FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Trial by jury.

Jump to newest
 

By *icolerobbie OP   Couple
21 weeks ago

Walsall

A cornerstone of British law.

The Government is trying to take this right away. Have this government done enough over reaching? Where will this end? Why am I asking you?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
21 weeks ago

Hastings


"A cornerstone of British law.

The Government is trying to take this right away. Have this government done enough over reaching? Where will this end? Why am I asking you? "

I was under the impression it was just changing the sentencing for magistrates up from 1 year max to 2 year. So if a magistrate hears a case that will need a sentence grater then 2 years it would still need to go to a jury 🤔.

As it is not all cases are before a jury.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
21 weeks ago

Hastings

Magistrates in England and Wales can impose various sentences, including unlimited fines, community orders (like unpaid work, rehabilitation), and custodial sentences up to 12 months for a single offence, a power recently doubled from six months to speed up justice and reduce court backlogs, though serious crimes (indictable-only) are sent to the Crown Court.

Types of Sentences

Fines: Can be unlimited, depending on the offence.

Community Orders: May include unpaid work, rehabilitation activities, or curfews.

Custodial Sentences: Up to 12 months for a single offence (previously 6 months).

Discharges: Absolute or conditional discharges for less serious cases.

Bans: Such as driving bans.

Key Changes & Limitations

Increased Custody Limit: As of late 2024, magistrates can give up to 12 months for one "either-way" offence, helping with Crown Court backlogs.

Indictable-Only Offences: For very serious crimes (like murder, robbery), magistrates must send the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.

Concurrent/Consecutive: For multiple offences, magistrates can impose longer sentences, sometimes up to a year or more consecutively.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *e-OptimistMan
21 weeks ago

Stalybridge

At least that haven't suggested trial by combat yet!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
21 weeks ago

Terra Firma

The issue I have with this decision is the political bias of judges and how that can influence outcomes from one case to the next.

2 people in a d*unken brawl, should be an open and shut case. However, change the term d*unken brawl to political differences that led to confrontation, and the decision becomes one of single bias outcomes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icolerobbie OP   Couple
21 weeks ago

Walsall

So is it 3 years sentencing that’s going to be magistrates and no jury?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
Forum Mod
21 weeks ago

Central

Nobody has mentioned what caused this and where the money would come from and timeframes to put it right,if we continue as we are

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oubleswing2019Man
21 weeks ago

Colchester


"

2 people in a d*unken brawl, should be an open and shut case."

Only if the judge is a moron and ignores both the prosecution and the defence and ignores all factors leading to the affray.

.

There’s no such thing as an ‘open and shut case’ when it involves two d*unk people punching each other—unless they both showed up with notarized confessions and matching black eyes.

.

Courts have to consider things like who started it, self-defence, witness credibility, intent, prior history, the location, police conduct, and a dozen other factors. It's not Judge Judy in there. Or Judge Dredd for that matter, thankfully.

It’s more like a group project where everyone hates each other and the deadline is a year from now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
21 weeks ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 13/12/25 07:41:14]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
21 weeks ago

Terra Firma


"

2 people in a d*unken brawl, should be an open and shut case.

Only if the judge is a moron and ignores both the prosecution and the defence and ignores all factors leading to the affray.

.

There’s no such thing as an ‘open and shut case’ when it involves two d*unk people punching each other—unless they both showed up with notarized confessions and matching black eyes.

.

Courts have to consider things like who started it, self-defence, witness credibility, intent, prior history, the location, police conduct, and a dozen other factors. It's not Judge Judy in there. Or Judge Dredd for that matter, thankfully.

It’s more like a group project where everyone hates each other and the deadline is a year from now."

What are your thoughts on the part of my post that mentioned bias, which was the main point? Are you also missing the change to how "courts" will work going forward or are you saying there will be no change?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ndy EkMan
21 weeks ago

London


"A cornerstone of British law.

The Government is trying to take this right away. Have this government done enough over reaching? Where will this end? Why am I asking you? "

Hi. I think the reason is that the juries don't know enough about law.

Andy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ellhungvweMan
21 weeks ago

Cheltenham

Juries are fundamentally important. However justice delayed is justice denied (as the saying goes). I think it is far more important that the delay be removed/reduced rather than wait for procedural perfection.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *esYesOMGYes!Man
21 weeks ago

Didsbury

If we are to believe that this has been introduced because protesters arrested for terrorism keep being let off by juries (which they are) then there is no logic to it.

The government says it’s to speed up processing less serious crimes.

What the hell is less serious terrorism?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
21 weeks ago

Terra Firma


"Juries are fundamentally important. However justice delayed is justice denied (as the saying goes). I think it is far more important that the delay be removed/reduced rather than wait for procedural perfection."

