FabGuys.com forum: Jury trials could be scrapped

By *atureTrans OP TV/TS
3 days ago

Waterlooville

Except in most serious cases of defendants facing grape*, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test.

Lesser cases would be tried by a judge. It is to clear the backlog of cases.

I have been on a jury service and could see a lot of wasted time and money within the service.

But I was also impressed by my fellow juriers, we were instructed by the judge that it was up to the prosecution to prove that the defendants had committed the crime they were accused of.

The procescuting council were hopeless, myself and fellow juriers felt the defendants might well have been guilty, but we found them not guilty due to the incompetence of the prosecution.

I left feeling proud that myself and fellow juriers had ignored any prejudice that we might have had and we collectively came to the lawful decision.

I am sure this proposal will save money but will it lessen our human rights.

The jury system principle of judgment by one's peers has its roots in the 1215 magna carta.

*my grammar and spelling is not great, but AI is useless, it cannot workout what context a word close to GRAPE, less the G is used in!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *erasusMan
3 days ago

Glasgow

Thin end of a humongous wedge!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astguy7Man
3 days ago

Ross-on-Wye

I was called for Jury Service few The years ago. system was farcical. 24 (plus about 4 or 5 spares) of us (for two potential trials) assembled on the Monday. Went each day and was told to go home as counsel still deliberating with judge. On day 4 we were all released, as trial rescheduled. Must have cost thousands in wasted expenses for members of the Jury. Current backlog runs into about 3 years wait for a trial. I'm for changing it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *arcus BezzantMan
3 days ago

North Ayrshire

This is a bad idea, a lot of judges and shefiffs are corrupt.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ewBrumBiMan
3 days ago

Birmingham B15

It would save far more money to bring back hanging.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *evanianMan
3 days ago

Flintshire

I can understand the concerns about the current state of the jury system. While I agree that trials by jury are not always the most efficient means of dispensing justice, I'm not convinced that abolishing them for lesser cases is the answer.

The principle of judgment by one's peers is a cornerstone of our justice system, and it's reassuring to hear that you and your fellow jurors took your responsibilities seriously.

Rather than abolishing jury trials, perhaps the focus should be on addressing the root causes of the backlog and inefficiencies. This could include increasing funding for the justice system, implementing more efficient procedures, and providing better support for jurors. Additionally, leveraging technology, such as digitalising court processes and evidence presentation, could help streamline proceedings and reduce delays.

It's also worth considering the potential risks of trying lesser cases without a jury. Would this lead to a greater risk of miscarriages of justice? Would it erode public trust in the system? These are important questions that need to be debated.

Ultimately, I agree that the justice system is in need of reform, but we must be careful to preserve the principles that underpin it. Perhaps a more careful approach, such as increasing the use of summary trials or implementing alternative dispute resolution methods, could help alleviate some of the pressure on the system while maintaining the integrity of justice.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *esbackMan
3 days ago

currently in Aberdeenshire

Current system needs improving (justice delayed is justice denied)

But trial by a jury of your peers is a red-line for me…we have to retain that

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *awihMan
3 days ago

Aldershot

I can see an argument for certain types of cases such as fraud when it is of the accounting type which may be very difficult for lay people to understand. But for murder, the R word etc. Trial should be by Jury. No it is not a perfect system and Juries can reach the wrong verdict either way, but at least for the worst since we got rid of the death penalty at least someone can be released if there has been a miscarriage of justice (which has happened too many times - even in my lifetime)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *awihMan
3 days ago

Aldershot

"Current system needs improving (justice delayed is justice denied)

But trial by a jury of your peers is a red-line for me…we have to retain that"

Part of the problem is the lack of prison spaces due to lack of investment - what good is holding a trial if there is no where to send person if they are found guilty.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atureTrans OP TV/TS
3 days ago

Waterlooville

"I was called for Jury Service few The years ago. system was farcical. 24 (plus about 4 or 5 spares) of us (for two potential trials) assembled on the Monday. Went each day and was told to go home as counsel still deliberating with judge. On day 4 we were all released, as trial rescheduled. Must have cost thousands in wasted expenses for members of the Jury. Current backlog runs into about 3 years wait for a trial. I'm for changing it."

I agree changing the waste of time ame money is a amicable aim, but it should not be at the detriment of Justice, which is what this prosal could lessen.

