Trial by Jury? or in this case not.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independen...ery-case-1865502.html

Is the state setting a precedent here?

Could this see an end to 'Trial by Jury'?

Could the criminal appeal because his trial did not have the benefit of a jury?

[Gromit]

Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the so called Lockerbie bomber was tried without a jury, so we know that this kind of trial is infallibly fair and that no miscarriages of Justice can occur.

[Androcles]

Presumably not - as it says in the report "The landmark decision was made under new powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003"....

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

This is the first major trial to be conducted without a jury in England and Wales, what happens over Hadrian's wall is as always 'another thing'.

Androcles

/// "The landmark decision was made under new powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003"///

Doesn't make it right.

[jno]

It sounds as if it was only done after careful consideration, and with the approval of a higher court. (And after an earlier attempt had failed because of allegations of jury tampering.) I can't say I like the sound of it; but I like the thought of jurors being threatened even less.

[fredpuli47]

End of trial by jury? No. Can a criminal appeal his conviction ? Well , he'd appeal the direction, before trial (as these men did). If that failed they couldn't the use that argument again in appeal against conviction.
Majority verdicts were introduced to prevent jury nobbling.Before then the defendant had only to bribe or threaten one juror to ensure a retrial at least, and two trials without a verdict was normally enough for the prosecution to allow a formal not guilty verdict to be entered , without trying the defendant a third time, unless the interferfence was detected. Now the defendant has to nobble three jurors in each of two trials ! These defendants must, prima facie, be thought capable of that, or of nobbling enough for a guaranteed acquittal.

[fredpuli47]

Incidentally , the Lockerbie trial was outside Britain, but somehow under Scots judicial principles .Normally 'over Hadrian's Wall', a jury trial is with 15 jurors, not 12 as in England, and a simple majority 7-5 either way is sufficient, not 10-2 as is required of 12 jurors here..

[fredpuli47]

My maths is faulty ! A simple majority of 15 is 8-7, even in Scotland !

[Sandy-Wroe]

Many of the cases in Northern Ireland over recent years were held without the benefit of juries. I'm sure that the judges involved directed themselves to be scrupulously fair in every way.
There were special circumstances in Northern Ireland. I can't see any such circumstances in this case.

[jake-the-peg]

Many of the long held rights of law have been held onto simply for tradition - when abolished with due care they response has been positive.

Double jeopardy has been allowed - permitting the retrial of someone in a serious case where genuinely new evidence comes to light.

Anybody want to argue that this has been a bad thing?

Incidently in Scotland this is still not the case - If you're tried and found innocent you can't be retried even if video of you doing it and 100 witnesses come forward.

We are not told in this case why there was a belief that there was a serious risk of jury tampering. Presumably someone had been caught attempting it and we cannot be told because it is sub-judicy.

However I thought that was a precaution to stop juries becoming biased - I can't see why the reason should not be made public ahead of a trial if a judge is trying it.

Perhaps it will be ironed out in time

[Androcles]

I was answering your question "Could the criminal appeal because his trial did not have the benefit of a jury". If it is permitted by statute not to have a jury, provided the terms of the Act were met, he would not have a right of appeal on those grounds.

I wasn't saying it was right either!

[Sandy-Wroe]

If a judge sitting alone hears evidence that he would not have allowed to be heard by the jury, if there had been one, how can he possibly disregard it?
I believe the introduction of trials without juries is a backward step.

[fredpuli47]

Sandy-Wroe Inadmissible evidence apparent pre-trial would be excluded pre-trial, at pre-trial hearings, and not seen by the trial judge. Any which comes out during the trial itself can be dealt with as it is now with the jury present.The jury is told to ignore it (and why) or, if that isn't appropriate, the jury is discharged and a new trial ordered. The judge alone would apply the same principle and either ignore it or discharge himself.
As a matter of practice, counsel (and judges) are accustomed to assessing the merits of cases when they have read all the inadmissible evidence that comes with the admissible.Throughout counsel's career the first papers that they get usually have some inadmissible material.Sometimes that seems to be most of the bundle! They have been trained to approach the case that way, judging it on what is proved or not by what's left after they've ignored the inadmissible. Judges have, mostly, been counsel but anyway have worked in criminal law and are used to this.
The Court of Appeal can always allow an appeal where inadmissible evidence has been admitted, if the effect of it is that the verdict is rendered unsafe. That applies to jury trials and would apply to single judge cases. It might, however, be less likely to do so in 'borderline' cases involving a single judge because of what I've just said.The Court might say that it's confident that the judge ignored the inadmissible but not sure that a jury, however well-directed.did so.