JURY TRIAL: HERE TODAY GONE TOMORROW?

There is disquiet in the legal fraternity, to say the least, over the proposals to allow some previous either way offences to be tried by a bench of lay magistrates in addition to the continual alternative of a single district judge [MC]. There has been an underlying antipathy between the professional lawyers and the "amateurs" for generations.  Perhaps that is due to the appointment of Justices of the Peace having been based on local power plays and political leverage. Despite lawyers and their organisations  lobbying for fewer lay magistrates and more district judges The Justice of the Peace Act 1949 reaffirmed the role of lay magistrates.

The current concern is that lay magistrates are just not capable, in the eyes of lawyers, of  being able to interpret complex statutes and can be biased against working class defendants although that latter criticism has been reduced by the efforts of the Ministry of Justice to follow rules on Diversity Equity and Inclusion on selections. The possibility of rogue sentencing by lay magistrates has been all but eliminated by the setting up of Sentencing Guidelines in 2010.  Perhaps the fact that the costs of magistrates expenses are less than the costs of paying a sufficient number of district judges is a deciding factor for a government having pawned so much of the family silver.  However it has been mooted that if district judges sat without a legal advisor, a requirement for a lay bench, the balance of cost might be tipped the other way.  There is of course another reason why criminal lawyers are frothing at the mouth and that is because legal aid fees, frugal as they are, are less for appearing at the lower court than for an equivalent case at the crown court. 

Magistrates' Court:

Preparation: £52.15 per hour.

Advocacy: £65.42 per hour.

Attendance with Counsel: £35.68 per hour.

Travel and Waiting: £27.60 per hour (only for undesignated areas). 

Crown Court:

Representation: £60-£70 per hour, according to Legal Action Group. 

Fees can vary significantly based on case complexity and the work required . 

Fixed fees may apply for certain types of cases or hearings . For example, a one-day summary trial in the Magistrates' Court might be around £1200-£5000 plus VAT. 

Generally speaking the mooted court changes will reduce lawyers` incomes and as with most professionals such change will be a driving force to other considerations. 

When it comes to the first level civil courts single district judges[CC] have long held sway without complaint from the legal professions.  Their argument or non argument stems from the fact that the standard of proof required in the criminal court is beyond reasonable doubt but in the civil court the balance of probabilities is the requirement.  The civil court offers financial not custodial penalties and the disputes are private and rarely of public interest. 

I suppose the argument put forward by lawyers against an increasing use of lay magistrates is their lack of legal training but that surely is the essence of their existence: they are appointed as communal representatives (although that could be questioned) and supposedly are vetted as to their ability to follow sometimes complex legal argument assisted by the legal advisor.  And that is where I must offer my opinion that from my experience not all magistrates have that ability.  The selection process is far too orientated to D, E, I, as noted previously, to the exclusion of  perhaps perspicacious and analytical qualities.  

The position is that lawyers support jury trials in criminal cases but accept judge only civil trials insofar as in the former a person`s liberty can be at stake but a financial penalty in the latter.    Criminal law involves the power of the state and serious consequences whilst jury trial is seen as a constitutional safeguard against abuse or bias.  However this current constitutional bulwark is under stress re the action and reaction to the proscription of Palestine Action and perverse verdicts. [this blog July 1st 2025]  A further argument to support an apparent contradiction in attitudes towards single judge trials is that civil cases often involve technical or commercial complexity to which judges bring consistency, speed and legal accuracy whilst jury trials involve rights and liberty. 

There is no doubt that although there are millions of words commenting on the whys and the wherefores of trial by jury sooner or later this government or the next must produce research on the whole process; eg magistrates courts decisions must be explained in public whatever the outcome.  Is it not now the time for a jury, perhaps with legal assistance, to explain its conclusions?  Is a 12 person jury with the occasional 10-2 majority the most suitable number of jurors? Why not 7 jurors?  Should a legal advisor be available to a jury? Should non UK citizens be excluded from juries?  Should mandatory English language proficiency be introduced? Should defendants be assured that jurors uphold English law as opposed to any religious affiliations which might be contradictory? Could AI give reliable or more reliable verdicts that could be a basis for jury discussion? Those and other questions must surely be centre stage in the light of a society undergoing fundamental changes as is British society.    

STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE`S MOUTH: THE IMBECILITY OF IT

Commenting on cases at the Appeal Court is generally for those above the pay grade of a magistrate especially one who`s retired but sometimes there are cases which demand a flicker of interest either for the matter in principle under appeal or as a subject which might eventually trickle down the legislative slope to affect everyone. 

