Injin Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 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.†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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godless Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Time to celebrate our new found freedoms... ...heres to the future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Given that this hasn't been done lightly, what would you have them do instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Realist 8 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Thanks for posting, Injin. Anyone who isn't concerned by this isn't playing with a full deck. Anyone, no matter what the alleged crime, should be entitled to a fair trial by jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixle Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Who is easier to influence... 1 permanent judge or 10 ramdomish jurors... hmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogs Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Never thought they would go through with it. Another step towards politicising the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thread Killer Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftiebeard Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8106590.stmtotalitarianism here we come 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godless Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/takingliber...blackdwarf.html Maybe time to make a poster, heres one from 1817 when they last did this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fildi101 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profitofdoom Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prescience Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Another piece of the Magna Carta becomes a mere historical curiosity. Spoken during his own time as juror, Tony Hancock's comments on Magna Carta: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogs Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.