Comments on: Trial by jury: why Falconer and Goldsmith are wrong http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:49:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Louise http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-5663 Louise Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:22:57 +0000 http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/#comment-5663 John: Isn't having a panel of ex-lawyers useless as an alternative to having a jury? It Sounds to me like an expensive way of ensuring guilty verdicts for all but rich/powerful people who would be confident of a not guilty verdict. John: Isn’t having a panel of ex-lawyers useless as an alternative to having a jury? It Sounds to me like an expensive way of ensuring guilty verdicts for all but rich/powerful people who would be confident of a not guilty verdict.

]]> By: John Angliss http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-5662 John Angliss Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:01:06 +0000 http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/#comment-5662 In Guernsey we have Jurats: 12 senior ex-lawyers who are a permanent jury. Maybe for trials too complex for the public we could at least have that safeguard? In Guernsey we have Jurats: 12 senior ex-lawyers who are a permanent jury. Maybe for trials too complex for the public we could at least have that safeguard?

]]> By: a very public sociologist http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-5661 a very public sociologist Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:24:18 +0000 http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/#comment-5661 Since I did A-level law at 18 I've avoided legal-type issues like the plague. But what I do know curtailing trial by jury is very bad. Period. Since I did A-level law at 18 I’ve avoided legal-type issues like the plague. But what I do know curtailing trial by jury is very bad. Period.

]]> By: Louise http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-5660 Louise Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:19:42 +0000 http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/#comment-5660 "“(8) Before the commencement of paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 so far as it inserts section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the reference to that section in subsection (1)(b) is to have effect as if it were a reference to section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.”.’." Simon: You will need to look up all of these statutory provisions on the HMSO website because you can't tell just by reading it. In general, when you see bits of opaque legislation (i.e. refering to bits of existing legislation) like the above, be on your guard as they are hiding something. ““(8) Before the commencement of paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 so far as it inserts section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the reference to that section in subsection (1)(b) is to have effect as if it were a reference to section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.”.’.”

Simon: You will need to look up all of these statutory provisions on the HMSO website because you can’t tell just by reading it.

In general, when you see bits of opaque legislation (i.e. refering to bits of existing legislation) like the above, be on your guard as they are hiding something.

]]> By: Simon Hughes http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-5659 Simon Hughes Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:53:23 +0000 http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/#comment-5659 Under s43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the courts already have a wide discretion to grant the application for a non-jury hearing by the prosectution if they are satified that "the complexity of the trial or the length of the trial (or both) is likely to make the trial so burdensome to the members of the jury". http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30044--h.htm#43 The ammendment to this section that John Reid is trying to pass is this: ‘At the end of section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) insert— “(8) Before the commencement of paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 so far as it inserts section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the reference to that section in subsection (1)(b) is to have effect as if it were a reference to section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.”.’. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/006/rs62501.63-69.html Perhaps a lawyer could sum up what the fuck this ammendment means??? Under s43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the courts already have a wide discretion to grant the application for a non-jury hearing by the prosectution if they are satified that “the complexity of the trial or the length of the trial (or both) is likely to make the trial so burdensome to the members of the jury”.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30044–h.htm#43

The ammendment to this section that John Reid is trying to pass is this:

‘At the end of section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) insert—

“(8) Before the commencement of paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 so far as it inserts section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the reference to that section in subsection (1)(b) is to have effect as if it were a reference to section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.”.’.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/006/rs62501.63-69.html

Perhaps a lawyer could sum up what the fuck this ammendment means???

]]> By: Louise http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-5658 Louise Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:39:12 +0000 http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/#comment-5658 Yes, I think that is true and it is most certainly ridding trial by jury for majority of cases. What will be next? Minor offences that could be added to the magistrates court, terrorist offences (similar maybe to the Diplock courts)and anything else New Labour considers expedient. But without a jury you can get more convictions and quicker. Pressure can be applied to court officials and judges can appointed. You just pick the most "prosecution" minded judge and who will toe the line and hey presto, your conviction rates go up. The vital importance of a jury is that they are randomly selected and they don't have an axe to grind. The court system will become "railroad justice"... and the destination is prison. Yes, I think that is true and it is most certainly ridding trial by jury for majority of cases. What will be next? Minor offences that could be added to the magistrates court, terrorist offences (similar maybe to the Diplock courts)and anything else New Labour considers expedient.

But without a jury you can get more convictions and quicker. Pressure can be applied to court officials and judges can appointed. You just pick the most “prosecution” minded judge and who will toe the line and hey presto, your conviction rates go up. The vital importance of a jury is that they are randomly selected and they don’t have an axe to grind.

The court system will become “railroad justice”… and the destination is prison.

]]> By: Louise http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-5657 Louise Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:32:07 +0000 http://www.davidosler.com/2007/01/trial-by-jury-why-falconer-and-goldsmith-are-wrong/#comment-5657 Yes, I think that is true and it is most certainly ridding trial by jury for majority of cases. What will be next? Minor offences that could be added to the magistrates court, terrorist offences (similar maybe to the Diplock courts)and anything else New Labour considers expedient. But without a jury you can get more convictions and quicker. Pressure can be applied to court officials and judges can appointed. You just pick the most "prosecution" minded judge and who will toe the line and hey presto, your conviction rates go up. The vital importance of a jury is that they are randomly selected and they don't have an axe to grind. The court system will become "railroad justice"... and the destination is prison. Yes, I think that is true and it is most certainly ridding trial by jury for majority of cases. What will be next? Minor offences that could be added to the magistrates court, terrorist offences (similar maybe to the Diplock courts)and anything else New Labour considers expedient.

But without a jury you can get more convictions and quicker. Pressure can be applied to court officials and judges can appointed. You just pick the most “prosecution” minded judge and who will toe the line and hey presto, your conviction rates go up. The vital importance of a jury is that they are randomly selected and they don’t have an axe to grind.

The court system will become “railroad justice”… and the destination is prison.

]]>