I have commented not infrequently that it is only when they are retired that very senior members of the judiciary occasionally give their opinions on subjects which by their very nature are of concern to many.  One major difference between the British legal system from that of the Americans is that in their pursuit of democratic reforms during the Jacksonian era 1829 to 1837 the English tradition of appointment by state governors of judges was under pressure insofar as it was considered a non democratic process retained from the colonial period.  In 1846 New York State was the first to elect its judges when its constitution was changed.  By the time of the civil war most states had elections for judges. Reformers believed that appointed judges were too closely tied to political elites and lacked accountability.  After 1865 the principle of electing officials in many posts was firmly established. 

And where are we in England?  Last week to little fanfare a historic decision was made in the Court of Appeal that the secretive way judges are appointed via an ‘old boys' network could be at an end.  Commenting on the outcome Stuart Fegan, GMB union national officer, said: “This is an incredibly important ruling and a victory against the old boys’ network that’s dominated our judiciary for too long. Although the Court did not quash the JAC’s decision in Judge Thomas’s specific case – largely due to insufficient information and late disclosure – she can feel truly vindicated."

The justice system in this country moves at a rate that would make the erosion of glaciers seem hypersonic in comparison.  The "we know best" attitude that underlines so much of the way this country is run has not been a glowing success if recent and current statistics on so many aspects of our society are meaningful. 

Housing or the lack thereof must be one of the major blights on the way fundamental requirements of UK government`s overseeing of our lives is failing so many millions.   In the UK during 2024 England recorded approximately 164,000 dependent children living in temporary accommodation at the end of the quarter July–September 2024;  the highest level since records began according to publications.parliament.uk

By the end of December 2024 that figure rose slightly to 165,500 dependent children living in temporary accommodation in England representing a 13.7% increase compared to December 2023. The future of these children is almost certainly one in which they will be hard pressed to reach their full potential. And yet the supply of rented accommodation has for decades between a tug of war between government and local authorities and landlords: standards being the concern of the former and return on capital for the latter. Government action is to increase regulation and reduce financial incentives for landlords the whole process more like two kids on a seesaw than an honest realistic non party political way of offering security and permanence for those who need it most. Licensing of rental properties has become like a tennis ball at Wimbledon with proposals tabled and rejected as is the case in Luton.

Official secrecy has been an integral part of the manner of British parliamentary and legal practice for centuries.  Whilst there can be no such thing as truly open government light must be shone upon the more obscure or remote of many activities currently in the shadows behind closed doors.  The recent revelation  of a super injunction re Afghans requesting emergency evacuation to this country is a fine example.  The Watergate burglary in Washington DC on 17 June 1972 gave a new term worldwide for government cover up of a scandal.  Just think of how many such events have been revealed in Britain this century from Hillsborough, tainted blood scandal, post office scandal, myriad medical scandals, cash for honours, MPs` expenses,  Iraq War Dossier / "Dodgy Dossier", Windrush scandal, Cambridge Analytica, COVID-19 PPE Contracts / "VIP Lane", Partygate to name but some of the most infamous.


The election of Police and Crime Commissioners has been anything but a success and no doubt is in the minds of Whitehall flunkeys when any suggestion of more open and/or elected officialdom is mooted. Perhaps the British of 2025 are not the irascible citizens of a bygone era. Perhaps it was that irascibility that was a counterweight to the unknown few who were running the country. Tony Blair has confessed that with regard to the Freedom of Information Act, "You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. "I quake at the imbecility of it".

One might conclude that the above, straight from the horse`s mouth or lack of it sums up this entire post. 

MORE MOJ NUMBERS FOR THE NUMBER CRUNCHER

The Ministry of Justice just loves its statistics.  Perhaps it`s akin to parents who think that they`ve given everything possible to ensure a child`s well being except that vital commodity love. Click on item 13 here and judge [no pun intended] for yourself on statistics for magistrates. 

The full release of similar information is available here. 

THE FUTURE IS TOMORROW

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way..."


One of the most recognisable opening paragraphs of a novel ever written; it is of course a Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens 1859. That year also saw the publication of what could be argued was the most influential and far seeing theory of all time vying with Einstein`s Theory of Relativity; On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by Charles Darwin. It sold out in a matter of days. Both publications developed the idea of time both absolute and relative and are instrumental to this day in how we view the natural world. 


Perhaps in his novel it could be described as Dickens looking back and forward simultaneously from a tumultuous period still within the memory of many of his readers to an England approaching its zenith as an empire builder. With significant imminent changes to our system of lower courts in more than 50 years expected shortly it prompted me to think of how magistrates courts would be operating in the next 50 years.