If they do try this it should be on a trial basis, to compare similar trials, with and without a jury to see if there is a difference between convictions. If no difference then yes, if there is a big difference then it would have to be looked into.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atureTrans OP TV/TS
3 days ago

Waterlooville

"It would save far more money to bring back hanging."

Why dont you go an speak to the innocent guy who spent 38 years in Jail, for a mistake on the DNA evidence. If you had your way he would have dead dead 37 years ago.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ewBrumBiMan
3 days ago

Birmingham B15

Mistakes happen in every system.

We'll just allow repeat offenders to continue victimising innocent people because we can't risk a far smaller number of miscarriages of justice, eh?

And what of those for whom there is no possibility of their innocence?

It's a better outcome for society to keep Axel Rudakubana at taxpayers' expense than to be rid of the problem once and for all?

For someone who is more than happy to see people fed into a meatgrinder abroad, hand-wringing about domestic criminals seems out of character...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ammy57TV/TS
3 days ago

Stevenage

Absolutely should be retained but the inefficiency of the system is appalling. There is a move to fast track anything they can to avoid cost but it is usually at the expense of weakest in society.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atureTrans OP TV/TS
3 days ago

Waterlooville

"Mistakes happen in every system.

We'll just allow repeat offenders to continue victimising innocent people because we can't risk a far smaller number of miscarriages of justice, eh?

And what of those for whom there is no possibility of their innocence?

It's a better outcome for society to keep Axel Rudakubana at taxpayers' expense than to be rid of the problem once and for all?

For someone who is more than happy to see people fed into a meatgrinder abroad, hand-wringing about domestic criminals seems out of character..."

A civilised society does not murder people in any circumstance. I find it strange that any right minded person could accept that a limited number of mistakes is acceptable.

I must say again what would you say if you were face to face with a guy who spent 38 years in jail for a crime he did not commit?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aremanMan
3 days ago

Wymondham

Major reform needed, just as well the police are ineffective, otherwise the prosecution and custody failures would be even worse. How about only getting a jury on your first offence? Come back again and be fast-tracked through a hanging judge...?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *laingreedyMan
3 days ago

Chelmsford

Sounds like a good idea on the face of it, there will be much more consistency in findings. So long as the government don’t interfere by attempting to regulate the findings.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *amie1402Man
3 days ago

Liverpool

Many lesser cases are already tried by a district judge or even a magistrate in the lower courts

The defendant has the option of accepting a magistrate trial or opting to go for jury trial - but with the probability of a heavier sentence if then found guilty.

Sounds like an extension of that to slighty more serious matters.

Giving magistrates the power to try more serious offences

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obbertMan
3 days ago

In a world of my own

[Removed by poster at 25/11/25 19:03:03]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ountrygentsCouple (MM)
3 days ago

Llandudno

Watch prisoner 951 on BBC1 then make comparisons when our corrupt lot make the decisions.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obert xMan
3 days ago

West Lancs

"Come back again and be fast-tracked through a hanging judge...?

A well hung judge?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *tephen_b50Man
3 days ago

Bristol

[Removed by poster at 25/11/25 19:38:42]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *tephen_b50Man
3 days ago

Bristol

"Current system needs improving (justice delayed is justice denied)

But trial by a jury of your peers is a red-line for me…we have to retain that

Part of the problem is the lack of prison spaces due to lack of investment - what good is holding a trial if there is no where to send person if they are found guilty."

Or even if they aren't found guilty. There are 16,000 people in prison who are on remand; they haven't even had a trial, far less a sentence. They make up 18% of the total prison population, and that figure is rapidly increasing.

And these are not short stays; the system is so backed up that there are people being released from remand who have spent as long in prison as they would have if they had been sentenced for the crime of which they were accused.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ammy39Man
3 days ago

Glenrothes

If you're ever in the shit just hope you get a jury trial. Juries are notoriously gullible!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etmepants offMan
3 days ago

dartford

Jury system for all it's faults is an important part of democracy

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *izzeekMan
3 days ago

Out & about

Straight out of the Fabian Society's playbook. No surprise.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eepeter4Man
3 days ago

Bournemouth

"Sounds like a good idea on the face of it, there will be much more consistency in findings. So long as the government don’t interfere by attempting to regulate the findings."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oosterladMan
3 days ago

ipswich

Judge Jury Executioner all in one person? What could possibly go wrong?

