Jury out on judge-only trials
The decision to hear a criminal case without jurors sets a legal precedent – but is it the way forward for the UK's justice system?
By Afua Hirsch
They disagree about whether it was the Normans in 1066 or the Magna Carta in 1215, but one thing on which lawyers, judges and historians agree is that the jury trial is an ancient and preciously guarded feature of the English criminal justice system.
Which is not to say it has been perfect. For many years the right to be judged by one's peers meant the right to be judged by property-owning men. The opening up of eligibility now means that all socio-economic groups can enjoy taking part in what is often a frustratingly slow, delay-ridden and frequently flawed process, more than capable of producing perverse results.
Not only a brilliant headline but also a well written and well argued article.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
1 comment:
The decision to hear a criminal case without jurors sets a legal precedent – but is it the way forward for the UK's justice system?
Emphatically no. Instead of a one in twelve chance of getting off, you have a Star Chamber situation. Appalling.
Post a Comment