1. Virtual and Decentralised Courtrooms

Personal appearances by interested parties ie bench, legal advisor, defendant and witnesses would be the exception rather than the rule. Virtual reality systems are currently at a stage where TV was in 1950. By 2075 all immersive systems will be the norm including AI simultaneous translating systems.


2. AI-Powered Legal Processing

Non human sentencing by AI will be the norm with the possibility of appeal to what might still be recognised as today`s bench of a judge and two magistrates.


3. Reform-Focused Justice

Courts will prioritise rehabilitation and social integration over punishment. Possibly with the use of compulsory medical [physical and psychological] intervention. Out of court pathways with a Dickensian Christian pathway updated for a modern workhouse concept will become available for recidivists.

 4. Data-Driven Sentencing

Current sentencing guidelines will be as simple arithmetic cf simultaneous equations in 2075.  With billions of bits of information it will be the natural extension of 2. above.

 

5. Magistrates as Legal Navigators

If lay magistrates have not been replaced completely by District Judges [MC] an entirely optimistic position,  they will work alongside AI systems to ensure fairness, ethics and social context are considered.

6. Transparency and Public Access

Almost certainly the proceedings at many magistrates courts will be transmitted by live TV or VR to local areas with advertisers paying fees per types of courts eg remand,  trial or sentencing with hard copy newspaper reports as outdated as pen and ink.  Current court TV is a very basic concept but it has established the principle. 

There will be of necessity human hands within or available in the chain of events as per 2. above.  A light hand on the tiller for continuous monitoring to ensure decisions are free from algorithmic bias especially with biometric data and personal analytics will monitor events in real time.

Of course all the above might be derailed by man made or natural catastrophe.  The generals and politicians involved in British policy at the time of the Boer War of 1899-1902 could never have foreseen the situation in 1939-1945 in their wildest nightmares.  Slave trading was abolished in 1807, transportation to Australia was effectively stopped in 1857 and both decisions were considered to be monumental errors by some vested interests.  However ever increasing influence of AI in so many aspects of our lives now and in the near future is likely to have similar unexpected repercussions as did the industrial revolution except the time frame will be in decades and not centuries. 

When I started school the family had to be put on a waiting list to have a shared party line  telephone, trams were the transport for 90% of city journeys, I learned to write with a  slate pencil on a slate board, I watched the 1953 coronation on a rich aunt`s 12" television set. On the other hand I played in the street, walked to school from 5 years old with my classmate next door, played in a local park a mile from home at 7 with my younger cousin and ran off when the park keeper thought we were misbehaving, travelled alone when I was 8 on a 300 mile train journey and wanted to be an astrophysicist when I grew up; an ambition foiled when I discovered my maths wasn`t up to the task. Blogging has been around for a quarter of a century and this blog since 2013.  I wouldn`t bet the term will still be around in 2075. Like the word charabanc probably unfamiliar to many readers not retired it will probably be out of use long before then. 

The future is tomorrow: long might it continue. 

SAME OLD STORY

 

LAY JUSTICES: APPEALING OR APPEALED AGAINST?

I would imagine that most readers are familiar with the system of magistrates courts and have strong opinions on whether the three lay magistrates sitting in judgement provide as good a system of justice as those who preach to us from on high keep telling us. Impending procedural changes are now in sight after a gestation period of twenty years. The anomaly of defendants` right to choose jury trial in “either way” matters  is likely to be removed in what will be the most contentious of these changes to be replaced by a bench chaired by a District Judge [MC] sitting with two lay magistrates. Whether justice will be better served will be a moot point for at least a decade until there is a sufficiency of statistics for those in Petty France to produce conclusions. Until then all we have is a study of appeals on verdict and/or sentence from the lower court to the crown court. 

A Commons committee in 2021 reported magistrates have a very low appeal rate of ~0.7% with half of those appeals dismissed or abandoned.  Historically there are about 14,000 appeals per year with approximately 2,000 successful convict appeals and 3,000 sentence variations meaning a success rate of ~39% overall.  There’s no comprehensive public data directly comparing overturn rates per bench of  magistrates vs. DJ since appeals challenge the final decision not who made it.

DJs are full-time, legally trained professionals. They sit alone, move swiftly and apply the law with consistency. Their courtroom manner can vary  but few would doubt their command of legal process.  The lay magistracy brings something different: lived experience, community connection and the expected collective wisdom of three heads thinking better than one. But JPs are not lawyers. They rely on legal advisers to steer them through tricky case law and/or procedure.

