Law Society criticises jury trial proposals as 'entirely wrong'

Law Society criticises jury trial proposals as 'entirely wrong'

Should trial by jury be limited in only certain circumstances?

Britain, like the rest of the world, is facing hard times. The government is imposing major cuts in key sectors of the economy and it is even proposing to do so in the Judiciary. The BBC reported yesterday that there are proposals by the government to limit trial by jury for lesser offences. The key objective of this proposal would be to save money in the judicial system of England and Wales. In order to analyse whether this proposal will be effective or not, it is worth discussing the issues surrounging trial by jury and trial in a Magistrates' court.

First and foremost, a citizen's right to trial by jury is one of the main constitutional rights of England and Wales. In fact, it has been in existence since the days of the Magna Carta back in 1215. Therefore, if the government were to restrict this right, it would essentially be a clear breach of a constitutional right of England and Wales.

Secondly, the right to trial by jury comes as an option to an alleged offender. He or she has a choice of opting for a trial by jury or a trial in the magistrates' court. The offence here, as you may already know, must be one that falls within the category of an 'either way offence' . This would include offences such as: theft, bigamy, offences of deception and sexual activity with a child under the age of 16. However, according to the BBC and the late judge Lord Devlin, most people are bound to opt for the trial by jury. There are many reasons for this and the most significant or appealling in my opinion, is the fact that it is believed that Magistrates are unable to act as a true representation of a community. Even so, I am of the belief that, since Magistrates are sharp minded, intellectually brilliant individuals, could mean that impartiality is probably an issue and therefore, the right to a 'fair trial' is limited. Moreover, trial by juries enable police officers' evidence to be challenged and thus, allows a more favourable verdict to be reached for the alleged offender. Such an advantage is not available in trial by magistrate's court.

However, it must not be forgotten that critics have argued for a very long time that trial by jury is not an efficient means of ensuring justice is served as in most cases, the 'lay men' are unable to fully fathom the complexities of legal issues in question and thus, end up making the wrong decisions in agreeing to a final verdict. 

On the other hand, in support of the proposals, it may be argued that limiting trial by jury may play a vital role in saving money in the legal system of England and Wales. Accordingly, Ms. Louise Casey (The Victims' Commissioner) has stated that such a proposal is bound to save as much as £30 million since cases would be be heard in the Magistrates' Court instead. The Commissioner has also stated that even if 80% of cases were sent to trial by Magistrates' court, as many as 50,000 cases sent to the Crown courts cost the Crown Prosecution Service £15 million. These cases proved to be a waste of time and money.

Although it is evident that there is undoubtedly a need for some sort of reform or proposal to re-structure the judicial system, there is a key disadvantage present. The fact that the Commissioner has acknowledged that trial by jury should not be allowed in either way offences is already signalling a recipe for disaster. After reading the Law Society Gazette, I fully support their views in that such a proposal is bound to have detrimental effects on a citizen's career and their life as a whole. If you are like me, an optimist, and you give a potential criminal, the benefit of the doubt, then the role of the jury is paramount in ensuring that justice is served properly. Juries are powerful and the importance of their roles cannot be stressed enough. They are normal individuals who do not have strong legal backgrounds (although some may do) but they ensure that there is transparency in the justice system and in doing so, promote the rule of law and commitment to the criminal justice system of the land.

Therefore, is it really worth imposing such a stringent reform to limit the right to trial by jury, at the expense of breaching a fundamental, key constitutional right? Is the state of the economy in England and Wales so dire that such a drastic proposal need to be implemented? Is it morally, legally and ethically correct to send cases to the Magistrates' Courts, Courts often criticized for exercising 'second class justice'? Will increasing sentencing powers for the Magistrates' going to solve the problem of limiting border line cases being sent to the Crown Court? Can't the Commissioner just be satisfied in imposing sanctions against guilty pleas to help with cost cutting? Perhaps no.

Nevertheless, it is clear that a proposal to limit trial by jury has been brought forward without proper thought as to the negative implications it would bring. Ultimately, I am of the view that the proposal should not be implemented and I fully agree with the Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson, that ‘...it is a dangerous attempt to cost cutting and there does not seem to be any' guiding intelligence to safeguard justice'.


For more information please log onto;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11683903

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/law-society-criticises-jury-trial-proposals-039entirely-wrong039

An update on the Yemen cargo bomb post

As I was about to settle down to an early night, I was surprisingly awakened by the sound of my blackberry that an e-mail had come through. Low and behold, someone from newsy.com, was kind enough to email me her thoughts surrounding  the Yemen cargo bombs and urged me to watch a video about an update of the current situation.

I hope you all find it helpful in your interest in the current situation  as  the video is about the different perspectives of news groups today. This includes; MSNBC and Al Jazeera. It's quite suprising to see the different stories main stream media is coming up with. What is most striking to me is the fact that the US authorities were tipped off by a notorious Al Qaeda member. Does this mean that there are a few good men out there and the World can be kept safe from terrorist attacks? Who knows what the real story is and how will this affect international trade and Globalization in the upcoming months? I look forward to reading your comments..

Enjoy the video;
http://www.newsy.com/videos/al-qaeda-helps-uncover-bombs-headed-for-u-s/

Clarrification

During Workshop 5, it came to light that there was confusion surrounding the US's stance on signing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of The Child of 1989. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that, upon my research that was carried out in preparation for Workshop 5, the US has HAS signed the Convention but has yet to ratify it. The US's signature was marked in 1995. This clearly shows that, not only does the US have no confidence  whatsoever in drafting international conventions but it also plays a paramount role in undermining the credibility of it. How is it possible to expect other countries around the world to abide by this Convention and yet the key player in drafting this Convention fails to support it? I can understand why Somalia has delayed signing and ratifying the Convention as the country is in a sad state of affairs with no central government but the US has no excuse. There is clearly something not quite right here.

