First trial without jury approved

mattheman

mattheman

mattheman

Permabanned
Joined
13 Oct 2008
Posts
3,284
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8106590.stm

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a criminal trial can take place at Crown Court without a jury for the first time in England and Wales.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, made legal history by agreeing to allow the trial to be heard by a judge alone.

It is the first time the power has been used since it came into force in 2007.

The case concerns four men accused of an armed robbery at Heathrow Airport in 2004. The judge said jury "tampering" was a "very significant" danger.
Click to expand...

guess 1st of many.
 
It lies heavy with me matt I have to say.

On the other hand, there are people out there in the criminal world with the clout to nobble juries and threaten both them and their families safety.

This trial has been going on for a few years now and the last trial collapsed due to attempts to nobble jurors.

There has to be a provision in exceptional cases where a trial without jury is an option where there are serious and substantiated risks to jurors and their families.

The decision here has not been at the start of proceedings. It has been taken after previous proceedings have had clear threats to jurors.
 
This is the trial that's been abandoned 3 times previously due to jury tampering?

I find it hard to get worked up about this one, it's a logical course of action in such a case...
 
I heard that the last three attempts to try this case had to be abandoned because of threats to jurors.
 
Dolph said:
This is the trial that's been abandoned 3 times previously due to jury tampering?

I find it hard to get worked up about this one, it's a logical course of action in such a case...
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't like the precedent, but it seems the only way to get a fair trial.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I agree, I don't like the precedent, but it seems the only way to get a fair trial.
Click to expand...

If only we could guarentee that the precedent would be used appropriately I would have no problem with this what so ever but the legal system in this country has a habit of doing totally non-sensical things at times and this just opens the door to more.
 
a1ex2001 said:
If only we could guarentee that the precedent would be used appropriately I would have no problem with this what so ever but the legal system in this country has a habit of doing totally non-sensical things at times and this just opens the door to more.
Click to expand...

This precedent will be used appropriately.

It was only ever designed for top end criminal cases and for defendants who have the reputation and resources to threaten jurors and their families.

It is for the scanrio when all else has failed as is clearly the case here.

It cannot and will not be used for mainstream criminal cases and can only be used at the discression of the Chief Justice in consultation with senior judges.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
A presiding judge can consider it but is that is itself evidence of guilt ?

I would say no. It is down to the police and prosecution to prove their case.
Click to expand...

Perhaps after the trial then? Considering the amount of wasted effort that has gone into attempting to try these 4, then even if they are found not guilty of the robbery they need to be charged on 3 counts of juror tampering surely?

Else why bother having a law against it?
 
Liberty are on BBC News now complaining about this.

' Why can't the police protect jurors ? ' she has asked.

My answer would be it is an almost logistical and financial impossibility to protect jurors for a potential six month trial. It would take at least 30 cops from frontline duties to protect 12 jurors and that is before you consider protecting their immediate familes becasue that is who such criminals will go after if they cannot get to jururs.
 
matt_fsr said:
Perhaps after the trial then? Considering the amount of wasted effort that has gone into attempting to try these 4, then even if they are found not guilty of the robbery they need to be charged on 3 counts of juror tampering surely?

Else why bother having a law against it?
Click to expand...

One word. Proof.

Can it be proved that the defendants have had the jury nobbled ? If so then they should be charged as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom