You are at netAirspace : Forum : The Combustion Chamber - Off-Topics : General Off-Topics

"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."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8106590.stm

I'm no historian but isn't the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights or something else going out the window?

But it's not that bad after all...

"It allows for a trial without a jury when there is evidence of "a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place" and where additional measures to prevent it would not fully succeed.

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.

So the UK is throwing a primary civil right out the window after 800 years because it might cost too much...

If this stands, it will just establish precedent to hear more and more cases without juries... The jury system may be flawed, but it's better than the alternative...

Cant you wave the right to a jury trial here? How is this different?

Cadet57 wrote:Cant you wave the right to a jury trial here? How is this different?

Yes you can waive a jury trial but there is law that says the government can insist on a jury.

Here, there's no waiver, the government is taking that option away from the defendant...

Boris wrote:

Cadet57 wrote:Cant you wave the right to a jury trial here? How is this different?

Yes you can waive a jury trial but there is law that says the government can insist on a jury.

Here, there's no waiver, the government is taking that option away from the defendant...

Now that IS a scarry prescedent

It certainly is an interesting situation.

The reason that my limited knowledge of law has been aroused is since I saw for the first time the pilot episode of Kojak the other week and the so-called American "Miranda Decision" regarding police interrogation and the rights of an individual under arrest.

When I was looking into this subject I learned that a few certain modern English laws are derived form some very old original English laws stating that a "free-man" had to be tried by his peers.

The Magna Carta wrote:XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

You can blame New Labour for rescinding these centuries old rights and handing them over to the judiciary. They are a despicable bunch of fascists.

DoctorKieron wrote:
But it's not that bad after all...

"It allows for a trial without a jury when there is evidence of "a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place" and where additional measures to prevent it would not fully succeed.

It's not that bad - I can just imagine Breyer having a field day w/that like he did w/eminent domain. Maybe he and his pals on the Court could conclude there's cases all the time out there with danger of jury-tampering. Well, ya can't have that, so suspend the whole process! What a crock. I can't believe a judge would supersede centuries-old law w/such a maligned interpretation.

Well, in the countries with their legal system based on "Civil Law", as opposed to British originated "Common Law" (which are most continental European countries and many of their former colonies), there rarely exists a jury as in common law countries.
Speaking from my experiences with the German legal system, where you might get "Schöffen" (layman judges, who sit on the bench together with one or several professional judges and who are chosen in a similarv way as jurors in the British system) in bigger trials, the system without a jury makes it less possible for either party to use the emotional card.
German criminal trials are usually very boring affairs, where both prosecution and defense act in a very professional manner and where emotional outbursts are frowned upon.
The main thing is he evaluation of facts and the judges are explicitely trained to ignore their own feelings and just to deal with the facts presented to them.
At the lowest level a person will be tried by a single professional judge, but for bigger trials (above the level of trivialities like smalltime shoplifting, the courts use a panel of an odd number of judges, both professional and layman judges, who´ll have to agree on a sentence and have to give a written explanation of why they reached their conclusions.

Jan

BTW, contrary to the belief held by many people in the English-speaking world, we also assume the innocence of the accused until proven guilty and sentenced.

Thanks for your response Jan. I have been curious for a while now between the difference of Civil Law and Common Law.

Can I understand from various sources that Common Law is a uniquely English thing? And was adopted in other countries via the British Empire?

I read all the wikipedia bunf and still don't much see the difference. Seeing as you have some knowledge on the matter perhaps you can explain?