I have worked alongside a Magistrate. Theyre part time. Trust me you wouldnt want to be sentenced by someone like her. Blinkered by religion.

Experienced bad treatment from the NHS too as a result of them seeing next of kin as same sex on my record.

Juries are made up of a mix of the population. Best bet for fairness.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ezzadMan
3 days ago

Nottingham

Don’t commit crimes then you don’t need to worry about injustice

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ilke500Man
3 days ago

edinburgh

Throughout all the media storm this proposal has started I’ve not come across one member of the legal system that has come out in support of this.

Most agree the justice system is in desperate need of an overhaul but they don’t feel this is the answer.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *tewartfoster1Man
3 days ago

Wolverhampton

Judge dredd is coming. I am the law

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *lim_sportyMan
3 days ago

stevenage

Totally agree with it. You be amazed at the number of defenents who come to court and change their plead at the last minute, wasting all the courts and jury's time.

They take the piss.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iscreetfun2024Man
3 days ago

belfast

[Removed by poster at 25/11/25 23:48:09]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iscreetfun2024Man
3 days ago

belfast

"Don’t commit crimes then you don’t need to worry about injustice "

Isn't injustice what people who dnt commit crimes get

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *lim_sportyMan
3 days ago

stevenage

"Don’t commit crimes then you don’t need to worry about injustice

Isn't injustice what people who dnt commit crimes get

By equal logic isn't injustice what people who do commit crime get away with it? And I know alot of them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *lexieMan
2 days ago

Just north of Southampton

The greed of the legal profession has killed justice in the UK. Delays and continued pontificating over the slightest of details hes turned case work into an expensive train wreck! It has finally seized up and broken the judicial system! Hopefully we can now get rid of these very expensive parasites off our backs!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *erscumdumpMan
2 days ago

Watford

There's good reason trials are by 12 peers and not 1 "judge". That is at the very heart of justice. The proposal would exert pressure to downgrade charges to keep them out of jury trials. If anyone thinks that is justice, they need to give the old head a wobble. The problem is caused by a stupidly slow and inefficient system. The UK is known to do things at a snails pace. Fix the system, but dont change the way justice is delivered. Its as simple as creating more Crown Courts for a couple of years to deal with the backlog.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ldmanMan
2 days ago

Rawcliffe Bridge.

Maybe it's so you can be tried under sharia law?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *athCDTV/TS
2 days ago

Morpeth

"The greed of the legal profession has killed justice in the UK. Delays and continued pontificating over the slightest of details hes turned case work into an expensive train wreck! It has finally seized up and broken the judicial system! Hopefully we can now get rid of these very expensive parasites off our backs!"
Poor lawyers, they can see the buffers that the gravy train is about to hit

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ocbigMan
2 days ago

Birmingham

"This is a bad idea, a lot of judges and shefiffs are corrupt."

Send a posse out, that will sort out the wayward sons.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *tar33Man
2 days ago

North London (outer)

I'm in favour of this proposal. The judicial system is massively overloaded at the moment and something needs to be done about the backlog. We're now seeing Crown Court cases that are taking 3-4 years to reach trial, which isn't good for victims, witnesses or the accused.

Lefty lawyers and human rights people will be very much against it I'm sure, but in many cases they are the cause of the problem.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *tar33Man
2 days ago

North London (outer)

"Absolutely should be retained but the inefficiency of the system is appalling. There is a move to fast track anything they can to avoid cost but it is usually at the expense of weakest in society. "

When you brought up 'at the expense of the weakest in society', were you thinking of the accused, or the victims and witnesses?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *tar33Man
2 days ago

North London (outer)

The proposal is to create a new intermediate tier of criminal court, dubbed the "Crown Court Bench Division" (CCBD) sitting in between magistrates' courts and Crown Courts, where juries decide cases.The discussion document says:

"Introduce trial by judge alone for cases involving fraud and financial offences - if the judge considers the case to be suitably technical and lengthy. Exclusions for r•pe, murder, manslaughter and public interest."

The CCBD would be introduced "as a lower-tier of the Crown Court which hears cases likely to receive a sentence of up to five years by a judge alone", the document said.

