The Young Ones

[DB10GOONER]

seems to me anyone who has meet the Queen is a wrong un

Sir Jimmy Savile
Sir Cliff Richard
Rolf painted her portrait
Freddie Starr (use to do hitler impersonation in the 80s, the royals are jerries)
Stuart Hall (did a Royal it's a knockout)
Ken Barlow & Kevin Webster were in the Rovers when the Queen visited in the 80s

just waiting for Sir Rednose to get a pull anytime now

Tenuous, offensive on so many levels, but hilarious!

[Arsenal Till I Die]

At least with trial by jury you go into the courtroom an innocent man

No, you really don't.

Trial by jury is risky based on everyone's prejudice and what stereotypes they label people with. Everyone forms some sort of stereotype in their mind.Trial by jury is a reason (one of many) I will never branch into criminal law after I qualify as a practising solicitor. Trying to prove beyond reasonable doubt with no margin for error that a man is innocent even though he has already been prejudged socially and stereotypically by the very people who make the life changing choice of freedom or incarceration is a battle which gets harder as society moves forward.

Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows a judge to proceed with a trial without jury but only if the the application meets two factors, both involving jury tampering.

[GranadaJoe]

Such cynicism.

Jury trials are far from perfect (lack of intelligence, prejudice etc) but I'm not aware of a better system. They're weighted in favour of the defendant and could be improved, but they're definitely better than the alternative.

[Arsenal Till I Die]

Such cynicism.

Jury trials are far from perfect (lack of intelligence, prejudice etc) but I'm not aware of a better system. They're weighted in favour of the defendant and could be improved, but they're definitely better than the alternative.

Not cynicism at all, it is an opinion based off of facts and stories from lecturers, some of whom are barristers.

Trial by jury is an institution of the English criminal justice system and has been for hundreds of years but it can also be a massive crimp too. Upon reflection, the prejudicial mind of us all stems from a majority of what is reported in the media. Some media outlets would have you believe you are going to get stabbed by a young man in a hoody when you walk down the road - it is this sort of scare mongering, labeling prejudice people have and it is a poison to fair justice.

The alternative to trial by jury in where the judge is just that. Is that such a bad idea? No jury does not mean no justice.

[Red Snapper]

Such cynicism.

Jury trials are far from perfect (lack of intelligence, prejudice etc) but I'm not aware of a better system. They're weighted in favour of the defendant and could be improved, but they're definitely better than the alternative.

I had a client at one time who was a leading barrister. He too had begun to despair of the jury system when the case he was working on reached the end of a prolonged trial and the jury was sent out. Not long later, the judge received a note from the jury room. It said "do you want us to decide if the defendant is guilty or innocent?". They weren't asking his opinion, they didn't know that's why they were there.

[GranadaJoe]

Such cynicism.

Jury trials are far from perfect (lack of intelligence, prejudice etc) but I'm not aware of a better system. They're weighted in favour of the defendant and could be improved, but they're definitely better than the alternative.

Not cynicism at all, it is an opinion based off of facts and stories from lecturers, some of whom are barristers.

Trial by jury is an institution of the English criminal justice system and has been for hundreds of years but it can also be a massive crimp too. Upon reflection, the prejudicial mind of us all stems from a majority of what is reported in the media. Some media outlets would have you believe you are going to get stabbed by a young man in a hoody when you walk down the road - it is this sort of scare mongering, labeling prejudice people have and it is a poison to fair justice.


Those would be the judges who don't know who the Beatles are and who think Jeffrey Archer's missus is a 'fragrant beauty' and that girls who dress provocatively 'invite' unwanted advances?
The majority of judges are old, white, privately educated, rich etc etc. Any chance they might a teeny-weeny bit prejudiced?

For me, the two big problems with juries are that a) the court system is weighted in favour of the defence (rules of disclosure etc) and b) many people are too stupid to understand the evidence they hear. Sadly, I don't think any politician will be brave enough to suggest changing it.

The alternative to trial by jury in where the judge is just that. Is that such a bad idea? No jury does not mean no justice.

