“Of course it’s right that I reflect on whether someone who has stolen two iPhones from Currys should be heard by a jury or should be heard by a magistrate or in some other way,” he said. “Because if they’re heard by a jury, that can take two or three days, and that enters the system and will hold up the rape case or the murder case. There are a group of defendants in ‘either-way’ cases who are playing the system, who effectively leave pleading guilty as late as possible.”
The trial is about whether someone has stolen two iPhones…..
Here’s a suggestion. No reduction of the right to jury trial for the British. Process the foreigners through the fast track.
Nice idea, except that these days I suspect judges are far more likely to acquit an illegal immigrant on shaky grounds than a jury.
So they just claim to be British and you need a jury trial to show that they’re not.
Really the questions should be – why does it take 3 days of court time to decide if someone nicked 2 iphones?
Half an hour to prosecute. If they cant present compelling evidence in that amount of time give up
Bias to defence. So 3x as long – 1 1/2 hours to try to show they didnt do it
An hour for deliberation
Decision made
The court should be able to bang out 3 of those a day
Any modern case that might hinge on suspect’s location as defined by cell tower info can well take that amount of time.
I agree
My abiding memory of jury service was that there was a lot of hanging around waiting for the ‘professionals’ to get their act together
There are definitely people taking the piss. When I did jury service the guy put in a guilty plea when he saw that the witnesses had turned up. Doesn’t mean we scrap the institution though.
They probably get a 10% discount from the sentence for pleading guilty on the day of trial. Incentives matter!
Pretty much so. Even though you are guilty and the evidence clearly shows it you protest your innocence all the way to the trial in the hope that the case will be thrown out for some technical reason or another. But if you do end up in court, immediately changing your plea to guilty does get you a lighter sentence for not wasting the courts time i.e. allowing the salaried judge to leave in time to get in both lunch and a round of golf.
>if you do end up in court, immediately changing your plea to guilty does get you a lighter sentence for not wasting the courts time
Well this seems like a simple and easy change then: if it took six months from your being charged for you to appear in court, and you pled guilty on that day, you should get a discount of 10% * [1 – [179/180] ] on your sentence for only having wasted 99.4% of everyone’s time.
Why is it going to be vastly quicker if you remove the people who aren’t paid to be there? They mostly will want it to be over as quickly as possible. It’s the people who are paid to be there that have the incentive to string things out as long as possible.
Quite so. It strikes me the only significant delays juries cause are the time it takes them to deliberate, and perhaps the few minutes taken up by the judge directing them.
The delays, and costs, lie elsewhere. This is merely a brazen move to remove a check and balance on progressive judicial power.
When the jury takes a long time to deliberate it indicates a significant difference of opinion. If the case is sufficiently unclear for the jury to take time to reach a conclusion the jury trial was demonstrably needed.
Government is responsible for operation of the courts. They have made a mess of it. Therefore, YOU must give up your right to trial by jury.
Government is responsible for providing adequate courts. Important cases being held up is THEIR fault, not yours. Shit government punishing you for their failures.
BWTM:
Courts failing, so they will divert a fortune for ’emotional support.’ What does ’emotional support’ from government even look like? Jobs for people with shit degrees?
Shit government.
Spot on, but it does seem a bit off having this pointed out by someone from a country where prosectors force plea bargains under threat of hugely disproportionate penalties if found guilty.
We have no prosectors.
Examples?
Now he’s using rape victims as a reason. Because they have to wait three or fours years for their trial. As Justice Secretary what’s stopping him from prioritising them?
Another country & another legal system, but. I have a friend who suffered rape recently. She’s been told it’ll be 3 to 4 months before the samples they took from her will be tested & the results available. So the evidence won’t be available to go to court before then. So if there is a trial of the accused party, they won’t be scheduling the trial before then. For an actual trial, who knows?
I would presume similar in the UK. It’s not just the courts. It’s likely throughout the system.
“The coyote is trying to catch a meal; the rabbit is running for his life.”
“It’s an ordinary day for the spider; chaos for the fly.”
For Lammy, it’s just Tuesday. Matters not to him whether you get a jury trial. In fact, Lammy is publicly announcing that YOU don’t matter.
But wait, if the problem is the backup of rape and murder cases, TAKE THEIR JURY TRIALS AWAY! Why should the phone thief surrender his rights when he is not the problem?
I guess he got enough pushback that he’s retreating – this is all just covering his retreat.
According to the Speccie daily podcast there wasn’t much pushback in Parliament when he made the statement, with lots of equivocation from Labour backbenchers.
How did countries near to us clear their backlog of court cases when services re-opened after Covid. You don’t hear about Isle of Man, France, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Sweden changing their system, so this is an England and Wales problem. What made our backlog special, I don’t get it.
There’s a backlog of cases?
Then why did those people who said wrong-think hurty words on Twixter get to trial so fast after the riots?
Oh, because the government gave a shit about that.