This means that while jury trial would be guaranteed for murder, manslaughter and r•pe - almost all other defendants facing serious offences would be tried by a judge alone.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *tar33Man
2 days ago

North London (outer)

"Judge Jury Executioner all in one person? What could possibly go wrong?

I have worked alongside a Magistrate. Theyre part time. Trust me you wouldnt want to be sentenced by someone like her. Blinkered by religion.

You're talking about lay magistrates, who only deal with petty cases. This isn't what the new proposal is about.

We've had stipendiary magistrates in courts for decades. They're a lot more efficient than lay benches, and less likely to have the wool pulled over their eyes by defence briefs trying it on, and doing their best to cause delays.

A stipendiary magistrate is a full-time, paid judge who presides over cases in a magistrates' court, handling more serious matters than lay justices. They are legally qualified, unlike most unpaid lay magistrates, and have the same powers as two or more lay justices, often sitting alone. While the term is still used in some jurisdictions, the office in England and Wales was largely replaced by District Judges (Magistrates' Courts) in 2000.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *itherneitherTV/TS
2 days ago

Burnham on sea

Juries are now more inportant than ever.

A jury has the power to overule an unjust law, or case.

Whatever you side in politics, a jury can refuse to convict.

Judges are now political appointees.

The rewards for supporting a govt and politicians can be immense, power, prestige, awards, gongs, and cushy well padded appointments all await compliant judiciary.

Its true peer pressure, when an actual peerage may be at stake.

The reason the death penalties were repealled for relativky trivial offences was that juries refused to convict, not wanting to see children hanged for stealing a gentlemans handkerchief

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *DC2000Man
2 days ago

Coningsby

Had dinner last night with a retired judge and he's very concerned. He thinks it might be a judge and, maybe, two lay magistrates who sit in the court but if the precedent is set it'll be hard to go back. Cost and the back log (which has not recovered from the lockdowns) are driving this. If the lead time for a trial is set at, say, 4 months and the trial can't be heard for 6, the defendant walks....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enardeMan
2 days ago

Barnsley

Increase the sentencing period at Magistrates Courts and hear thefts etc to a certain level there

Stop the system of lawyers opting for trial having had their big fee at public expense so they can then hand to barristers for their big bowl from the gravy train

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *SuckCock420Man
2 days ago

Deeside

Maybe it would be a good idea if we had a trustworthy government but with this lot in charge it’s actually a very worrying move. Judges seem they’re on the side of their old head of the cps and are doing his willing. Crazy times

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ildwestheroMan
2 days ago

Llandrindod Wells

Never been a great fan of trial by jury. Admittedly never served on a jury and been exempt for some years now due to poor hearing. Never liked the idea of being called up and sitting through a boring case and then trying to make a decision. A former employee of mine got called and had to sit through a case about tax evasion. Although an intelligent and savvy lady she admitted, afterwards, that half the time she hadn't got a clue what they were talking about. Also, because she found it such an interesting case, she found it difficult to concentrate.

I don't know what the answer is but never thought dragging random people in for jury service was a good idea.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *laireKTV/TS
2 days ago

Manchester

We could put the accused and the watchers on a conveyor belt, with the next lots already loaded.

If the judge and jury want to get a move on, get home for tea, they just up the speed of the conveyor belt.

Part of the belt could run through the channel sea, so that boat migrants don't even have to get off the dinghy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ohnnyangerMan
2 days ago

The alarmism around this is very Anglo. Nearly all of Europe does not operate with jury trials and gets by fine.

Not so sure I'd be happy about it being 1 judge. But I guess it might morph into the German system where depending on the potential conviction you can have between 1 to 5 judges.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *tagman6930Man
2 days ago

SW London

66% of all criminal cases are already dealt with by magistrates courts without a jury.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ildwestheroMan
2 days ago

Llandrindod Wells

Not sure on this one but do they have juries in the Scottish legal system? I know they don't in other counties. Seems a bit of an archaic system. Perhaps it should be a panel of judges rather like a bench of magistrates.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *3versMan
2 days ago

glasgow

"Not sure on this one but do they have juries in the Scottish legal system? I know they don't in other counties. Seems a bit of an archaic system. Perhaps it should be a panel of judges rather like a bench of magistrates."

15 in criminal trials, 12 in civil trials in Scotland

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread