Best Of

Good afternoon all.

Very interesting header - thanks. This is a big issue on my radar, particularly delays on trials of serious motoring offences; justice delayed is justice denied. Plus reactive rather than proactive governance - "No, you can't have a zebra crossing. Not enough 5 year olds are in wheelchairs yet."

My one question is on completeness of stats - I want enough to tell if the trend has changed, It's very much a problem like the NHS - questions around both efficiency of process and starvation of resources, filtered through increasing complexity and scope. Then in the Courts combined with the need to alternative dispositions, recognising that pandering to the rabid Daily Mail "Moar prison! Moar ! Moar ! Moar !" lobby, and their political hangers-on, is both less effective and more expensive.

Another one on the long list where we need investment to get over the innherited bulge and a project which will take a decade to feed through.

This seems like a ridiculous sentence for a juror who seemed to just want to understand more about the case . Prisons are full and yet they’re putting people in jail for this .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77zvl0777mo

At least 5 days of trial court wasted. Probably at least £100k. Preparation work for a murder probably several multiples of that depending on the complexity of the case. Justice delayed for the best part of a year and more court time needed which delays other cases. For murder, possibly the additional cost of having the accused on remand for even longer.

This is made crystal clear to every jury. What they read on the internet is not necessarily right and it is not evidence in the case. It cannot be allowed to influence their decisions. It sounds relatively innocent but the consequences are significant.

Come on, the sentence is so stiff because the juror has basically trod on the court's toes. Burglary, fraud, people razzing away from the coppers at 70 down a residential road, shoplifters & nonces aren't nearly dealt with as relatively harshly. But because the juror was directly potentially mucking up the judges' own work the sentence is completely out of whack because he's angered the judge.
Now the judge might be very angry with all this but he shouldn't be sentencing based on that anger, which is what I think he's done here.

So what happens if a juror already understands concepts like Joint Enterprise? Doesn't need to be naughty and Google it, already has the knowledge?

It doesn't matter. The whole point of juries is that they bring their existing knowledge with them. The judge will explain what they have to decide and what the relevant law is and how to approach the evidence they have heard. And then it's up to them - but, as far as possible, it is based on what they have heard in the courtroom and what the judge has told them. It is very much harder for a single juror to say to the other 11, well this is what joint enterprise is and I know better than the judge so listen to me instead.

The latest attempt to address this problem is the Leveson review. Part 1 deal with policy was issued in July: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

He was certainly of the opinion that restricting the right to jury trial was at least a part of the solution. His second part, the Efficiency Review, is still to come. Hopefully he will look to address the multistage problems there.

A cursory scan of Leveson makes me suspect he is arguing from his own prejudices in replacing the jury with a couple of magistrates (in what he calls a bench trial). Juries are to be removed from minor cases and elsewhere from complex ones.

Recommendation 30: I recommend the creation of a new Division of the Crown Court: the Crown Court Bench Division. All either way offences would be eligible to be tried in the Crown Court Bench Division. Whether the defendant exercises their right to elect a Crown Court hearing or is sent by the magistrates, in every case, at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH), a judge should make a decision to allocate the case to the Crown Court Bench Division or to the Crown Court with a jury. There would be a presumption of a bench trial for any case which carries a prospective sentence of three years or less. Parliament should set a framework within which the PTPH judge would be required to operate.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

Juries are not the rate-limiting step or bottleneck, since jurors are freely available in both senses. We'd still need judges and lawyers and courts, and we have shortages of all of those.

Anyone who's served as a juror recently will attest to that, acquaintances who've done jury service recently have barely been used, if at all.
My recent experience is that the inefficiency is with the court processes, all trooped in then trooped out again because they'd forgotten the witness wanted a screen, see you again in 2 days due to conflicting commitments.
Judge has fallen ill, case abandoned for retrial with just the opening statements heard.
Finally seated for morning session by 11am, after lunch by 2.30pm, at best as a juror you're seated in court for 4 hours/day.

