National News Justice System

[Essexyellows]

I think people as saying there are far better arguments that can be made then the constant reference to the Magna Carta.

"First they came for the jury and I said nothing..........................."

Think that`s how it goes, unless its your team on the offensive

 

[tonyw]

Far from it, calm and reasoned and base my decision on the evidence provided.
Although there is, invariably, someone who see`s the "good" in everyone.
First case I sat on the bloke had assaulted and robbed a taxi driver - his defence being he was drunk.
11 of us had him guilty, based on the evidence presented, CCTV and 6 witness statements including the taxi driver.
All except one woman who said it was all down to the "demon drink".
After a thorough review of everything we had been told she accepted that being drunk wasn't a defence for assault and robbery and our verdict was delivered.
Amazingly we then found out that the chap had 11 previous convictions for ABH, Robbery, GBH, Burglary and Theft.

I`m certainly glad I`m officially finished with jury service!

Errrr......pretty sure that you're breaching Section 20D of the 1974 Juries Act there, Essex.

"It is an offence for a person intentionally......to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court"

That's a criminal offense with a punishment of up to 2 years in jail!

 

[Peterdev]

Errrr......pretty sure that you're breaching Section 20D of the 1974 Juries Act there, Essex.

"It is an offence for a person intentionally......to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court"

That's a criminal offense with a punishment of up to 2 years in jail!

I’m not sure about that, as no names or specifics details have been referred to

 

[Essexyellows]

Errrr......pretty sure that you're breaching Section 20D of the 1974 Juries Act there, Essex.

"It is an offence for a person intentionally......to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court"

That's a criminal offense with a punishment of up to 2 years in jail!

They are more than welcome to come and get me............... and arrest me for disclosing information about........

Which trial?
Where?
When?

I`m sure not telling them so it might well be tricky, otherwise admitting you have done jury service would be an offence.

 

[gofish2]

This is a complex and emotive subject. I was dismayed by the decision to manage trials in what appears to be an economically based and motivated action. I cannot agree with it on that basis. Whilst the judicial system is imperfect, the underlying principles are reasonable and fair. That does not always mean that verdicts are not sometimes questionable. The principles underpinning a trial, rely upon the advocates who by definition are placed in positions of opposition, to present arguments which will persuade a jury to decide in favour of the prosecution or the defence.

I have been called to give evidence as an expert witness in criminal cases, family law cases and complex cases where an independent submission is required to help inform the court in their decision-making.

Over the years I have concluded that hearings are like chess games. They are full of strategy, anticipation, and bluff. This is not a criticism but a statement of fact. Learning to play such a strategic game requires an understanding of the game itself. There is no room for subjectivity or sentiment. Counsel for either side only want to win. Their approach to gaining the trust and belief of the jury is not just based upon evidence, but rather, it's interpretation and presentation. I have seen verdicts reached on incredibly unreliable evidence, but with sufficient evidence of reasonable doubt as presented by the expertise of the advocate concerned.

I have attended hearings that range from “hearings for direction” all the way through to sentencing.

I recently gave evidence in a rape trial, where counsel for the defence (a very well-known international barrister) absolutely destroyed the submission of the victim as fantasy, and my own clinical opinion as potentially subjective. Whilst the judge intervened at that point reminding her that I was an expert witness, the jury had already heard her words. Strategy.

Similarly, in cases where I am called to offer mitigation on behalf of the defendant, I have seen the most incredible compassion displayed by senior judges.



My conclusion is that as imperfect as it is, we have a world renowned and respected system. The underpinning principles are respected in the Supreme Court, and it is disturbing to see these compromised by economics.

 

[m]

This is a complex and emotive subject. I was dismayed by the decision to manage trials in what appears to be an economically based and motivated action. I cannot agree with it on that basis. Whilst the judicial system is imperfect, the underlying principles are reasonable and fair. That does not always mean that verdicts are not sometimes questionable. The principles underpinning a trial, rely upon the advocates who by definition are placed in positions of opposition, to present arguments which will persuade a jury to decide in favour of the prosecution or the defence.

I have been called to give evidence as an expert witness in criminal cases, family law cases and complex cases where an independent submission is required to help inform the court in their decision-making.

Over the years I have concluded that hearings are like chess games. They are full of strategy, anticipation, and bluff. This is not a criticism but a statement of fact. Learning to play such a strategic game requires an understanding of the game itself. There is no room for subjectivity or sentiment. Counsel for either side only want to win. Their approach to gaining the trust and belief of the jury is not just based upon evidence, but rather, it's interpretation and presentation. I have seen verdicts reached on incredibly unreliable evidence, but with sufficient evidence of reasonable doubt as presented by the expertise of the advocate concerned.

I have attended hearings that range from “hearings for direction” all the way through to sentencing.

I recently gave evidence in a rape trial, where counsel for the defence (a very well-known international barrister) absolutely destroyed the submission of the victim as fantasy, and my own clinical opinion as potentially subjective. Whilst the judge intervened at that point reminding her that I was an expert witness, the jury had already heard her words. Strategy.