It’s widely accepted if not openly said that lay benches are slightly more prone to decisions that don’t survive appeal. It’s not dramatic. It doesn’t suggest incompetence. But the variation that comes with a bench of three non-legally trained volunteers is inevitably greater than with a single judge who’s spent decades in courtrooms.

 As written above the total appeal rate from magistrates’ courts is tiny and of those only around 39% result in an overturned conviction or a sentence adjustment. That means the vast majority of decisions stand.  The question is will those figures reflecting as they seem to do a standard of justice well done and seen to be well done be repeated with more serious matters likely to be coming in front of a lay bench?   Confidence in justice depends on the public believing they’ll be treated fairly no matter who’s on the bench.  The legal profession has never been over confident in the lay magistracy.  Whether that`s a result of their pecuniary interest insofar as appearing at the crown court commands higher pay rates or that many lawyers think rightly or wrongly that their clients are more likely to be acquitted at crown court is a moot point amongst many such points when discussing our legal system. 

During my tenure there was an "appeals folder" in the retiring room where every appeal  and its conclusion was listed with the original JPs or DJ named.  During the latter half of my time on the bench that folder disappeared never to return.   As has become so very apparent in this century the more government conceals or tries to conceal controversial information the more likely there is to be a vulcanic type eruption  when more openness might have allowed interested parties to let off steam with reduced pressure.  

With so many sections of our country`s infra structure frayed at the edges the forthcoming changes in  the justice system in general and the magistrates courts in particular will come under increased scrutiny. It is to be hoped that relevant statistical information will be published so that certainty supersedes suspicion when the trend to minimise the lay magistracy`s jurisdiction to non imprisonable offences, notwithstanding the current recent increase to 12 months custody, is once again reversed as has happened in the recent past.

NOT A SOOTHSAYER

 

Can`t say I disagree with today`s statement above.  Some of my projections  now are likely to have substance.  But one cannot be an accurate forecaster all the time when musing on such matters five years in the future.  A soothsayer I am most certainly not.

CAN ENGLAND STILL BE ENGLISH WITHOUT TRIAL BY JURY?

The effective classifying of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation has caused stirring amongst many in the legal profession and been amplified by some unexpected sources. The Times earlier this week had a leader opposing the legislation now applied to PA.  Simultaneously the mooted addition to the courts system whereby an intermediate court over which a District Judge [MC] would preside assisted by two magistrates has those same legal eagles in a spin.  Trial by jury is considered one of the inalienable rights of being an English person.  It ranks with Our NHS as a virtual totem created with wisdom and to be venerated by all. Millions, probably billions, of words on the topic are available for anyone with a functioning keyboard. Is it immutable?

Jury trial is a mainstay of predominantly societies deriving from the British era of colonisation; USA, Canada, Australia etc although some such nations notably India have dispensed with the format.  The proscribing of PA has raised an interesting question touched upon here last week when a spokesperson of said group was quoted as saying,  "The public is on our side. Remember that being acquitted can happen and we’re seeing it happen now."  Last Friday, Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, told a public meeting of more than 1,000 supporters that campaigns of civil disobedience, "will make the ban unenforceable."  

 In England and Wales peremptory challenges which allow defendants to dismiss a certain number of potential jurors without giving a reason were abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, specifically under section 118.

Now both the prosecution and defence may only challenge a juror "for cause". This means they must provide a specific, valid reason for objecting to a juror’s inclusion, such as:

• The juror is personally known to a party or a witness.

• The juror has a conflict of interest or bias.

• The juror is disqualified, e.g., due to a criminal conviction.

Challenges for cause are rare and are scrutinized by the trial judge who decides whether the juror should be excluded. Although peremptory challenges no longer exist, the judge can still stand jurors by for consideration (effectively sidelining them) in certain cases, particularly if concerns about fairness or impartiality arise. Additionally, the jury vetting process allows for some background checks in limited circumstances (usually national security or high-profile cases), but this is strictly regulated.

At the time of my appointment I had to state on the application which party I had voted for in the previous general election.  That requirement was abolished some years later.  I suppose in the minds of the "great and the good" who drafted such questions a politically balanced magistracy was an enhancement to the concept of all people being  equal under the law. In today`s England the great and the good are more interested in whether you consider yourself  white Welsh or brown Indian or perhaps black African.  Three incubating disturbing trends  which are likely in my opinion to be major factors in our society by 2030 are the disillusionment with the two main political parties, the rise of a minority although vociferous Muslim minority seeking protection for Islam as a religion under the law and a corresponding rise in ouvert antisemitism camouflaged as anti Zionism precipitated by the reaction to the Hamas massacre of October 7th 2023 in Israel such racism having been shown historically to be a prelude to underlying societal breakdown or worse. 

