Fuck off mateyJanuary 23, 2021 Tim WorstallCrime23 CommentsActually, fuck off Sir Simon: Jury trials are archaic, and should be abandoned other than in exceptional cases. previousSighnextWell, P³ is right about this for a change 23 thoughts on “Fuck off matey” Boganboy January 23, 2021 at 11:24 am ‘Fuck Off Matey’. Couldn’t have put it better myself, Tim. Bloke on M4 January 23, 2021 at 11:40 am The courts are broken because government runs them. They’re as shit at the administration of courts as they are at NHS administration and education administration. The one part that definitely works is juries. “Nah, fuck off, the law might say this, but this guy ain’t going to prison”. It’s the ultimate pushback against a distant executive. We, the people, can nullify your laws. The removal of the right to jury trial under Labour was a heinous act, and when people talk about how the monarchy protects our ancient liberties, they should remember that Brenda just signed it into law. John Lewis January 23, 2021 at 11:42 am Presumably he would prefer all cases to be presented by publicly funded barristers with judgement made by one of their former colleagues who, in most respects, will be no different to the political appointees (dis)gracing the American legal system. Our nascent Supreme Court has shown the way forward with its willingness to create law on the hoof. Witnesses of the non-expert variety will be limited to written statements rendering cross-examination unnecessary. Full rights of appeal will continue with arguments presented by even more expensive publicly funded counsel. Trebles all round. Allthegoodnamesaretaken January 23, 2021 at 11:57 am Presumably a failure to hold the ‘correct views’ will be taken into account once juries are removed. At the conclusion of his long struggle in 1984, nothing is left within Winston except for love for Big Brother. Bloke in China (Germany province) January 23, 2021 at 12:08 pm I think I’d rather take my chances with a judge in Weimar than a jury of coviphrenics. But that’s the exception that proves the rule. philip January 23, 2021 at 12:08 pm Jenkins is so reliably wrong I use him as a compass. If he said puppies were sweet I’d be filling a bucket. Pat January 23, 2021 at 12:21 pm Perhaps trial by ordeal would be more to his taste? Ottokring January 23, 2021 at 12:25 pm BoM4 Not just jury trial but double jeopardy, just to make the political point of nailing the Stephen Lawrence killers, even then the cops had to fit them up. One good thing that came out of it, I suppose, is the Babes in the Wood killer being found guilty, but even then he only walked because Sussex police ballsed up what should have been an open and shut case in 1988. I did Jury Service a few years ago and found one of the parties not guilty, because although we “felt” that he was involved, the prosecution had failed to produce a shred of evidence against him. In fact they had inadvertently managed to clear him by pursuing a completely fallacious path. We did our duty and took it very seriously. His partner went down for 10 years. jgh January 23, 2021 at 12:42 pm I did Jury Duty a couple of decades ago, and similarly, although Eee Went Dahn, we cleared him of one charge because insufficient evidence was presented. He quite probably did it, but there was no evidence for it. Starfish January 23, 2021 at 1:27 pm I have recently served as a juror on two cases In a nominal 6 hour day working from ten until four we probably heard evidence for four to five hours I personally was impressed by the way barristers presented their cases keeping to the point, being succinct and getting quickly to the nub of an issue The Judge in both cases kept things running pretty smoothly and their directions were concise and very clear My fellow jurors were drawn from a very wide section of society and all seemed to be blessed with common sense and the ability to assess evidence and witness cross examination It quite restored my faith in the system If you want to clear a back log run back to back cases from say 6am to 8pm and over weekends Mind you that would require the government spending some money, they seem to be quite happy to hose it at the NHS Andrew C January 23, 2021 at 2:03 pm “they seem to be quite happy to hose it at the NHS” Which, of course, we ‘have to save’. Has anyone noticed how apocalyptic the radio ads are getting? “Anyone you meet in the park or in the supermarket is LIKELY to have Coronavirus” “If you bend the rules, people WILL DIE” MC January 23, 2021 at 2:41 pm He is the living embodiment of the Daily Mash’s tagline for the Guardian: “Wrong about everything, all of the time.” PF January 23, 2021 at 2:58 pm Andrew C Has anyone noticed