Best Of

FPT ref DavidL's comments on juries

1) "pull jurors out of a hat" - my experience is being sorted into groups of 16 at the beginning of the week but it could just be done by computer in a matter of seconds once the juror register is complete
2) Judge briefing the Jury on their duties and responsibilities - apart from case specific issues this is boilerplate. Could be online with a little quiz and declaration, e.g. "If I do my own research on the internet" will I a) be better briefed than the legal counsel, b) be helping my fellow jurors to understand the case or c) do 6 months d) all of the above?
3) Check in advance whether witnesses need screens and prepare. In your cases I assume it's a given, so the screens should be there by default.

None of the above has to be on the critical path.

My experience is that if you're assigned to a trial in the morning then it's 11.30am by the time you're sat down, HHJ does his solemn briefing etc, now 12, they have a brief conflab and decide that there isn't time for 2 opening addresses before lunch, "jury will only remember one side", so break. 2pm before you're back in court in the afternoon, if Judge or barristers don't have an afternoon clash.

There are delays around sending Juries out and reassembling them, but they can just be sent to the next room rather than allowed to disperse.

Juries can be taken off the critical path for most of it. Leveson has just blamed them for the inefficiency of the professionals involved.

There is no way 2 would work - most people will just fast forward the video or put it on and do something else

Have all the jury prep etc run by court staff. The day before.

Have jury prep as a courthouse function, run by staff. As a continual operation. Lining up juries, get them sorted, warned, lanyarded.

So 9am, the judge, lawyers, etc all roll in together.

Judge can have the option to say - “I don’t look this jury, do you have a similar one? But in a shade of mauve?”

You're right, of course you're right, but you know the objections.

Spending a bit more to get a lot more is still spending more, and we've conditioned ourselves to not want that.

It's moving spending from frontline staff to backstage. And we've massively conditioned ourselves to not want that.

Yet again on pb the most vociferous criticism of the removal of jury trials comes from the very same people who want to massively cut public spending and reduce public sector pay and benefits dramatically.

The concept of we only get what we are willing to pay for seems to have completely passed them by.

This is very much about character, in a not dissimilar manner to Johnson's denials in the face of plain evidence.

Had Farage simply fessed up and apologised for youthful mistakes/foolishness/stupidity, then the story would have been over within a few days.

Three more ex-pupils at school with Nigel Farage reject ‘banter’ claims
Exclusive: Dulwich college contemporaries ‘rubbish’ Reform UK leader’s suggestion alleged racist taunts not intended to hurt
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/25/three-more-ex-pupils-at-school-with-nigel-farage-reject-banter-claims
..“Being called a Paki isn’t hurtful?” Oshidar asked. A third, Rickard Berg, told the Guardian: “He’s now in a position where he shouldn’t be denying this. He’s straight up lying.”

The Guardian has spoken to more than 20 people who alleged racist or antisemitic behaviour by Farage at school, including seven people who say they recall the targeted abuse of Peter Ettedgui..

I am starting a jury trial in Aberdeen today. It will finish by Friday, only a single charge and 3 witnesses. It is undeniably the case that if we did not have the jury the trial could be completed in 1 day, not 4. A part of yesterday was spent taking the names from a bowl and the clerk then calling those chosen to serve. This morning the Judge will spend a couple of hours ensuring that they are properly independent and have some idea of their role and fundamental principles. We will then hear from the witnesses and, very probably, the accused. Tomorrow both sides will give speeches and the judge will give his legal directions. We may get a verdict then but more likely it will be on Friday morning.

The outcome of this trial will potentially involve the accused being sentenced to 5 or 6 years and being on the sex offenders register for life. There is a complainer who is looking for justice as she sees it. It's a big deal in the lives of those involved and, in my opinion, needs time and consideration. A decision by an independent jury of the accused's peers is a very important part of that. I can't go into details but it is the sort of case where a professional judge deciding the case alone would be highly likely to convict. A jury gives the accused a chance and ensures that what is being complained about fits with current mores and attitudes. I personally think it is worth the money.

Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?

This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.

I'm genuinely curious to see the rationale for the decision. Obviously there are some issues with jury trials, examples have been given on here of really long and complex trials as one, but it's so easy to attack such plans in a way which will cut across party lines, and if the motivation is financial that looks bad too, so even if it is not as bad as the picture you paint, it is not an easy sell, so they surely have some really big hitting arguments to come?

Maybe some fools are willing to trust this government to not manipulate judicial selection. I'm not. Also, what about future governments?

Both the Tories and Reform must pledge to bring back jury trials as manifesto commitments from day one. Anything less and they are complicit in a huge erosion of our rights.

I'll be interested to see if this divides tory/reform. I'd imagine this is a no-brainer Conservative position. Reform? Not so sure.

Also, what the actual f**k are Labour doing?

Starmer is at heart an authoritarian who thinks people should be managed, that the law is perfect and never makes mistakes, that more law and regulation is the way to cure things, and cannot understand why concepts like ID cards or jury removal repel people. He lied to become leader of the party, he lied to become PM, and now he has unlimited power we see what he's really like. It's not a pretty sight.

Indeed, well said.

This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.

From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.

This is fundamentally wrong.

The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.

Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?

This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.

I'm genuinely curious to see the rationale for the decision. Obviously there are some issues with jury trials, examples have been given on here of really long and complex trials as one, but it's so easy to attack such plans in a way which will cut across party lines, and if the motivation is financial that looks bad too, so even if it is not as bad as the picture you paint, it is not an easy sell, so they surely have some really big hitting arguments to come?

Maybe some fools are willing to trust this government to not manipulate judicial selection. I'm not. Also, what about future governments?

Both the Tories and Reform must pledge to bring back jury trials as manifesto commitments from day one. Anything less and they are complicit in a huge erosion of our rights.

I'll be interested to see if this divides tory/reform. I'd imagine this is a no-brainer Conservative position. Reform? Not so sure.

Also, what the actual f**k are Labour doing?

Starmer is at heart an authoritarian who thinks people should be managed, that the law is perfect and never makes mistakes, that more law and regulation is the way to cure things, and cannot understand why concepts like ID cards or jury removal repel people. He lied to become leader of the party, he lied to become PM, and now he has unlimited power we see what he's really like. It's not a pretty sight.