This seems like a ridiculous sentence for a juror who seemed to just want to understand more about the case . Prisons are full and yet they’re putting people in jail for this .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77zvl0777mo

At least 5 days of trial court wasted. Probably at least £100k. Preparation work for a murder probably several multiples of that depending on the complexity of the case. Justice delayed for the best part of a year and more court time needed which delays other cases. For murder, possibly the additional cost of having the accused on remand for even longer.

This is made crystal clear to every jury. What they read on the internet is not necessarily right and it is not evidence in the case. It cannot be allowed to influence their decisions. It sounds relatively innocent but the consequences are significant.

Come on, the sentence is so stiff because the juror has basically trod on the court's toes. Burglary, fraud, people razzing away from the coppers at 70 down a residential road, shoplifters & nonces aren't nearly dealt with as relatively harshly. But because the juror was directly potentially mucking up the judges' own work the sentence is completely out of whack because he's angered the judge.
Now the judge might be very angry with all this but he shouldn't be sentencing based on that anger, which is what I think he's done here.

So what happens if a juror already understands concepts like Joint Enterprise? Doesn't need to be naughty and Google it, already has the knowledge?

It doesn't matter. The whole point of juries is that they bring their existing knowledge with them. The judge will explain what they have to decide and what the relevant law is and how to approach the evidence they have heard. And then it's up to them - but, as far as possible, it is based on what they have heard in the courtroom and what the judge has told them. It is very much harder for a single juror to say to the other 11, well this is what joint enterprise is and I know better than the judge so listen to me instead.

The latest attempt to address this problem is the Leveson review. Part 1 deal with policy was issued in July: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

He was certainly of the opinion that restricting the right to jury trial was at least a part of the solution. His second part, the Efficiency Review, is still to come. Hopefully he will look to address the multistage problems there.

Having done jury service a couple of months ago, I would be in favour of abolishing jury trials as far as possible. As a retired solicitor I found the whole process immensely frustrating.

Can you say more?

This seems like a ridiculous sentence for a juror who seemed to just want to understand more about the case . Prisons are full and yet they’re putting people in jail for this .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77zvl0777mo

At least 5 days of trial court wasted. Probably at least £100k. Preparation work for a murder probably several multiples of that depending on the complexity of the case. Justice delayed for the best part of a year and more court time needed which delays other cases. For murder, possibly the additional cost of having the accused on remand for even longer.

This is made crystal clear to every jury. What they read on the internet is not necessarily right and it is not evidence in the case. It cannot be allowed to influence their decisions. It sounds relatively innocent but the consequences are significant.

Come on, the sentence is so stiff because the juror has basically trod on the court's toes. Burglary, fraud, people razzing away from the coppers at 70 down a residential road, shoplifters & nonces aren't nearly dealt with as relatively harshly. But because the juror was directly potentially mucking up the judges' own work the sentence is completely out of whack because he's angered the judge.
Now the judge might be very angry with all this but he shouldn't be sentencing based on that anger, which is what I think he's done here.

So what happens if a juror already understands concepts like Joint Enterprise? Doesn't need to be naughty and Google it, already has the knowledge?

It doesn't matter. The whole point of juries is that they bring their existing knowledge with them. The judge will explain what they have to decide and what the relevant law is and how to approach the evidence they have heard. And then it's up to them - but, as far as possible, it is based on what they have heard in the courtroom and what the judge has told them. It is very much harder for a single juror to say to the other 11, well this is what joint enterprise is and I know better than the judge so listen to me instead.

The latest attempt to address this problem is the Leveson review. Part 1 deal with policy was issued in July: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

He was certainly of the opinion that restricting the right to jury trial was at least a part of the solution. His second part, the Efficiency Review, is still to come. Hopefully he will look to address the multistage problems there.

Having done jury service a couple of months ago, I would be in favour of abolishing jury trials as far as possible. As a retired solicitor I found the whole process immensely frustrating.

Can you say more?

There is a blanket ban on jurors ever revealing any part of their deliberations so one must tread carefully, but... I did read an interesting blog article the other day

https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/guest-blog-how-will-restricting-jury-trial-and-reducing-jury-numbers-affect-the-delivery-of-justice.html

in which I was struck by this passage:

"Understanding the law

The jury’s ability to properly consider evidence whilst applying the law was considered in the same study in 2010.

