first time in England and Wales in 400 years after a Court of Appeal ruling today.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, and two other judges in London gave the go-ahead because of the danger of jury “tamperingâ€.

The case concerns an armed raid on a warehouse at Heathrow in 2004, where robbers seized £1.75 million of the £10 million targeted.

The robbery has already given rise to three trials at a total cost of £22 million. The last trial collapsed in 2008 after what the judge called “a serious attempt at jury tamperingâ€.

Today, as he allowed the prosecution appeal to have a trial without a jury, Lord Judge said: “The danger of jury tampering and the subversion of the process of trial by jury is very significant.â€

Reporting restrictions ban the identification of four defendants. The trial by a judge sitting alone, who has yet to be chosen, “will take place without a jury in due courseâ€, he added. A preliminary hearing is scheduled to take place at the Old Bailey on July 10.

The decision, jointly taken with Lord Justice Goldring and Mr Justice McCombe, means that the new trial will be the first Crown Court case in England and Wales that would normally be tried by a jury to be heard by a judge alone since new legislation came into force in 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

Given that this hasn't been done lightly, what would you have them do instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that this hasn't been done lightly, what would you have them do instead?

Another piece of the Magna Carta becomes a mere historical curiosity.

What I find odd is that there is one judge. I would have thought that a tribunal would have been fairer. And less easy to nobble, as that is why they want to do away with the jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that this hasn't been done lightly, what would you have them do instead?

Fill the jury with recently discharged armed forces and serving mercenaries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8106590.stm

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.

totalitarianism here we come :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diplock Court huh.

Not good but not that shocking or unprecedented.

If the case keeps collapsing because of jury intimidation I'm not sure what the alternative really is.

I guess nobody cared when it only applied to "paddies"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_irelan...est/8056017.stm

Wow! The ironies in that case are amazing - Asian immigrant in bed with Loyalist psychopaths!

The jury is the foundation of democratic authority, but I don't see it making a comeback. The system teems with politicians and lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interstingly enough, Japan is mooting bringing in a jury to courts. They never have before.

I don't see the alternative in this case BTW. If the four have mafia connections to corrupt/threaten jurors that not even the defendents are privy to, they have enough influence within the legal system to hamstring any jury court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My initial feelings; but on reflection I do have some sympathy for this decision. If it means bringing these ars*s to court; then fair play.

Thats what you are supposed to think and what the media is to make the masses think. Give up the rule of law and your rights to prosecute a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats what you are supposed to think and what the media is to make the masses think. Give up the rule of law and your rights to prosecute a few.

we are not just running behind the states when it comes to the financial collapse.....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16525165/Is-Fort...e-For-Obama-609

Their constitution means nothing anymore, ignored or altered by politicians the US citizen has no rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats OK let them have trial without jury because the way things are going a lot of lamp posts are going to find a new use around downing street and i don't think these people will have a trial that is drawn out for ten years or so.

we live in a acoutry that has been allowed to become corrupt to the core and it has to be stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm don't know what the process was by which this decision was made, but I would say that we do need some way to combat jury knobbling.

I would be in favour of of trial without jury if, and only if, a panel of, say, six judges agree that there is sufficient evidence to show without reasonable doubt that the defendants have already attempted to manipulate the jury in a previous trail for the same crime, which led to a mis-trail.

This would be a very rare occurrence.. but there does have to be some mechanism whereby those who choose to abuse the right to trail by jury, are no longer afforded it's protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm don't know what the process was by which this decision was made, but I would say that we do need some way to combat jury knobbling.

I would be in favour of of trial without jury if, and only if, a panel of, say, six judges agree that there is sufficient evidence to show without reasonable doubt that the defendants have already attempted to manipulate the jury in a previous trail for the same crime, which led to a mis-trail.

This would be a very rare occurrence.. but there does have to be some mechanism whereby those who choose to abuse the right to trail by jury, are no longer afforded it's protection.

The alternatives to this are either to let them go,acknowledging that they are above the law or to allow them to be acquitted by a tampered with jury.I suppose all those deploring this are happy to have the law abandoned with regard to those who are sufficiently powerful to subvert the process.Personally I would be happy for them to dealt with in any manner deemed expedient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, the solution would be to conceal the jury in another room and allow them to watch and listen by CCTV link?

There are also a number of mechanisms which could be employed to keep the names of the jurors selected away from the basic process of the Courts Service.

The danger, for me, of trial without jury, is the politicisation of the judges.

Government has become far too involved in this and can effectively select new judges: and chose (behind the scenes) which judges will try which cases.

Whereas this process ought to be completely outside government purview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The alternatives to this are either to let them go,acknowledging that they are above the law or to allow them to be acquitted by a tampered with jury.

So what did we do for the previous _four hundred years_?

I suppose all those deploring this are happy to have the law abandoned with regard to those who are sufficiently powerful to subvert the process.

So what did we do for the previous _four hundred years_?

Trial by jury is an ancient right which is far more important than one single case, and now they've managed to subvert that once _FOR THE FIRST TIME IN CENTURIES_, more and more cases will magically require non-jury trials until juries no longer exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trial by jury is an ancient right which is far more important than one single case, and now they've managed to subvert that once _FOR THE FIRST TIME IN CENTURIES_, more and more cases will magically require non-jury trials until juries no longer exist.

Apart from the 35 years of doing it in Northern Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.