Similarly, in cases where I am called to offer mitigation on behalf of the defendant, I have seen the most incredible compassion displayed by senior judges.



My conclusion is that as imperfect as it is, we have a world renowned and respected system. The underpinning principles are respected in the Supreme Court, and it is disturbing to see these compromised by economics.

I realise this is a massive question, but how would you reform the justice system?

 

[Sheik Djibouti]

I realise this is a massive question, but how would you reform the justice system?

It is a massive question.

According to the Justice secretary, only 10% of cases go to Crown Court and of those only 3% are heard by a Jury (the other 7% being guilty pleas or aquittals under the judges direction). There's also evidence that those accused of either way offences are gaming the system and are now more likely than ever to opt for trial by Jury in a Crown Court because of the inordinate amount of time it will take for the case to ever get there. And because of that amount of time, there is a greater chance that the case will crack and witnesses will pull out. Magistrates and Barristers will tell of people they know to be "career criminals" doing just that and ultimately evading justice.

The issue is funding and capacity. As with everything else, the quality of service you get will largely depend on how much you are willing to pay for it, but the justice system as is, is pretty much unsustainable.

 

[Followtheox1]

This is a complex and emotive subject. I was dismayed by the decision to manage trials in what appears to be an economically based and motivated action. I cannot agree with it on that basis. Whilst the judicial system is imperfect, the underlying principles are reasonable and fair. That does not always mean that verdicts are not sometimes questionable. The principles underpinning a trial, rely upon the advocates who by definition are placed in positions of opposition, to present arguments which will persuade a jury to decide in favour of the prosecution or the defence.

I have been called to give evidence as an expert witness in criminal cases, family law cases and complex cases where an independent submission is required to help inform the court in their decision-making.

Over the years I have concluded that hearings are like chess games. They are full of strategy, anticipation, and bluff. This is not a criticism but a statement of fact. Learning to play such a strategic game requires an understanding of the game itself. There is no room for subjectivity or sentiment. Counsel for either side only want to win. Their approach to gaining the trust and belief of the jury is not just based upon evidence, but rather, it's interpretation and presentation. I have seen verdicts reached on incredibly unreliable evidence, but with sufficient evidence of reasonable doubt as presented by the expertise of the advocate concerned.

I have attended hearings that range from “hearings for direction” all the way through to sentencing.

I recently gave evidence in a rape trial, where counsel for the defence (a very well-known international barrister) absolutely destroyed the submission of the victim as fantasy, and my own clinical opinion as potentially subjective. Whilst the judge intervened at that point reminding her that I was an expert witness, the jury had already heard her words. Strategy.

Similarly, in cases where I am called to offer mitigation on behalf of the defendant, I have seen the most incredible compassion displayed by senior judges.



My conclusion is that as imperfect as it is, we have a world renowned and respected system. The underpinning principles are respected in the Supreme Court, and it is disturbing to see these compromised by economics.

When you say world renowned, what is that based on? Which of our European friends, for example, look upon our system as world renowned?

The substance of your post is interesting as it seems to argue that judges are better equipped than a jury to overcome the strategies employed to appeal to the jury but you argue against a change because it is based on economics.

 

[QR]

When you say world renowned, what is that based on? Which of our European friends, for example, look upon our system as world renowned?

The substance of your post is interesting as it seems to argue that judges are better equipped than a jury to overcome the strategies employed to appeal to the jury but you argue against a change because it is based on economics.

Great discussion but you two are making me feel like indecisive Dave.

 

[Basham Wonderland]

When you say world renowned, what is that based on? Which of our European friends, for example, look upon our system as world renowned?

The substance of your post is interesting as it seems to argue that judges are better equipped than a jury to overcome the strategies employed to appeal to the jury but you argue against a change because it is based on economics.

It's possibly based on a slightly misguided conflation of civil vs criminal justice.

Our civil justice system is literally world leading, considered so fair and robust that England and Wales is the jurisdiction of choice for many contract and corporate matters. In most cases, if there is an England and Wales element to a transaction it will be chosen as the appropriate contractual jurisdiction because we are simply the best at that stuff.

As for criminal matters, I don't know if we're literally world leading, but we consistently rank highly within the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index. We came 14th this year, with our commonwealth cousins in Canada and Australia coming slightly higher.

So "world renowned" is probably a fair assessment. If you take our justice system "in the round", including our civil system we really are up there as one of the best.

 

[Londox]

When you say world renowned, what is that based on? Which of our European friends, for example, look upon our system as world renowned?

The substance of your post is interesting as it seems to argue that judges are better equipped than a jury to overcome the strategies employed to appeal to the jury but you argue against a change because it is based on economics.

England has one of the oldest common law legal systems in the world.

Its tough on our European friends that it was always the English at the forefront of everything. It's hard being such a great country!