A jury? Pushing the boat out a bit, isn’t it?

Not for the first time a British court is in the news for ditching the concept of one of those troublesome, old fashioned jury thingies being involved in the final decision. Too much money, apparently.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said: “The trial will take longer if it is a trial by jury. It takes longer for 12 people to get to the right page of a bundle than it takes for one judge.”

So there you go, folks. Saving all the time and therefore expense is more important than justi… oh, wait, it doesn’t actually save much anyway.

But lawyers counter that the saving would amount to only two days on a 20-day trial, which is hardly a “substantial prolongation”. Most of the £3 million costs have already been incurred.

So actually it isn’t.

… the judge had remarked that juries were a “constitutional threat” that represented a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression because they increased the costs of libel actions.

A constitutional threat on freedom of expression? Fuck me sideways with a gavel, Britain is a fucking libel tourist destination. The cost of a jury is hardly driving away the fucking punters, is it? The only constitutional threat, and the only thing here that’s chilling, is the idea of more jury-less trials.

As I wondered a few months back when a study came out suggesting most jurors don’t understand what’s going on – which conveniently glosses over the fact that it’s the briefs’ fucking jobs to put the fucking case in a way that the jurors, no matter how dim some of them might be, can understand – is there a plan to ease juries out and is there enough Bacofoil for everyone? Fuck it, why not just set up a fucking Star Chamber and done with it? I mean, it’s only justice, nothing terribly important.


Posted on June 6, 2010, in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on A jury? Pushing the boat out a bit, isn’t it?.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: