Fearing that 'jury tampering' might be a real problem, four men appearing on charges of armed robbery have appeared in crown court. Nothing too newsworthy in that until we realise that this is actually a trial by no jury, now what would Gilbert and Sullivan make of that I wonder? Now we're not looking at the introduction of 'Diplock Courts' (which have been such a part of the Northern Irish judicial system) but something which has been made possible by the 2003 Criminal Justice Act (sections 44 & 46 if you're interested).
Now, I can see the attraction of not having a jury when there have been other court hearings (three in fact) where jury tampering has been either evident or extremely likely. If there's no jury then there's not potential for them being tampered with, so removing the jury should mean that the decision is sound in that respect,
BUT
I have to ask whether holding such a trial without the opportunity of the accused being tried by their peers is actually dispensing justice or merely pragmatism which has the potential to actually deny it, if not now to these four men, potentially to others? Magna Carta and all that stuff came about to ensure that people weren't stitched up by the monarch or the ruling classes. Look a little closer (in terms of time) and perhaps consider some of the apparently serious miscarriages of justice brought about by the activities of such august servants of the people as the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad (where a jury was present) and ask whether you'd have more or less confidence at today's 'legal breakthrough'.
Is it actually a breakthrough or a move towards the good old (judicial) days?
Add to my concern the outlawing of Islam4UK, a group with whom I would disagree at just about turn, and you begin to see freedom of speech (even speech with which disagree with) being eradicated (or at least limited) and trial by jury reduced and I wonder which part of the wedge I'm viewing. I would rather those with whom I disagree were allowed to voice their views, concerns and criticisms rather be pushed out of public gaze to continue as a faction. I feel this over Islam4UK, the BNP and many other groups - if we restrict freedom of speech we diminish democracy. If we remove trial by jury we introduce doubt over legal decisions because the checks and balances that is the jury has gone - something I expect from banana republics and democratic nations that are perhaps going bananas. Whatever next, we'll be sending people to internment camps because we percieve they are 'enemies of the state'.
What a lood of gulags that will be!
Now, I can see the attraction of not having a jury when there have been other court hearings (three in fact) where jury tampering has been either evident or extremely likely. If there's no jury then there's not potential for them being tampered with, so removing the jury should mean that the decision is sound in that respect,
BUT
I have to ask whether holding such a trial without the opportunity of the accused being tried by their peers is actually dispensing justice or merely pragmatism which has the potential to actually deny it, if not now to these four men, potentially to others? Magna Carta and all that stuff came about to ensure that people weren't stitched up by the monarch or the ruling classes. Look a little closer (in terms of time) and perhaps consider some of the apparently serious miscarriages of justice brought about by the activities of such august servants of the people as the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad (where a jury was present) and ask whether you'd have more or less confidence at today's 'legal breakthrough'.
Is it actually a breakthrough or a move towards the good old (judicial) days?
Add to my concern the outlawing of Islam4UK, a group with whom I would disagree at just about turn, and you begin to see freedom of speech (even speech with which disagree with) being eradicated (or at least limited) and trial by jury reduced and I wonder which part of the wedge I'm viewing. I would rather those with whom I disagree were allowed to voice their views, concerns and criticisms rather be pushed out of public gaze to continue as a faction. I feel this over Islam4UK, the BNP and many other groups - if we restrict freedom of speech we diminish democracy. If we remove trial by jury we introduce doubt over legal decisions because the checks and balances that is the jury has gone - something I expect from banana republics and democratic nations that are perhaps going bananas. Whatever next, we'll be sending people to internment camps because we percieve they are 'enemies of the state'.
What a lood of gulags that will be!
Pax
2 comments:
For all of its flaws, trial by jury still seems to be preferable to the alternative.
I totally agree - the loss of trial by jury (for any reason) is a dangerous move as I see it.
Post a Comment