Court of Appeal Approves First Ever Criminal Trial Without A Jury

[mcgillianaire]

In a landmark decision, the Lord Chief Justice (the aptly named Lord Judge) has created English legal history by agreeing to allow a trial to be heard by a judge alone. The ruling invokes Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and is dependent on evidence of a real and present danger of jury tampering taking place. The origins of jury trials in England & Wales date back to the 12th century.

Comments

[drunkendeadcat.livejournal.com]

so it's all up to one opinion, interesting

[loganberrybunny.livejournal.com]

I noticed this earlier on today. Since there are reporting restrictions in place, we don't know much about the case itself, but allowing for that, what do you think of this decision?

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Sorry it's taken me forever to reply. I wanted to think long and hard about it before answering your question. On the face of it I think it establishes a dangerous precedent because jury trials have been an integral part of our legal system, in some form or another, for over 600 years. That said, there may be occasions when justice can only be delivered without them. However I think the courts have to establish a high threshold for such a situation. In this instance I think that threshold has been breached and if Parliament has legislated accordingly, then it makes sense to utilise the option. But it should be used sparingly.