I would much prefer archaic processes to be modernised rather than remove the trial jury.

The courts have not kept up, on average they begin the day at 10:30, they rarely start on time, they break for lunch around midday, with other breaks being ad-hoc and end the day 16:30. This is not good enough, they are fudging rather than tackling the underlying problem of a system that has been allowed to stagnate.

If the system was modernised it would create more jobs, reduce backlogs and speed up times to appear after a crime is committed. It can be done to great effect, they extended hours and raced through all the cases of the riots in 2024.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ellhungvweMan
21 weeks ago

Cheltenham


"Juries are fundamentally important. However justice delayed is justice denied (as the saying goes). I think it is far more important that the delay be removed/reduced rather than wait for procedural perfection.

I would much prefer archaic processes to be modernised rather than remove the trial jury.

The courts have not kept up, on average they begin the day at 10:30, they rarely start on time, they break for lunch around midday, with other breaks being ad-hoc and end the day 16:30. This is not good enough, they are fudging rather than tackling the underlying problem of a system that has been allowed to stagnate.

If the system was modernised it would create more jobs, reduce backlogs and speed up times to appear after a crime is committed. It can be done to great effect, they extended hours and raced through all the cases of the riots in 2024. "

Hence why I said I would prefer the delay be removed/reduced.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *UGGYBEAR2015Man
21 weeks ago

BRIDPORT


"A cornerstone of British law.

The Government is trying to take this right away. Have this government done enough over reaching? Where will this end? Why am I asking you?

Hi. I think the reason is that the juries don't know enough about law.

Andy"

Juries aren’t required to know about the law, anything that is relevant to their case they will get specific guidance from the court/judge.

Maybe a bigger problem with jury members is that some of them THINK they know about the law.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
21 weeks ago

Terra Firma


"Juries are fundamentally important. However justice delayed is justice denied (as the saying goes). I think it is far more important that the delay be removed/reduced rather than wait for procedural perfection.

I would much prefer archaic processes to be modernised rather than remove the trial jury.

The courts have not kept up, on average they begin the day at 10:30, they rarely start on time, they break for lunch around midday, with other breaks being ad-hoc and end the day 16:30. This is not good enough, they are fudging rather than tackling the underlying problem of a system that has been allowed to stagnate.

If the system was modernised it would create more jobs, reduce backlogs and speed up times to appear after a crime is committed. It can be done to great effect, they extended hours and raced through all the cases of the riots in 2024.

Hence why I said I would prefer the delay be removed/reduced. "

I read your response as supporting the move.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oubleswing2019Man
21 weeks ago

Colchester


"What are your thoughts on the part of my post that mentioned bias, which was the main point? Are you also missing the change to how "courts" will work going forward or are you saying there will be no change? "

.

I appreciate that you’re concerned about judicial bias, and that’s fair and reasonable to discuss. Prosecution and Defence can raise that mid-trial (very carefully I hasten to add !).

.

But comparing a d*unken brawl to a politically charged confrontation ignores how context matters in law.

.

Courts don’t just rubber-stamp outcomes based on surface-level labels. A fight at a pub and a scuffle with political dimension involve completely different legal frameworks, rights, and considerations. That’s not bias—that’s nuance. If you’re worried about ‘single bias outcomes,’ you’d need to show judges are applying different standards to the same kind of case, not just different cases with different circumstances.

.

However, fundamentally I am opposed to removing trial by jury for many reasons.

.

Increases concentration of legal power

Reduces transparency

Weakens public participation in justice

Makes abuses of the system easier

.

But the biggest reason of all (for me) is that it concentrates and empowers authoritarianism, and removes a counter balance.

.

Jury trials exist not because they’re efficient, but because they’re resistant to abuse. Take them away, and you’re left hoping the people in power always act in good faith.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
21 weeks ago

Terra Firma


"What are your thoughts on the part of my post that mentioned bias, which was the main point? Are you also missing the change to how "courts" will work going forward or are you saying there will be no change?

.

I appreciate that you’re concerned about judicial bias, and that’s fair and reasonable to discuss. Prosecution and Defence can raise that mid-trial (very carefully I hasten to add !).

.

But comparing a d*unken brawl to a politically charged confrontation ignores how context matters in law.

.

Courts don’t just rubber-stamp outcomes based on surface-level labels. A fight at a pub and a scuffle with political dimension involve completely different legal frameworks, rights, and considerations. That’s not bias—that’s nuance. If you’re worried about ‘single bias outcomes,’ you’d need to show judges are applying different standards to the same kind of case, not just different cases with different circumstances.

.

However, fundamentally I am opposed to removing trial by jury for many reasons.

