NOT JUDGE & JURY BUT JUDGE OR JURY

 12. Jan. 2010. – 15:04:26 
In 1973 in Northern Ireland at the height of "the troubles" Diplock courts were established. In these court proceedings a trial judge sat alone without a jury. Their establishment was due to the increasing risks of terrorist attacks on jurors. Until their abolition in 2006 about 10,000 passed through the system.

In the last few days a regular feature of the English legal system rarely commented upon commanded headline reporting; the trial of seven Islamists accused of public order offences in Luton and the conviction and sentencing of five of them. What was not unique was that the accused were tried by a single District Judge and sentenced by that same judge.....trials of this nature are common place. Such trials as above could just as easily have been tried by a bench of three magistrates but to this observer it seems that "high profile" cases are invariably brought before a District Judge often on the dubious grounds that only a professional judge can sit for perhaps three or four days in a row. Many cases in the Family Court in front of magistrates can last for a few days. There is no logistical reason for this limitation of magistrates` jurisdiction. It would be interesting to know whether other JPs have a similar experience.

And the trial of the robbers just begun before a single judge a la Diplock raises the question as to whether this is the thin edge of a wedge to reduce the number of jury trials. At appeals at the Crown Court a judge sits with two JPs. It does not seem unreasonable to question why three judges were not engaged to sit as a mini jury as magistrates are when they conduct trials.

With this government`s history of limiting citizens` liberty and knowledge eg the Coroners` Bill one can never accept things at face value.

---