how apocalyptic the radio ads are getting? The one about “the jogger likely to have Covid” – the Advertising Standards guys have now ordered BoJo and his clowns to drop that one and stop exaggerating! dearieme January 23, 2021 at 2:59 pm I’ve never been on a jury but my wife came near as damnit to a lovely double – the Old Bailey and the High Court in Edinburgh. Alas, for the latter she wasn’t needed on the day. She thought the OB jury did a sensible job, including finding an American thief guilty in the face of his somewhat hysterical psychiatric excuse-making. It was long enough ago that the oldest jurors could remember The War – his psycho-excuse didn’t much impress them. Bloke in North Dorset January 23, 2021 at 3:16 pm Presumably Sir Simon thinks that as he’s part of the establishment and that the establishment will never turn on him him so he doesn’t need protecting. Obviously history is not a strong point. Bloke in North Dorset January 23, 2021 at 3:23 pm “If you want to clear a back log run back to back cases from say 6am to 8pm and over weekends” Yep. The shortage isn’t jurors and if juries slow down the process as barristers and judges have to make everything thing clearer to the average person, so much the better. Bdhxjen January 23, 2021 at 4:48 pm Let’s start by falsely accusing Mr. Jenkins, then. Jussi January 23, 2021 at 7:27 pm If there only was a supernatural being, enlightened one, dispensing justice…hey that sounds like Breaker Morant. Not one for poetry but this one is good. ” In prison cell I sadly sit, A dammed crestfallen chappie, And own to you I feel a bit– A little bit—unhappy. It really ain’t the place nor time To reel off rhyming diction ; But yet we’ll write a final rhyme While waiting crucifixion. No matter what end they decide Quick-lime? or boiling oil? sir We’ll do our best when crucified To finish off in style, sir ! But we bequeath a parting tip For sound advice of such men Who come across in transport ship To polish off the Dutchmen. If you encounter any Boers You really must not loot ‘em, And, if you wish to leave these shores, For pity’s sake, don’t shoot ‘em. And if you’d earn a D.S.O., Why every British sinner Should know the proper way to go Is: Ask the Boer to dinner. Let’s toss a bumper down our throat Before we pass to heaven, And toast: “The trim-set petticoat We leave behind in Devon.”” tex January 23, 2021 at 10:20 pm In the US Jury trials have already been abandoned in over 90% of criminal cases which are settled by plea bargain. The gov threatens the perp with so much more punishment for going to trial even the innocent can’t afford the risk & so plead guilty. Does UK do that too? dearieme January 24, 2021 at 12:43 am @tex There are three jurisdictions – (i) Scotland, (ii) England & Wales. (iii) Northern Ireland. As far as I know none of them use the dictatorial plea bargaining method. People more familiar, for one reason or another, with the criminal law might point to some low key behaviour by the prosecuting authority that comes close, but nobody pleads guilty to get a five year sentence rather than a five hundred year sentence. Baron Jackfield January 24, 2021 at 11:31 am There was a rather controversial book published in the late-1970s – “Negotiated Justice” by Baldwin & McConville – that rather set the cat amongst the pigeons by revealing the extent of plea-bargaining in the English legal system. But, as @dearieme says above, it was relatively low-key, on the basis of “plead guilty to offence A and we’ll drop (similar) offence B) – certainly not the ludicrous cudgel system used by the yanks. There is, I believe, also the present “discount scheme” used, where offenders get a reduced sentence by pleading guilty to a (probably) un-defendable case. tex January 24, 2021 at 8:18 pm @dearieme & Baron Jackfield: Thanks for info. With poor public defenders & costs so high very few can afford to fight the gov, plea bargain seems to only out for too many. One defense atty noted that people are convicted for violating unconstitutional laws cuz they can’t go to trial where such defense could be made. Pleading guilty ends it. Some defense atty group found 10% of those on death row would not have been convicted with proper legal defense. It is likely that the rate would be higher for those sentenced to life & more so for lesser penalties. DP January 24, 2021 at 11:46 pm Dear Mr Worstall “The Covid pandemic has led to a reported buildup of 457,000 criminal cases, an increase of about 100,000 since the pandemic began.” So 357,000 backlog before the panicdemic began? Therefore abandon a thousand years of English Common Law. That makes sense. Not. DP Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.