Jury trials, for and against

Photo: BBC

A bit of a plate-spinner here, pre-scheduled.  I⁴'ve been meaning to open this one up for a while now but, well, events.

So:  judge-only trials for criminal offences?  OK, Lammy isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer [1] but then again, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied; and the backlog in the courts is appalling.  Balancing the system by waiting for victims and witnesses to lose heart (or die) is no way to dispense justice.  The guilty go free by default and simple delaying tactics.

But hey, if it's me in the dock, there are circumstances in which I probably want a jury; and I think most people agree.  And, although it's strictly irrelevant to the criminal cases I'm most concerned with, I was once party to a massive civil case in the commercial courts which in the USA would have been heard by a jury, and (all parties agreed [2]) would definitely have gone only one way - but here, being heard only by a single judge, it went the other way on a judicial whim over an odd technicality, and required overturning at Appeal.

I reckon we know where the blame lies, not least in the shocking reduction in funding for the CJS by the Tories: and covid didn't help; nor the latitude given to defence lawyers to waste time - one of the juries I sat on (a murder trial) saw some remarkable time-wasting being accommodated, albeit testily, by the judge.  Somebody has to address the situation, somehow - under whatever leadership.

So what can we agree on?

• truly, the backlog has got to be addressed decisively
• we've long ago sold the pass on really nasty terrorist cases (N.Ireland, where the threat to juries is chillingly real - and that might spread across more of the realm in years to come, you don't need me to paint the scenarios)
• having sat on three juries, I tremble at the thought of jury trials for complex cases of fraud & the like
• hey, I'm an old soldier and know all about summary justice at first hand: it has to be a very serious offence before it gets anywhere near a Court Martial [3]
• so like taxation, it's already happened, & how much more in future is all a matter of degree

What else then, does t'readership think on this most critical of issues for a society supposedly built on the rule of law? [4] 

ND

____________

[1]   And nowadays it seems to be OK to point this out: everyone else does.  This has surprised me somewhat.  I had several accounts of what a good impression Lammy made in a handful of trips to the USA in 2023/24.  But there we have it - by common consent, the man's a laughing stock.  Pity he's in charge of this difficult issue.

[2]  So clear was this to all concerned that the party which won at First Instance was desperate to have the case heard in England, and they succeeded.  Conversely, the other party had tried equally desperately to have it heard in the USA.  Some $400m was at stake. 

[3]  For any US readers, in the British Armed Forces we don't term regimental-level justice a 'CM': it's a term reserved for full military trials with defence counsel etc.  (No juries, though: an experienced panel.)  At the regimental level or below ('CO's Orders' or 'OC's Orders'), evidence is taken, but it's summary justice, CO = judge-and-jury.  As my first Sergeant Major explained, the process is straightforward:  "March the guilty party in.  Find the guilty party 'Guilty'.  March the guilty party out."  GP will be invited to elect for CM, but it never happens: Sergeant Major makes sure of that, too.  Oh no, son, you don't want that.  You definitely don't want that.

[4]  I shan't open up an episode of History Corner on you - Henrys I and II, Edward I, and Henry VII 

A welcome back to Brexit and an EU sausage story

 Om my how much Covid-19 changed the world. For five years, the UK national conversation was nothing but the screeches of Brexit from all sides and endless comment and opinion pieces (I offer no defence, m'lud). Covid put a stop to all of that, we have heard little of Brexit since it was done.

Pre-dating even that, were the horror stories, originally more or less invented by one B. Johnson when the Telegraph's EU correspondent, about 'bendy bananas' and other such hilarious single market rules and regulations. This was a 20 year feast for British newspapers so to speak. 

And lo, here we are in 2021 and we get a perfect marrying of the two old trends. Firstly, the Northern Ireland compromise, never really a compromise and designed solely to get Brexit done as per instructions from the British electorate is coming unstuck. The EU have decided that the main reason for this is the importation of British sausages (and mince) to Northern Ireland that now require health certificates for Export to the EU - certificates which, um, don't exist in the EU.

This has long been a simmering issue and it a classic of its kind. The UK, on doing Brexit, knew there was this risk as the Industry bodies have highlighted it for ages. In a typical fudge, the UK extended a grace period whilst negotiations were ongoing. However, the EU does not have to budge and it has not. It will simply insist Northern Ireland imports from Ireland and the EU itself - after all that is the point of their closed single market! The Eu commissioner is wallowing in joy at being seen to be fair, yet beastly to the Brits. 

Meanwhile, the UK side can't believe the EU will be so intransigent and ignore all efforts to make exceptions for the UK. Lord Frost in particular, can't seem to understand the EU does not care about playing fair and sees the UK as a third country. 

In fact, the situation is about to get worse,  as for less high-risk meats such as frozen produce, the non-EU country of origin must be authorised for imports into the EU, and establishments that produce the meat must also be approved to follow EU standards. The UK has yet to be listed as such a country, which is cause of concern to British meat producers, some of which are heavily reliant on exports to the EU.

Brexit is back and back for good, I hope no one thought it would ever go away. Perhaps at the G7 meeting compromise will be reached, but it seems unlikely, the EU is being very tough, but is on solid legal ground on these issues and as we know, has past form for insisting on bizarre terms for food import and export. 

Despite progress, Northern Ireland will still lead to a hard brexit

Not that this is such a terrible thing, but it remains the conclusion of the latest EU proclamations.


Via the excruciating Kamal Ahmed, here is the latest BBC breathless interview to end Brexit with Pierre Moscovici.




"How can you have no border - no hard border - and not have at the same time internal markets and custom unions?" Mr Moscovici asked.


"Because goods can come through that non-border - there would be a non-border between a part of the UK and Ireland, which is a part of the EU, so you see, that would be very complex.


"It's hard to imagine that there is no hard border, and at the same time, no internal market and no customs union, there would be a contradiction there."


So the issue here is taking last week's euro fudge at face value. Clearly, there was no real answer on Northern Ireland and both sides agreed on regulatory alignment as a meaningless phrase designed to allow for the money to be put on the table. The EU still see the UK as some kind of local region which it is indulging.


But in the end, this may yet kill the deal. If the EU decide their rules must be followed for the Good Friday agreement et al to stand, then they are in effect demanding the unification of Ireland and splitting it up politically and economically. The DUP will not vote for this and neither will many Tory MP's.


So, really, the fudge is not sweet enough. Of course, going on history, the EU will find another way around this at the last minute. But with remainers really getting excited on a potential second referendum then 2018 is going to be far from plain sailing.