by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 26. Nov. 2010. – 08:11:56
It seems that the subject of
judges and juries is going to be hotly debated from now on. For what it`s worth
[and in the real world that`s not a lot] I`ve written here more than once that
the current system of jury trial is an anachronism and fails the interests of
justice and the public interest. There is no doubt that there now exists for
whatever reasons a body of opinion that the subject should at least be explored
and debated and not accepted as a permanent fait accompli.
Lord Justice Moses has entered this debate. He has advocated that trial judges should rule on matters of fact, and juries, instead of weighing all the evidence as at present, should simply be given a list of questions to answer. The short report available here does not do justice to his argument…..excuse the pun…….but I think it is not unreasonable to infer that he is alluding to an inclination that complex argument might be beyond the wit of some jurors. I agree. Members of the legal profession are unlikely to be supportive. They would deny that pecuniary interests serve their opinion. Magistrates at the very bottom of the judicial pecking order are well acquainted with defendants on either way matters selecting jury trial over summary trial; they consider that they are more likely to be acquitted…..a statistic which is open to question. With crown court legal aid rates higher than those at the lower court to dismiss legal pecuniary interest out of hand in court matters would be presumptive in my opinion.
When the decibels in this debate begin to increase lawyers will have to do more than repeat their old mantra of “since Magna Carta, fair trial, judgement of peers, etc etc” and produce real sustainable arguments why the current system cannot be improved for the benefit of defendants and the public in addition to the one unimpeachable mantra, “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done”.
Lord Justice Moses has entered this debate. He has advocated that trial judges should rule on matters of fact, and juries, instead of weighing all the evidence as at present, should simply be given a list of questions to answer. The short report available here does not do justice to his argument…..excuse the pun…….but I think it is not unreasonable to infer that he is alluding to an inclination that complex argument might be beyond the wit of some jurors. I agree. Members of the legal profession are unlikely to be supportive. They would deny that pecuniary interests serve their opinion. Magistrates at the very bottom of the judicial pecking order are well acquainted with defendants on either way matters selecting jury trial over summary trial; they consider that they are more likely to be acquitted…..a statistic which is open to question. With crown court legal aid rates higher than those at the lower court to dismiss legal pecuniary interest out of hand in court matters would be presumptive in my opinion.
When the decibels in this debate begin to increase lawyers will have to do more than repeat their old mantra of “since Magna Carta, fair trial, judgement of peers, etc etc” and produce real sustainable arguments why the current system cannot be improved for the benefit of defendants and the public in addition to the one unimpeachable mantra, “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done”.