[northbank123]

ATID I've shadowed barristers and marshalled judges at High Court and Court of Appeal level - the judge who I marshalled in the latter case was a fairly frail man in his 70s but he was probably the sharpest person I've ever met who was unbelievably passionate about justice and symbolised integrity. And generally those are the sorts of people the judiciary is made up of. But - as is inevitably the case with choosing from such a narrow (privileged) demographic - there is a small minority of liabilities, particularly the lower down you go. The world of criminal law sadly attracts a lot of weirdos and wankers, many of whom will practise as a barrister and seek to join the judiciary in some format after an unsatisfying career. And even in my limited interaction with this world I've met a number.

You think people don't get a fair trial by jury and the requirement to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" is non-existent? You stick all the power in the hands of a cynical toff who has spent the last few decades of his life dealing with lowlifes and scumbags day in day out, then we'll see how even-handed they are and how strictly they adhere to the standard of proof. You don't think judges are going to be hugely biased depending on whether or not they generally did defence or prosecution work?

The acquittal rate is nearly 50% higher in Crown Court cases than those tried by magistrates - despite far more CPS time, effort and money being invested in the former - which on a fundamental level puts a question mark against jurors being far more willing to allow stereotypes and prejudices to cloud their decision-making. There are very few accusations that will draw more social stigma than rape, but you tell rape victims that despite the horrifically low conviction rate, people are prejudiced against defendants.

Have you witnessed a Crown Court trial from start to finish? Forget media portrayals, they are bloody tedious affairs, not least because counsel and the judge spend hours (and sometimes days) reminding the jury exactly what the level of proof required is and exactly what they can and can't do. And that's in an ordinary case, never mind one that is reported in the media. Also could you imagine knowing that getting a particular judge will massively increase or decrease your chances of conviction before you've even set foot in the courtroom? At least juries are random, and we don't have the circus they have in America for example with jury selection.

Quite probably the biggest preparation area for most criminal trials is admissibility of evidence but also prior convictions, with the judge being the safeguard deciding whether or not it would unfairly prejudice the defendant. They will absolutely hammer anybody committing contempt of court, they imprisoned a foreign academic for Googling the defendant and mentioning prior allegations in the deliberation room. There are comprehensive review options if the judge allows the jury to be prejudiced, or if either makes a decision based on weighing up factors incorrectly amongst other things.

It's not perfect but it's so easy to be casually cynical towards it.

[Theoperator]

Fraid the last county court judge in Gloucester didnt do himself much credit when he fell asleep during a rape trial summing up- ended up needing a whole retrial

On the converse it may suggest that the magistrates dont get it right as often as jurors as the conviction rate in magistrates is worryingly high.

Biggest grouse i have in the process (Or at least one of them) is the whole "plea bargaining" thing- dont believe its meant to take place at all, but its a terrible way to meet out justice.

NB123, v interesting mentions re the Judges, I have also come across a few psychologically challenged ones as well, and the media is littered with ones who have come off the rails, including the lady whos mother I believe is suing her over her description of her beating her up as a child. She (The Judge) is now I think in HMP for her involvement in the Hulme Price trial. (Allegedly) - surprised that they dont do psychological profiling at the very least on them.

[northbank123]

Again, thankfully plea bargains do not function in the same circus manner as in America. Most of the time it's just a practical step to keep (public) costs down and saves jurors' time and allows other trials to be processed quicker. They're only used where the more heinous offence is unlikely to be successfully prosecuted but the lesser offence would be a banker fallback in a full trial, rather than letting criminals cheat their way out of justice.

I think the guilty plea system works fairly well - sliding scale of concession at sentencing based on which point they enter the plea, and if their version of events differs from the prosecution's radically they will still be trialled to decide which set of facts they'll be sentenced on.

I saw a trial in the Magistrates Court where a HGV driver turned up an hour late in muddy boots and overalls and proceeded to successfully defend himself from a dangerous driving charge when it looked like a banker. The looks on the face of the smarmy junior barrister and the smug copper in full gear who hadn't done the adequate investigation were priceless.

[Arsenal Till I Die]

ATID I've shadowed barristers and marshalled judges at High Court and Court of Appeal level - the judge who I marshalled in the latter case was a fairly frail man in his 70s but he was probably the sharpest person I've ever met who was unbelievably passionate about justice and symbolised integrity. And generally those are the sorts of people the judiciary is made up of. But - as is inevitably the case with choosing from such a narrow (privileged) demographic - there is a small minority of liabilities, particularly the lower down you go. The world of criminal law sadly attracts a lot of weirdos and wankers, many of whom will practise as a barrister and seek to join the judiciary in some format after an unsatisfying career. And even in my limited interaction with this world I've met a number.

