Jump to content

Recommended Posts



Taking Quids post from another thread.. as I understand it, a third re retrial of a criminal case started yesterday or the day before without a jury. Bearing in mind that the jury had seemingly been nobbled the previous times, is this right??


For the record I do not know where I stand on this. Fundamentally it does not sit right with me.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/9527-trial-by-jury/
Share on other sites

In principle it feels a bit dodge, but t is the first time it's been used and this is the fourth retrial and there are strong fears of jury tampering. As long as there are sufficient checks and balances and it is used as a last report it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.


Btw has anyone read magna carta, apart from being a bit of a weird document, it really wasn't intended to benefit the likes of you and me, just the big nobs (so to speak). It certainly shouldn't be held as some sort of paragon of human rights believe me!!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/9527-trial-by-jury/#findComment-285106
Share on other sites

Trial by jury can be neatly sidestepped if the authorities think necessary:


The Diplock courts were a type of court established by the Government in Northern Ireland in 1972, in an attempt to overcome widespread jury intimidation associated with the Troubles. The right to trial by jury was suspended for certain "scheduled offences" and the court consisted of a single judge. The courts were abolished in 2007[1].


The courts were established in response to a report by Lord Diplock[2], which addressed the problem of dealing with paramilitary violence through means other than internment. The report marked the beginnings of a policy known as criminalisation[3], in which the state removed any legal distinction between political violence and normal crime, with paramilitary prisoners treated as common criminals.


The report provided the basis for the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, which, although later amended (with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 and subsequent renewals), continued as the basis for counter-terrorist legislation in the UK.


Until recently the Diplock courts only tried Republican or Loyalist paramilitaries. In the first case in which a person not associated with the Troubles was tried and convicted, Abbas Boutrab, a suspected al-Qaeda sympathiser, was found guilty of having information that could assist bombing an airliner.[4] A sentence of six years was handed down on December 20, 2005



Non-jury trials, however, may still be used in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the UK, but only in exceptional cases


Link

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/9527-trial-by-jury/#findComment-285158
Share on other sites

The provisions allowing non-jury trials in jury nobbling cases came into force in 2006 and although there have been previous applications, this is the first time it's been used. It seems that judges are not generally keen, which is as it should be. The provisions for non-jury trials in complex fraud cases are still not in force as far as I know, so it doesn't seem that the government/parliament are over keen either.


Juries are important, but they are not the cure for all ills. I would guess that they acquit more often than a judge would, but that includes acquitting guilty people!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/9527-trial-by-jury/#findComment-285201
Share on other sites

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In principle it feels a bit dodge, but t is the

> first time it's been used and this is the fourth

> retrial and there are strong fears of jury

> tampering. As long as there are sufficient checks

> and balances and it is used as

> a last report it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

>

>

> Btw has anyone read magna carta, apart from being

> a bit of a weird document, it really wasn't

> intended to benefit the likes of you and me, just

> the big nobs (so to speak). It certainly shouldn't

> be held as some sort of paragon of human rights

> believe me!!



I may be wrong but wasn't it the Assize of Clarendon rather than Magna Carta that paved the way to jury trials?


Or was that due process?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/9527-trial-by-jury/#findComment-285241
Share on other sites

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It seems that judges are not generally keen, which is as it should be.


And the preconditions are fairly stringent too. There must be a real and present risk of interference with a jury, evidenced by such as jury-tampering in a previous hearing, and a likelihood that it would happen again, even in the face of protective measures.


In this case there seem to have two previous attempts to subvert the jury, and the Appeal Court was satisfied, after hearing evidence, that even the more stringent of two proposed sets of protective measures -- at least 82 police officers attached to the task over a period of at least six months, costing ?6m+ -- would still not be enough to address the problem of interference via the jurors' families. The Appeal Court's judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/1035.html

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/9527-trial-by-jury/#findComment-285266
Share on other sites

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not sure Santerme, I always associated Magna Carta

> with habeus corpus (and something to do with the

> price of bread), will check it out for you.



It is just a vague memory from a conversation I was having with a friend in Memphis about a year ago....I will google it when I get to a real computer...

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/9527-trial-by-jury/#findComment-285377
Share on other sites

Ok just had a quick swizz.

It's mostly to do with reinforcing in writing the feudal rights & responsibiliies against encroachmet from the crown. Lots of stuff to do with land, inheritance and tax and debt. Then a bunch about fines being proportoonate to level of crime and ability to pay.


Then one of those odd ones 'no town or person should be forced to build bridges unless there s an ancient obligation to do so'. Then stuff stopping officials from abusing power (confiscation of goods unfairly etc).

More medieval duties then something about getting rid of fish weirs


Then the nub:


A man cannot be brought to trial without credible witnesses (habeus corpus).

No punishment without lawful judgement (rule of law)


Then lots more weird bits about forests and sme very specific names to be sacked, that Guy de Cigogn?, always rubbing barons up the wrong way.


Then there is a while section about judgement of equals (25 men) but this is quite specific to land disputes as a result of the rebellion. Finally some stuff about everybody freeing hostages taken during the dispute.


and that's it.


So no, nothing about juries.


And the only mentions not relevant specifically to the nobility or church are that proportionate punishment shouldn't include taking a farmers farm tools and the slightly surreal:

"no one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except the husband".

I'm sure they had their reasons?!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/9527-trial-by-jury/#findComment-285396
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...