> Mr Brown continued that the plan to replace jurors with two members of the public sitting with a judge made “no sense”, adding that this was just replacing 15 jurors with two.
Indeed. This is fine for the likes of employment tribunals and petty disputes, but utterly unacceptable for a High Court trial of any kind. Even the magistrate courts in England require the ‘lay’ people on the bench to be held to a certain standard and it’s not just Dave and Suzy from the pub.
The SNP could just try stopping fucking with the judiciary, but thats obviously too difficult for them.
This stems from Lady Dorrian’s report published in 2021.
Juryless trials were NOT recommended but they were examined at length:
“*…this was not an issue on which the Review Group was able to reach unanimity, views being fairly evenly split between retaining and dispensing with a jury. Accordingly, rather than seek to make a recommendation one way or the other, save for suggesting that the issue of whether trial by jury should continue for serious sexual cases merits further consideration, this chapter focuses on identifying the main issues discussed and which would merit further consideration and research….”*
Furthermore:
*”…The traditional arguments in favour of juries are met by equally compelling arguments for trial by judge alone, which cannot be left unexamined and ignored. They are summarised or illustrated throughout this chapter. This is a question which ought to be examined in much greater depth, with further jury research, and a fully evaluated pilot scheme to support an evidence based approach, assessing any longer term changes to trial procedure introduced following this Review. This would enable the issues to be assessed in a practical rather than a theoretical way. The fact that a system has been sanctified by usage may make it difficult to change, but it should not make it exempt from thorough examination of its suitability…*.”
This report has been cherry picked from and, juryless trials in particular, for political rather than judicial purposes. Which is one reason why the judiciary and lawyers are unhappy at the SNP’s efforts to ram through juryless trials.
Meanwhile, no-one is asking the obvious question: why are so many women being sexually assaulted by men?
Juryless rape trials has always been a bad idea. What they’re saying with the poorly thought through policy, is that members of the public aren’t clever enough to spot guilt but a judge is. The reality is that a judge is also liable to bias and, potentially, corruption. Anyone who followed the Alex Salmond trial should be concerned about this. We he what appeared in many ways to be a politically motivated witch hunt. Throw in some judges who are appointed by the first minister and you have a problem. The SNP are already well on the way to blurring the lines between judiciary and government, it’s not independent.
Put this one in the bin.
An absolute disgrace of a misandrist policy that should never have seen the light of day.
Why are our leaders unable to come up with any form of well thought out policy?
I agree that the process is horrible for women who are rape victims and we should absolutely fix that. You don’t fix it by making men’s experience just as bad you make the process better for women.
6 comments
Sense is starting to prevail
> Mr Brown continued that the plan to replace jurors with two members of the public sitting with a judge made “no sense”, adding that this was just replacing 15 jurors with two.
Indeed. This is fine for the likes of employment tribunals and petty disputes, but utterly unacceptable for a High Court trial of any kind. Even the magistrate courts in England require the ‘lay’ people on the bench to be held to a certain standard and it’s not just Dave and Suzy from the pub.
The SNP could just try stopping fucking with the judiciary, but thats obviously too difficult for them.
This stems from Lady Dorrian’s report published in 2021.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/reports-and-data/Improving-the-management-of-Sexual-Offence-Cases.pdf?
Juryless trials were NOT recommended but they were examined at length:
“*…this was not an issue on which the Review Group was able to reach unanimity, views being fairly evenly split between retaining and dispensing with a jury. Accordingly, rather than seek to make a recommendation one way or the other, save for suggesting that the issue of whether trial by jury should continue for serious sexual cases merits further consideration, this chapter focuses on identifying the main issues discussed and which would merit further consideration and research….”*
Furthermore:
*”…The traditional arguments in favour of juries are met by equally compelling arguments for trial by judge alone, which cannot be left unexamined and ignored. They are summarised or illustrated throughout this chapter. This is a question which ought to be examined in much greater depth, with further jury research, and a fully evaluated pilot scheme to support an evidence based approach, assessing any longer term changes to trial procedure introduced following this Review. This would enable the issues to be assessed in a practical rather than a theoretical way. The fact that a system has been sanctified by usage may make it difficult to change, but it should not make it exempt from thorough examination of its suitability…*.”
This report has been cherry picked from and, juryless trials in particular, for political rather than judicial purposes. Which is one reason why the judiciary and lawyers are unhappy at the SNP’s efforts to ram through juryless trials.
Meanwhile, no-one is asking the obvious question: why are so many women being sexually assaulted by men?
Juryless rape trials has always been a bad idea. What they’re saying with the poorly thought through policy, is that members of the public aren’t clever enough to spot guilt but a judge is. The reality is that a judge is also liable to bias and, potentially, corruption. Anyone who followed the Alex Salmond trial should be concerned about this. We he what appeared in many ways to be a politically motivated witch hunt. Throw in some judges who are appointed by the first minister and you have a problem. The SNP are already well on the way to blurring the lines between judiciary and government, it’s not independent.
Put this one in the bin.
An absolute disgrace of a misandrist policy that should never have seen the light of day.
Why are our leaders unable to come up with any form of well thought out policy?
I agree that the process is horrible for women who are rape victims and we should absolutely fix that. You don’t fix it by making men’s experience just as bad you make the process better for women.