You think people don't get a fair trial by jury and the requirement to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" is non-existent? You stick all the power in the hands of a cynical toff who has spent the last few decades of his life dealing with lowlifes and scumbags day in day out, then we'll see how even-handed they are and how strictly they adhere to the standard of proof. You don't think judges are going to be hugely biased depending on whether or not they generally did defence or prosecution work?

The acquittal rate is nearly 50% higher in Crown Court cases than those tried by magistrates - despite far more CPS time, effort and money being invested in the former - which on a fundamental level puts a question mark against jurors being far more willing to allow stereotypes and prejudices to cloud their decision-making. There are very few accusations that will draw more social stigma than rape, but you tell rape victims that despite the horrifically low conviction rate, people are prejudiced against defendants.

Have you witnessed a Crown Court trial from start to finish? Forget media portrayals, they are bloody tedious affairs, not least because counsel and the judge spend hours (and sometimes days) reminding the jury exactly what the level of proof required is and exactly what they can and can't do. And that's in an ordinary case, never mind one that is reported in the media. Also could you imagine knowing that getting a particular judge will massively increase or decrease your chances of conviction before you've even set foot in the courtroom? At least juries are random, and we don't have the circus they have in America for example with jury selection.

Quite probably the biggest preparation area for most criminal trials is admissibility of evidence but also prior convictions, with the judge being the safeguard deciding whether or not it would unfairly prejudice the defendant. They will absolutely hammer anybody committing contempt of court, they imprisoned a foreign academic for Googling the defendant and mentioning prior allegations in the deliberation room. There are comprehensive review options if the judge allows the jury to be prejudiced, or if either makes a decision based on weighing up factors incorrectly amongst other things.

It's not perfect but it's so easy to be casually cynical towards it.

I never said that trial by jury is totally unfair. Given the choice between the cynical old toff or a jury of laypersons then it of course is going to be the latter but that does not mean that all judges are cynical old farts who hate everyone without a degree.

I would argue magistrate judges are more trigger happy than most judges

Re the low conviction on rape indictments, have you ever witnessed a defence council's questions to the victims?

Yes, I have been to several crown court cases and frequent around courts as it does nothing but benefit me in doing so. Upon one visit the defence council for a young woman indicted on a drugs/drug smuggling charge made a formal plea to the judge (a miserable woman) to spare the jury from knowing that his client had been previously incarcerated in America for the same offence (not the exact same, dozy cow did it again) a few years ago.

I do agree that a person should be judged on what he is on trial for in the present rather than previous criminal offences. That is one good thing about the criminal justice system in England.

I much prefer civil law in its entirety.

[northbank123]

ATID I've shadowed barristers and marshalled judges at High Court and Court of Appeal level - the judge who I marshalled in the latter case was a fairly frail man in his 70s but he was probably the sharpest person I've ever met who was unbelievably passionate about justice and symbolised integrity. And generally those are the sorts of people the judiciary is made up of. But - as is inevitably the case with choosing from such a narrow (privileged) demographic - there is a small minority of liabilities, particularly the lower down you go. The world of criminal law sadly attracts a lot of weirdos and wankers, many of whom will practise as a barrister and seek to join the judiciary in some format after an unsatisfying career. And even in my limited interaction with this world I've met a number.

You think people don't get a fair trial by jury and the requirement to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" is non-existent? You stick all the power in the hands of a cynical toff who has spent the last few decades of his life dealing with lowlifes and scumbags day in day out, then we'll see how even-handed they are and how strictly they adhere to the standard of proof. You don't think judges are going to be hugely biased depending on whether or not they generally did defence or prosecution work?

The acquittal rate is nearly 50% higher in Crown Court cases than those tried by magistrates - despite far more CPS time, effort and money being invested in the former - which on a fundamental level puts a question mark against jurors being far more willing to allow stereotypes and prejudices to cloud their decision-making. There are very few accusations that will draw more social stigma than rape, but you tell rape victims that despite the horrifically low conviction rate, people are prejudiced against defendants.

Have you witnessed a Crown Court trial from start to finish? Forget media portrayals, they are bloody tedious affairs, not least because counsel and the judge spend hours (and sometimes days) reminding the jury exactly what the level of proof required is and exactly what they can and can't do. And that's in an ordinary case, never mind one that is reported in the media. Also could you imagine knowing that getting a particular judge will massively increase or decrease your chances of conviction before you've even set foot in the courtroom? At least juries are random, and we don't have the circus they have in America for example with jury selection.

