Post by Neko Bazu on Jan 12, 2010 9:04:09 GMT -1
This week, four men accused of armed robbery are due to face trial in a case which is to be heard by a judge only. This will be "the first serious criminal trial" to be held without a jury in England and Wales since the institution of the practice.
In June last year Lord Judge, sitting with two other judges, agreed to set aside the "hallowed principle" of trial by jury because of what he described as the "very significant" danger of jury tampering. The case, involving a £1.75 million hold-up at a Heathrow warehouse in February 2004, will now be heard by Mr Justice Treacy. The decision was made under powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
There have already been three Old Bailey trials in the case, and the latest proceedings ground to a halt in December 2008 after claims of jury tampering, after which prosecutors applied for a new trial to be heard by a judge sitting alone.
*~*~*~*~*~*
It goes without saying that this is a huge precedent to be set, especially in a country which has had trial by jury enshrined in common law for over 800 years. I am curious, though, as to how much of a precedent this will be.
It appears in this case that the jury has previously been 'influenced', and if so, a trial without jury is an option to consider. On the other side of things, though, should it even be possible to revoke this right? It can be argued that revoking it is in the public interest this time, but then the same could be said of many other situations in future - leaning toward the hysterical side, is it not arguably in the public interest to use torture to glean information from members of terrorist cells, for instance? And if legislation can be brought in to allow the removal of trial by jury in special cases, what's to stop other legislation coming through?
(For what it's worth, I don't believe that information under torture can be proven to be of much use, but not everyone sees it that way.)
In all honesty, I'm surprised that there hasn't been an uproar in the Daily Mail and the like telling us about how the big brother state (and possibly Europe
) is further eroding our rights and leading us further into Nineteen Eighty-Four - but sensationalism aside, I think there's an argument to be made in that ballpark. As I said above; if they can legislate one right away, what's to prevent others?
In this instance, I agree that the removal of the jury is justifiable, albeit with a certain sense of unease. I can't honestly say that I have absolute faith in our government to not push the boundary a little further in future, though...
In June last year Lord Judge, sitting with two other judges, agreed to set aside the "hallowed principle" of trial by jury because of what he described as the "very significant" danger of jury tampering. The case, involving a £1.75 million hold-up at a Heathrow warehouse in February 2004, will now be heard by Mr Justice Treacy. The decision was made under powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
There have already been three Old Bailey trials in the case, and the latest proceedings ground to a halt in December 2008 after claims of jury tampering, after which prosecutors applied for a new trial to be heard by a judge sitting alone.
*~*~*~*~*~*
It goes without saying that this is a huge precedent to be set, especially in a country which has had trial by jury enshrined in common law for over 800 years. I am curious, though, as to how much of a precedent this will be.
It appears in this case that the jury has previously been 'influenced', and if so, a trial without jury is an option to consider. On the other side of things, though, should it even be possible to revoke this right? It can be argued that revoking it is in the public interest this time, but then the same could be said of many other situations in future - leaning toward the hysterical side, is it not arguably in the public interest to use torture to glean information from members of terrorist cells, for instance? And if legislation can be brought in to allow the removal of trial by jury in special cases, what's to stop other legislation coming through?
(For what it's worth, I don't believe that information under torture can be proven to be of much use, but not everyone sees it that way.)
In all honesty, I'm surprised that there hasn't been an uproar in the Daily Mail and the like telling us about how the big brother state (and possibly Europe
) is further eroding our rights and leading us further into Nineteen Eighty-Four - but sensationalism aside, I think there's an argument to be made in that ballpark. As I said above; if they can legislate one right away, what's to prevent others?In this instance, I agree that the removal of the jury is justifiable, albeit with a certain sense of unease. I can't honestly say that I have absolute faith in our government to not push the boundary a little further in future, though...
That one's an EU law suit waiting to happen if it goes through with everything they want to include...