Forums
-
Discussion
-
- 333.2k
- posts
-
- 26.6k
- posts
-
- 14.9k
- posts
-
- 11.6k
- posts
-
- 601.2k
- posts
-
-
Business
-
- 119k
- posts
-
- 10.6k
- posts
-
Jobs Board (64,651 visits to this link)
-
-
Family Life
-
- 156.5k
- posts
-
- 113.8k
- posts
-
- 1.9k
- posts
-
-
Classifieds
-
- 9.3k
- posts
-
- Home sauna
- By wings,
-
- 586
- posts
-
- 263
- posts
-
-
-
Featured Events
Latest Discussions
-
Do you have a link to this? The only one i could find was on the 24th July -
Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it. Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story. But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. -
judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW" -
Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same?