Quite probably the biggest preparation area for most criminal trials is admissibility of evidence but also prior convictions, with the judge being the safeguard deciding whether or not it would unfairly prejudice the defendant. They will absolutely hammer anybody committing contempt of court, they imprisoned a foreign academic for Googling the defendant and mentioning prior allegations in the deliberation room. There are comprehensive review options if the judge allows the jury to be prejudiced, or if either makes a decision based on weighing up factors incorrectly amongst other things.

It's not perfect but it's so easy to be casually cynical towards it.

I never said that trial by jury is totally unfair. Given the choice between the cynical old toff or a jury of laypersons then it of course is going to be the latter but that does not mean that all judges are cynical old farts who hate everyone without a degree.

I would argue magistrate judges are more trigger happy than most judges

Re the low conviction on rape indictments, have you ever witnessed a defence council's questions to the victims?

Yes, I have been to several crown court cases and frequent around courts as it does nothing but benefit me in doing so. Upon one visit the defence council for a young woman indicted on a drugs/drug smuggling charge made a formal plea to the judge (a miserable woman) to spare the jury from knowing that his client had been previously incarcerated in America for the same offence (not the exact same, dozy cow did it again) a few years ago.

I do agree that a person should be judged on what he is on trial for in the present rather than previous criminal offences. That is one good thing about the criminal justice system in England.

I much prefer civil law in its entirety.

I witnessed a week-long domestic rape trial in its entirety, it was absolutely brutal for the victim. My point is there was no prejudice against the defendant, as proved by the fact that a fairly swift "not guilty" verdict was delivered even though the defence in no way disproved her version of events.

Perhaps magistrate judges are trigger-happy, or maybe it's a result of not having the distinction between legal process and factual distinctions as with Crown Court cases.

To be honest I have no affection for the criminal law and no inclination towards it because I don't want to spend my day dealing with scumbags and lowlives on both sides of the line. But this doesn't necessarily make it unfair. I just listed a few of the safeguards and processes in the system, they are comprehensive to say the least. It is never going to be perfect and given how many trials are conducted each week a few are bound to get screwed, and we are obviously talking about freedom and lives here. But in a human system I'm not convinced we do badly at all.

[redsky]

Yeah wouldn't surprise me to hear that Pudsey or Mr Blobby was one of em

[DB10GOONER]

Yeah wouldn't surprise me to hear that Pudsey or Mr Blobby was one of em

Brilliant first post!

You are going to fit in well around here, mate.

[OneBardGooner]

The thing is - and I could be wrong - But, most of the High Court Judges - who deal with all the serious/heavy stuff - lead lives that are quite removed from everyday life, they are chaffeur driven everywhere (don't use public transport ever!), or walk through a large city/town centre after 10pm or do their shopping at the local supermarket or whatever - which is where they might come across some of the chavscum that many of us ordinary 9 - 5 peeps have to deal with every hour of every day.

Their behaviour and bad language - is so anti-social - Last week I went into a local shop to buy my Sunday papers and this piece of filth called a young shop assistant a *word censored* for no other reason other than he thought it was funny in front of his mates...of course that kind of scum only do that when they have 5 or 6 'bro's' with them...

What i'm trying to say is that as intelligent and well educated these judges may be - They do not really have much of a clue about what it is like to live in your average city or town and the price that we have to pay.

Society is gradually breaking down - and will eventually break - It will either be Racially Based - so that different cultures/peoples turn against one another, or religion or both....But I can see it getting to the point where a mugging , or a killing or a rape will happen, and it will be the spark that lights the tinderbox......It will start in one of the major cities and spread.....it is only a matter of time.

The racial abuse and name calling I witness week to week - from all segments of society is scary - and the police will be caught in the middle - But all those who are responsible for running our country will be safely tucked away in the rural havens and/or protected by their body guards etc

The laws we presently live by - are not good enough - Most of the laws are so old and outdated they cannot and do not account for the huge changes that have taken place globally and nationally over the last hundred or so years.

[OneBardGooner]

Yeah wouldn't surprise me to hear that Pudsey or Mr Blobby was one of em

Brilliant first post!

You are going to fit in well around here, mate.

Mr Blobby Is Innocent I tell ya!