Jury trials could be scrapped for thousands of offenders under plans being considered by the Government to reduce record court backlogs.
Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, is under pressure from senior legal figures to introduce a new “intermediary” court comprising a judge and two magistrates to replace the traditional jury.
They would try cases where offenders faced crimes meriting no more than two-year prison sentences such as assault of a police officer while resisting arrest, racially aggravated criminal damage, dangerous driving and possessing a class C drug like cannabis.
More serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter, sexual assaults including rape, assault causing grievous bodily harm, aggravated burglary and arson with intent would still be tried before a jury in the Crown Court.
Supporters claim the new intermediary court – advocated more than two decades ago by Lord Justice Auld in a report commissioned by Sir Tony Blair’s government – would speed up justice without undermining the right of an individual to a fair trial.
Fuck them.
The jury is our protection against them, the State.
I wonder if, in the longer term, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has even more interesting plans.
Since Bliar the idea that politicians are concerned whether we believe their reasoning is so passe.
In my book, any idea that surfaced in the Bliar/Brown terror regime is evil and needs to be flushed down the khasi…
Good news for nonce rapist illegals, not so much for the rest of us.
Doesn’t the government already do this under the Single Justice System, usually involving corporations such as the BBC or Capita, rather than the CPS? There have been several reports of pleas of mitigation not being forwarded, or taken into account, and even defence evidence being withheld.
“The jury is our protection against them, the State”
Which is precisely why the State wants to abolish the system…
What Dave Ward said.
Exactly Julia!!!!
“cases where offenders faced crimes meriting no more than two-year prison sentences such as assault of a police officer while resisting arrest, racially aggravated criminal damage, dangerous driving and possessing a class C drug like cannabis.”
Hands up if you think these things are not as serious as posting on Facebook and X, or waving a placard in the vicinity of a disturbance…
Evidence? Trials? Verdicts?
Fuck that nonsense. If you peasants step out of line, it’s the High Justice for you.
Next: Were the Aztecs all bad? The socio-economic benefits of open-heart worship.
More serious crimes such as … rape … would still be tried before a jury…
Don’t I remember that it is/was the policy of the SNP government in fair Scotia to dispense with jury trials for rape?
@ Person in Pictland
Yes, but fortunately it did not apply in Alba so “Snowball” did not get executed/exiled by “Napoleon”
“Take em down” will become straight into the Soylent Green liquidiser if these evil bastards get their way.
Want to reduce pressure on the justice system Shabana, then stop making so many consenting adult things illegal. Starting especially with illegal drugs (thanks T May for that psychoactives ban and khat ban), going under the price controls, or under the quotas, or sharing premises for selling sexy, and finally moving onto price gouging and all the things that reduce our CO2 footprint which are currently made illegal by the Climate Change Committee.
In the USA, we have Constitutional protection against this.
What do y’all have in that regard? I mean, could this actually be legal?
We also have consitutional protection – the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. But, the BoR also established that Parliament is Supreme, and can legislate anything – including anything in the BoR and the Magna Carta.
I would think the concept of a trial is likely to be scrapped for most of this blog’s readers if this government – the worst in human history – remains in office, let alone trials by jury.