Sir Brian is also expected to recommend that the public should be spared jury service if a case is going to last more than 12 months because of the “unfairness” of it taking a year out of their lives and livelihoods. Instead, such cases would be heard by a judge without a jury.
So anything complicated doesn’t get a jury then. Railroad time!
Of course, this is lawyers so they’re being lying, sneaky, duplicitous little bastards.
He suggested one type of case judge-only trials could be where there was significant “public opprobrium” over the case such as sexual or sadistic violence and could sway the jury
It’s all about having the rape trials heard by judges suitably prepared by feminist indoctriniation. None of that basic societal “But that’s not rape!” is to be allowed.
Cases might take many months as documents are sent back and forth between the solicitors. But trials only last weeks at most.
The “livelihood” thing is because we don’t pay people. So, do that. Person’s salary + 50%. Up to £100K/year. Stuff their mouths with gold. And allow people to not do it. But a lot of people will do it, because you’ve just made them richer. Maybe Christopher Nolan or Adele say no and that’s fine
From what I understand, there’s about 100 trials ongoing, so that’s like the state adding 1200 employees. It’s a drop in the ocean compared to the money that is pissed away on keeping tiny rail lines going.
Juries are full of the unemployed, because everyone else tries to get out of doing it. It makes you poor. It’s the only form of slavery that exists.
Seems to me the legal profession should spend less time padding out trials so that they can earn loads of money and focus on giving the benighted heathens in the jury the facts of the case so they can deliver a verdict
I have been on two juries, one for a historical sex crime the other a murder
If the legal profession got it’s act together and the court sat for longer than 3 or 4 hours a day and got it’s basic admin right both trials could have been halved in time
The longest ever jury trial was in court for 320 days. It started with 15 jurors but was down to the minimum 12 by the end of the trial. On long trials the jurors get little more than minimum wage to cover loss of earnings. It’s not practical to have jurors on super long trials as the financial pressure on the grows as the case drags on. Barristers however earn rather more than minimum wage. The longer the trial the more they earn. I can see that the legal profession would like to dispense with the jury so cases could be dragged on for years.
Perhaps the solution should be for the legal professionals to go onto minimum wage if the trial takes more than one week. I suspect if this was the case longer trials would be very rare.
Hmm, judges are so sensible nowadays and so enlightened I’m sure they’ll do an absolutely wonderful job of dispensing justice.
“Well, Mohammed, the nasty little bitch wasn’t wearing any headcovering as she devoured those sublime chicken nuggets right in front of you, so of course you were provoked into stabbing her 48 times. Don’t do it again. And I mean it!”
Just look at how successful the single justice(?) system is working. Any defence material is sent to the prosecutors to pass on to the Bench, to enable a fair decision. The problem is when the prosecution does not pass that information on, so any decision is based solely on the prosecution evidence. So what can go wrong with a no jury trial?
I’ve been on a jury once, took about a week. The job I had paid per year, so a) I didn’t lose any pay by doing jury duty, but b) I didn’t get paid anything for doing jury duty, because they only pay you for *loss* of earnings.
If the cut off is a year, Two Tier and the like will ensure that a year is required for the sort of politically sensitive case where they’d like to put their thumbs on the scales. Ditto if it’s two years, six months, or whatever.
Talk about tripping over the solution without seeing it.
ne type of case judge-only trials could be where there was significant “public opprobrium” over the case such as sexual or sadistic violence and could sway the jury
Ah, letting off nonces.
Judge only trials are fine – but after the trial the judge is then hung in public.
The judges are always looking for ways to nullify juror nullification.
Why can’t they just pay people what they would have earned?
Seems fair. You’re taking people away from their job somewhat involuntarily. Compensate them appropriately.