Critics give  several reasons for delaying to ratify the Convention. One of the most striking for me is the fact that the Convention will under mine the rights of American parents. I strongly disagree to this and I find this a total disrespect and an embarrassment for states that have signed the Convention and to children around the world. In my opinion, the US government should be put to task for this if ratification does not come evenutally.

For more information please log onto;

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/11/18/us-ratify-children-s-treaty

Child labour presentation

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Child labour presentation

View more presentations from Vanessa Gill.

Sex trafficking re-explored ...

 After having read Silia's latest post and a comment from a fellow colleague from Thailand, I thought it fitting to put my personal thoughts on the matter in the form of a new post on my blog. I know this is completely off topic from terrorism and international trade but I hope you enjoy this;

Scandinavian countries have proved to be doing their fair share of work and for this, they must be applauded. On the other hand, whilst I was very happy to read about this, there is still heavy human trafficking taking place in the Middle east. Perhaps the media has made me more aware of the Middle East all of a sudden and I do not mean to be judgmental but there are so many Russian and east European prostitutes out there. They are promised jobs over the internet and when they arrive to the country to work, they have their legal credentials such as passports taken away from them and they are foced to succumb to prostitution. The reality is, most countries are making an effort to stop such violation of human rights but there are some, who just refuse to, even if, ironically, it is against their own fate. I apologise if this comment has offended anyone. It was made purely without malice aforethought.

On another note, regarding the previous commentor from Thailand, as I am aware Bangkok is notoriously known for it's vibrant night life of 'SIN CITY', I am unsure as to why the Thai government legalises prostitution in the first place. Isn't this providing a breeding ground for those 'rich' countries to engage in human trafficking and prostitution. I mean, if it's all legal in Thailand, who is to more to blame here? Hmmm.. I agree education means something, but what I gather from the situation is this, if people are educated, work hard, earn money and have a right to spend it on 'enjoyment' in whatever form it may be, then why stop them? I am not defending these people, I am merely saying it's no more their fault than it is the Thai Government for legalising prostitution.
Again, I apologise for offending you or any reader of this post. It is purely my opinion and you are free to comment and disagree if you would like to.

Apologies

Dear readers,

I sincerely apologise for putting up such long posts. I hope that you don't find them annoying or boring but engaging and intellectually stimulating.  I tend to get very carried away in my thinking hence, it's reflected in my writing. This is something I am working on improving during the course of the LLM programme.
I will aim to write considerably less in my upcoming posts.

Thanks for your understanding.

Keep reading and feel free to comment!

Kind regards,

Vanessa A. Gill

The world in chaos!

It's already been 2 days since my last post on Sunday about the incident involving  Yemen ink cartridge bombs and already bombs seem to be travelling across Europe! From small letter bombs being delivered to Athens, Greece (in Russian and Swiss Embassies) and  in  Berlin, Germany to the Chancellor; (Angela Merkhel 's) office . All in the while, America is busy engaging in mid term elections, trying hard to decide its fate and does not seem to be doing anything about the the rise of potentional terrorist attacks in Europe.To me this all seems like the perfect time for terrorists to strike

On another note,  if memory serves correctly, earlier this week, cargo bombs were being sent via ink cartridges on commercial planes. Now, Britain is taking matters into her own hands and banning ink cartridges (greater than 500 g) cargo parcels and limiting flights from Yemen and Somalia. What does this mean? In my opinion,  it simply means that even with the measures imposed, terrorists will try and find other means of trying to infiltrate secuirty systems and may even do so from other countries besides Yemen and Somalia. I am of the hope that the UN can come together and unite all countries in the world to implement a state of the art security  to detect such catostrophic, lethal bombs. If anything, I am of the view that  there is definetely a need to revise or reform the current law related to terrorism acts.

In the meanwhile, how does this affect international trade as a whole? Clearly, Britain's policies will hinder trade between both Somalia and Yemen but the question is, does this act as a detriment to this nation? I am of the belief that this does not affect any trading relationships between Somalia and Britain (I could be wrong) but it could have a detrimental impact on Yemen. Accordingly, in June 2010, the government of Yemen was implementing policies to improve business relations, investment and thus, overall trading with Britain. However, in light of recent events, it could be argued that as relations between both nations will be inevenitably strained, so will trading and investment. I am not an economist but I know that the world is far from recovering from the recession and if Britain is severing trading ties with countries like Yemen, what will this mean for other countries ? Will terrorism forever dictate the kind of economic and foreign policies each state will implement?  Globalisation will continue to evolve and as it does so, it will be clearer that terrorism will forever act as a huge disadvantage to international trading. It is up to us, academics and legal scholars to find a way to improve this situation.

For more information please log onto:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Cargo-Plane-Bomb-Plot-Al-Qaeda-Militant-Jabir-al-Fayfi-Gave-Tip-Off-Cobra-Held-Emergency-Meeting/Article/201011115788938?lpos=World_News_Right_Promo_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15788938_Cargo_Plane_Bomb_Plot%3A_Al_Qaeda_Militant_Jabir_al_Fayfi_Gave_Tip-Off%2C_Cobra_Held_Emergency_Meeting

http://www.moit.gov.ye/moit/node/1056