It was noted that only 31% of jurors understood the legal directions in the terms used by the judge and there was variation between different courts as to whether judicial directions were fully understood (51 % of jurors in one court thought directions were difficult). 31% improved to 48% with written directions given to the jury which is now common practice.

If only half of a jury are confident of the legal directions given to them by the judge then aren’t legally trained lawyers better judges of the facts?"

One might suggest that those explaining the legal directions are not doing a very good job.

The directions given in the cases I saw were exemplary. The problem in the end is that juries are not being asked "just to decide the facts" - they are being asked to decide what legal tests are or are not met on the facts as they find them. The test for self defence in an assault case for example, even distinguishing correctly between the objective and subjective elements of the defence is beyond many people.

This seems like a ridiculous sentence for a juror who seemed to just want to understand more about the case . Prisons are full and yet they’re putting people in jail for this .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77zvl0777mo

At least 5 days of trial court wasted. Probably at least £100k. Preparation work for a murder probably several multiples of that depending on the complexity of the case. Justice delayed for the best part of a year and more court time needed which delays other cases. For murder, possibly the additional cost of having the accused on remand for even longer.

This is made crystal clear to every jury. What they read on the internet is not necessarily right and it is not evidence in the case. It cannot be allowed to influence their decisions. It sounds relatively innocent but the consequences are significant.

Come on, the sentence is so stiff because the juror has basically trod on the court's toes. Burglary, fraud, people razzing away from the coppers at 70 down a residential road, shoplifters & nonces aren't nearly dealt with as relatively harshly. But because the juror was directly potentially mucking up the judges' own work the sentence is completely out of whack because he's angered the judge.
Now the judge might be very angry with all this but he shouldn't be sentencing based on that anger, which is what I think he's done here.

So what happens if a juror already understands concepts like Joint Enterprise? Doesn't need to be naughty and Google it, already has the knowledge?

It doesn't matter. The whole point of juries is that they bring their existing knowledge with them. The judge will explain what they have to decide and what the relevant law is and how to approach the evidence they have heard. And then it's up to them - but, as far as possible, it is based on what they have heard in the courtroom and what the judge has told them. It is very much harder for a single juror to say to the other 11, well this is what joint enterprise is and I know better than the judge so listen to me instead.

The latest attempt to address this problem is the Leveson review. Part 1 deal with policy was issued in July: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

He was certainly of the opinion that restricting the right to jury trial was at least a part of the solution. His second part, the Efficiency Review, is still to come. Hopefully he will look to address the multistage problems there.

Having done jury service a couple of months ago, I would be in favour of abolishing jury trials as far as possible. As a retired solicitor I found the whole process immensely frustrating.

Can you say more?

There is a blanket ban on jurors ever revealing any part of their deliberations so one must tread carefully, but... I did read an interesting blog article the other day

https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/guest-blog-how-will-restricting-jury-trial-and-reducing-jury-numbers-affect-the-delivery-of-justice.html

in which I was struck by this passage:

"Understanding the law

The jury’s ability to properly consider evidence whilst applying the law was considered in the same study in 2010.

It was noted that only 31% of jurors understood the legal directions in the terms used by the judge and there was variation between different courts as to whether judicial directions were fully understood (51 % of jurors in one court thought directions were difficult). 31% improved to 48% with written directions given to the jury which is now common practice.

If only half of a jury are confident of the legal directions given to them by the judge then aren’t legally trained lawyers better judges of the facts?"

This seems like a ridiculous sentence for a juror who seemed to just want to understand more about the case . Prisons are full and yet they’re putting people in jail for this .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77zvl0777mo

At least 5 days of trial court wasted. Probably at least £100k. Preparation work for a murder probably several multiples of that depending on the complexity of the case. Justice delayed for the best part of a year and more court time needed which delays other cases. For murder, possibly the additional cost of having the accused on remand for even longer.

