@therealmissjo Judges usually go through mitigating features (and aggravating features) in their sentencing remarks. Noting mitigation is not praise by any means. Sentencing judges don't impose deportation orders and minimum sentences don't apply to the type of sentence imposed.
@MoJGovUK All of that evidence and all those points of law would still have to be presented/argued. Ok, it might be a bit quicker with a judge alone, but it still has to be done. The more serious cases, where this type of evidence is common, would still have a jury anyway.
@VeraBaird This is a disgraceful tweet in so many ways. For somebody apparently in silk, this disingenuous. Do you even know what the 'lesser' cases were? Are you seriously trying to create a false equivalence between a civil and criminal case? Are you suggesting the jury was wrong?
@lukeakehurst@Labanb How about: the right to jury trial is being severely curtailed for no evidenced reason, other than to move power away from ordinary citizens? Better?
Labour was built on the belief that justice must never belong only to the powerful. Today MPs vote on restricting jury trials. For Labour MPs it’s a test of principle. The poorest & most marginalised depend on juries. Today we’ll see who remembers why they came into politics.
@b_ertie@Joanna__Hardy Can't speak for Jo, but at least with a jury you have the benefit of 12 persons' input. Prejudice is filtered out, a mistake by one has the chance of being corrected by another. Jurors' decisions cannot affect their careers and they are immune to political interference.
@sarahsackman There seems to be this lurking suggestion that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to convict people accused of crime and the focus should be on how to do this most efficiently. Remember, justice can also be an acquittal. Doing it right is better than doing it cheap.
I’ve written to every Member of Parliament today.
Proposals before Parliament would remove jury trials from offences carrying up to three years in prison.
Freedoms rarely vanish overnight. They are chipped away in the name of efficiency.
Juries did not cause the crisis in our courts. Removing them will not fix it.
When the state seeks to take someone’s liberty for serious offences, the judgment of ordinary citizens should never be optional.
This is close to becoming law.
Please read the letter. Contact your MP now.
@MAMBarLife@instituteforgov It's not about that, though. Sackman has publicly admitted that it's ideological and they would still be doing this even if there was no backlog. @TheCriminalBar and the other organisations need to be shouting much more loudly about this point
Trial by jury ensures justice is done by the public, not just the state. Reforms should strengthen rights, not sideline them. Why is Labour so eager to modernise us out of a safeguard that defines fairness and justice itself?
@JeffW2304@DavidLammy Oh...and get rid of juries. What I don't understand is why you don't apply all the other measures first and see if the work, before using the nuclear option. Probably because it's ideological and designed to remove protections for ordinary people for no evidenced benefit.