.

Increases concentration of legal power

Reduces transparency

Weakens public participation in justice

Makes abuses of the system easier

.

But the biggest reason of all (for me) is that it concentrates and empowers authoritarianism, and removes a counter balance.

.

Jury trials exist not because they’re efficient, but because they’re resistant to abuse. Take them away, and you’re left hoping the people in power always act in good faith."

You are simply missing the nuance of an example of everyday court appearances with bias, that is all it was.

Did you use AI, that could account for the nuance slip.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oubleswing2019Man
21 weeks ago

Colchester


"You are simply missing the nuance of an example of everyday court appearances with bias, that is all it was.

Did you use AI, that could account for the nuance slip."

Fully use, no. Partly yes.

AI did indeed mention bias, although I kind of expected it would, because bias is inherent in humans. We cannot escape it, only mitigate and dampen it down where it's evident.

What I was interested in knowing was more of the procedural of a case. The nitty-gritting so to speak. And also to dive deeper in to why removing TBJ is not a good idea. I have my own reasons why, but I wanted get a wider feel with other reasons too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ellhungvweMan
21 weeks ago

Cheltenham


"Juries are fundamentally important. However justice delayed is justice denied (as the saying goes). I think it is far more important that the delay be removed/reduced rather than wait for procedural perfection.

I would much prefer archaic processes to be modernised rather than remove the trial jury.

The courts have not kept up, on average they begin the day at 10:30, they rarely start on time, they break for lunch around midday, with other breaks being ad-hoc and end the day 16:30. This is not good enough, they are fudging rather than tackling the underlying problem of a system that has been allowed to stagnate.

If the system was modernised it would create more jobs, reduce backlogs and speed up times to appear after a crime is committed. It can be done to great effect, they extended hours and raced through all the cases of the riots in 2024.

Hence why I said I would prefer the delay be removed/reduced.

I read your response as supporting the move."

I do support it but only to speed up access to justice. The points you make are very good points and I fully support them as they will also speed up access to justice.

At the end of the day the legal system is only there to ensure justice. It currently moves too slowly. Far too slowly and that means it is failing in its fundamental objective.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *idanMan
21 weeks ago

borehamwood

I've just finished as a juror on a case in a Crown court. There were delays due to legal argument and transporting the defendant to court from prison. None of the delays had anything to do with the jury. If we hadn't been there these factors would still apply and evidence would still need to be heard. In reaching a verdict the jury system worked very well and I don't see how not having a jury would speed things up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ikerjohnMan
20 weeks ago

Chelmsford

Jury trials do slow things down massively. Even just to get the case moving the vast majority of the first day will be taken up with administration and housekeeping and that's the case even on a relatively brief trial. I did one recently that lasted six months (with a break in the summer) and the number of days lost just for availability alone (judicial commitments, barristers' commitments, jury commitments, etc.) really extended that time. That is a very extreme example, however.

Juries deal with something around 4% of all cases. It's a pretty small number. Certainly removing jury trials could speed some things up but not massively.

I have no issue removing trial by jury in some cases. It's been done plenty of times before. Some cases really ought not to go to a jury. A food safety prosecution carries a two-year maximum sentence. It can be tried by a jury if the defendant elects. They rarely do, to be fair, but I have had one or two go up. Trial date for one (started about a year ago) was fixed for trial in Jan 27.

There are a lot of factors at play, including massive and chronic underinvestment in the system, which have a greater impact. It's not as simple a fix as simply removing jury trial in so many instances.

I don't see the feared politicisation in criminal courts. I've yet to come across any case where the Judge ignores the evidence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
20 weeks ago

Hastings


"I've just finished as a juror on a case in a Crown court. There were delays due to legal argument and transporting the defendant to court from prison. None of the delays had anything to do with the jury. If we hadn't been there these factors would still apply and evidence would still need to be heard. In reaching a verdict the jury system worked very well and I don't see how not having a jury would speed things up.

"

But was the offence a new one or like a year or more ago.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ctionSandwichCouple
20 weeks ago

Newcastle under Lyme

Think of the people prosecuted under hate speech laws. Think of how they are often remanded, as Lucy Connoley was.

Think of how long they would have to wait on remand for a trial. Think of waiting all that time to have just one lefty judge convict you.

A former Royal Marine was in court for such a thing and the judge directed the jury that they should consider him guilty. Luckily, despite the judge doing this the jury found the man not guilty.

That is the sort of thing this government is seeking to stop. Juries are only ever needed in Crown Court cases because they can sentence you for longer than 2 years. They are only used, to out knowledge, when the a person pleads not guilty to charges and the CPS decides to proceed with the prosecution.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top