This is made crystal clear to every jury. What they read on the internet is not necessarily right and it is not evidence in the case. It cannot be allowed to influence their decisions. It sounds relatively innocent but the consequences are significant.

Come on, the sentence is so stiff because the juror has basically trod on the court's toes. Burglary, fraud, people razzing away from the coppers at 70 down a residential road, shoplifters & nonces aren't nearly dealt with as relatively harshly. But because the juror was directly potentially mucking up the judges' own work the sentence is completely out of whack because he's angered the judge.
Now the judge might be very angry with all this but he shouldn't be sentencing based on that anger, which is what I think he's done here.

Yes it's absurd. We cannot afford to jail people for stuff like this. A fine would be appropriate.

He;s not even looking up details about the defendant, he's obviously just googled "joint enterprise" ffsake.

I've never served on a jury but if a lawyer used a legal term (like that one) that I didn't understand, am I just supposed to guess what it means? Is there a way you can ask the judge?

Actually, I am wrong,
Looking this up, juries in criminal trials can rely only on the legal guidance given to them by the judge in his summing up (along with the submissions of the prosecution and defence).
They can ask for that guidance to be repeated to them during their deliberations, but that is it.

(I think the procedure in (eg) inquests is a bit different.)

Jurors are told they must take the law from the judge, (and not from prosecution or defence lawyers). Arguments about law, or how the judge should express it to the jurors in summing up are conducted in the absence of the jury beforehand. prosecution and defence can both loudly commend to the jury how the law relates to their version of what the facts are. Facts are entirely for the jury, however perverse their decision. The judge often gives a steer as to what a sane finding on certain critical facts may be. Tone of voice is often an indicator.

Incidentally (I don't know the facts of this juror case) I can't see that looking up bits of law on the internet can ever of itself be an offence, any more than possessing and reading a criminal law text book can be an offence.

Judges are increasingly formulaic in their summing up, and increasingly try to agree stuff with the lawyers in advance. They have a mighty volume before them giving outlines of what to say in a multitude of situations.

So the story is misreported? It certainly reads as if he got 4 months for doing some extra Internet research.
In particular the idea that he admitted reading a story on the guardian on a similar topic feels very harsh to me.
I would definitely be tempted to read about a similar case if I were on a jury.

No, I think it was accurately reported:
..Richards had previously pleaded guilty to being a juror conducting unauthorised research and of being a juror disclosing prohibited information to other jury members..

I think the point here is that, by sharing his own research with other jury members, he was potentially misleading the entire jury, which is what halted the trial.
We all know how unreliable information found on the internet can be, for pretty well any purpose. It's no different here, hence the very strict rules.

Had he kept it to himself, the issue would never have arisen in the first place.

This seems like a ridiculous sentence for a juror who seemed to just want to understand more about the case . Prisons are full and yet they’re putting people in jail for this .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77zvl0777mo

At least 5 days of trial court wasted. Probably at least £100k. Preparation work for a murder probably several multiples of that depending on the complexity of the case. Justice delayed for the best part of a year and more court time needed which delays other cases. For murder, possibly the additional cost of having the accused on remand for even longer.

This is made crystal clear to every jury. What they read on the internet is not necessarily right and it is not evidence in the case. It cannot be allowed to influence their decisions. It sounds relatively innocent but the consequences are significant.

Come on, the sentence is so stiff because the juror has basically trod on the court's toes. Burglary, fraud, people razzing away from the coppers at 70 down a residential road, shoplifters & nonces aren't nearly dealt with as relatively harshly. But because the juror was directly potentially mucking up the judges' own work the sentence is completely out of whack because he's angered the judge.
Now the judge might be very angry with all this but he shouldn't be sentencing based on that anger, which is what I think he's done here.

So what happens if a juror already understands concepts like Joint Enterprise? Doesn't need to be naughty and Google it, already has the knowledge?

It doesn't matter. The whole point of juries is that they bring their existing knowledge with them. The judge will explain what they have to decide and what the relevant law is and how to approach the evidence they have heard. And then it's up to them - but, as far as possible, it is based on what they have heard in the courtroom and what the judge has told them. It is very much harder for a single juror to say to the other 11, well this is what joint enterprise is and I know better than the judge so listen to me instead.

The latest attempt to address this problem is the Leveson review. Part 1 deal with policy was issued in July: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

He was certainly of the opinion that restricting the right to jury trial was at least a part of the solution. His second part, the Efficiency Review, is still to come. Hopefully he will look to address the multistage problems there.

A cursory scan of Leveson makes me suspect he is arguing from his own prejudices in replacing the jury with a couple of magistrates (in what he calls a bench trial). Juries are to be removed from minor cases and elsewhere from complex ones.

Recommendation 30: I recommend the creation of a new Division of the Crown Court: the Crown Court Bench Division. All either way offences would be eligible to be tried in the Crown Court Bench Division. Whether the defendant exercises their right to elect a Crown Court hearing or is sent by the magistrates, in every case, at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH), a judge should make a decision to allocate the case to the Crown Court Bench Division or to the Crown Court with a jury. There would be a presumption of a bench trial for any case which carries a prospective sentence of three years or less. Parliament should set a framework within which the PTPH judge would be required to operate.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

Juries are not the rate-limiting step or bottleneck, since jurors are freely available in both senses. We'd still need judges and lawyers and courts, and we have shortages of all of those.

This seems like a ridiculous sentence for a juror who seemed to just want to understand more about the case . Prisons are full and yet they’re putting people in jail for this .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77zvl0777mo

At least 5 days of trial court wasted. Probably at least £100k. Preparation work for a murder probably several multiples of that depending on the complexity of the case. Justice delayed for the best part of a year and more court time needed which delays other cases. For murder, possibly the additional cost of having the accused on remand for even longer.

This is made crystal clear to every jury. What they read on the internet is not necessarily right and it is not evidence in the case. It cannot be allowed to influence their decisions. It sounds relatively innocent but the consequences are significant.

Come on, the sentence is so stiff because the juror has basically trod on the court's toes. Burglary, fraud, people razzing away from the coppers at 70 down a residential road, shoplifters & nonces aren't nearly dealt with as relatively harshly. But because the juror was directly potentially mucking up the judges' own work the sentence is completely out of whack because he's angered the judge.
Now the judge might be very angry with all this but he shouldn't be sentencing based on that anger, which is what I think he's done here.

So what happens if a juror already understands concepts like Joint Enterprise? Doesn't need to be naughty and Google it, already has the knowledge?

It doesn't matter. The whole point of juries is that they bring their existing knowledge with them. The judge will explain what they have to decide and what the relevant law is and how to approach the evidence they have heard. And then it's up to them - but, as far as possible, it is based on what they have heard in the courtroom and what the judge has told them. It is very much harder for a single juror to say to the other 11, well this is what joint enterprise is and I know better than the judge so listen to me instead.

The latest attempt to address this problem is the Leveson review. Part 1 deal with policy was issued in July: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

He was certainly of the opinion that restricting the right to jury trial was at least a part of the solution. His second part, the Efficiency Review, is still to come. Hopefully he will look to address the multistage problems there.

Having done jury service a couple of months ago, I would be in favour of abolishing jury trials as far as possible. As a retired solicitor I found the whole process immensely frustrating.

Can you say more?

There is a blanket ban on jurors ever revealing any part of their deliberations so one must tread carefully, but... I did read an interesting blog article the other day

https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/guest-blog-how-will-restricting-jury-trial-and-reducing-jury-numbers-affect-the-delivery-of-justice.html

in which I was struck by this passage:

"Understanding the law

The jury’s ability to properly consider evidence whilst applying the law was considered in the same study in 2010.

It was noted that only 31% of jurors understood the legal directions in the terms used by the judge and there was variation between different courts as to whether judicial directions were fully understood (51 % of jurors in one court thought directions were difficult). 31% improved to 48% with written directions given to the jury which is now common practice.

If only half of a jury are confident of the legal directions given to them by the judge then aren’t legally trained lawyers better judges of the facts?"

One might suggest that those explaining the legal directions are not doing a very good job.