How likely or unlikely would it be for the verdicts of controversial trials to be determined on the political bias of jurors as quoted above by PA?  It is my opinion that that alone is an argument for dispensing with jury trials at least in such cases as happened in Northern Ireland during the Troubles when Diplock Courts were  established.  The alternative would be adopting the American system where jurors can be excluded .

As with so much of everything that is British, changes will be made only when the powers that be have been hurtled into a situation either unforeseen or facing problems that have been swept under the carpet for them and the rest of us to forget. 

PERVERSE ACQUITTALS AND THE WEAPONISATION OF JURIES

 
One of the great fictions clung to by our legal establishment is the untouchable wisdom of the English jury. Twelve men and women, good and true, convened to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Except of course when they don't. And occasionally, spectacularly so.

From time to time there are assault cases reported where despite video, multiple corroborating witnesses and visible injury or similar evidence, unmoved by the forensic and testimonial parade a jury has returned a majority not guilty verdict. Court reports would mention "sympathy for his circumstances"; he’d lost his job, the victim had a prior caution etc. The facts apparently irrelevant in such cases being secondary to other factors .

We’ve seen it before. Climate activists gluing themselves to roads  acquitted despite clear breaches of the law because juries “understand their cause.” For many decades there have been instances where protesters trespassing at military bases have walked free. It’s not the legality being judged but the politics and in some cases perhaps the charisma of the defendant.
 

These aren’t just quirks; they’re known quantities. Litigants in person can ask juries to ignore the law; barristers can`t. Barristers sometimes count on jury “common sense” to ignore the law when it doesn’t suit. It’s supposedly the unwritten safety valve of our system. The formal word is “jury equity”; the informal reality is selective application of justice.
 
 
To be clear, most jurors do their best. But unlike magistrates who are trained, appraised, and generally held to some level of consistency, juries operate as legal mayflies: brief,  unaccountable and gone before the consequences have landed.

Perhaps it is time we considered more transparency: not full public disclosures of deliberations; no one wants mob-judged justice but at least a recognition that jury trials are not infallible. A verdict isn't necessarily right simply because it came from twelve people in a room with a foreman and a checklist, an appeal being rejected by the Court of Appeal  and has been dismissed by the The Criminal Cases Review Commission.

 

The problem of course is that criticising juries is something of a taboo. It's a bit like that totem, OUR NHS, our national treasure. If we are to have an honest conversation about justice in 21st century Britain we must be prepared to acknowledge that not all verdicts are wise, just or even comprehensible. To pretend otherwise is to indulge in comforting fiction and fiction has never been much of a foundation for justice.
 
 

It takes a certain type of chutzpah to boast about acquittals before a trial has even begun. Yet that is precisely what a member of Palestine Action recently did remarking, "The public is on our side. Remember that being acquitted can happen and we’re seeing it happen now." One might imagine such a statement would raise eyebrows among those concerned with the rule of law. After all, if verdicts are anticipated not on the basis of evidence or law but on the perceived sympathy of a jury what does that say about the state of our justice system? The message is clear enough: The law might say one thing but juries will say another because they like us. In other words conviction or acquittal is not necessarily tethered to legal merit but to public sentiment. That’s not justice; that’s a popularity contest. The courts are not supposed to be arenas for ideology. Yet in recent years certain activist groups, Palestine Action among them, have learned that the courtroom can double as a stage. They’re not just seeking to defend their actions but to put the system on trial. And juries in their secretive deliberations sometimes oblige. Today activist groups are increasingly calculating jury psychology as part of their tactical toolkit. Legal guilt is almost secondary.

There’s a disturbing logic to this: break the law, make the right noise and rely on a jury’s reluctance to punish those who claim moral high ground. The more emotive the issue; war, climate, colonialism the better the odds. It’s not just courtroom drama; it’s calculated legal theatre. Since some suggest that being a barrister is akin to treading the boards we should not be surprised that even some members of the legal profession agree that there are colleagues who are willing participants in this charade. And the consequences are far-reaching. When certain causes are seen to receive jury indulgence public faith in even-handed justice begins to erode: one rule for activists another for everyone else. Ask the man convicted of criminal damage for scratching a neighbour’s car if he had the luxury of moral justification that the hooded trespassing paint sprayer of military jets claims.

Juries are a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. But they are not infallible nor immune to influence. When defendants begin campaigning to jurors, not before the judge, the balance has already shifted.
 

One might have hoped that those charged with criminal offences would meet their day in court with humility, not hubris. But humility is in short supply when you’ve discovered how to turn the jury system into a political loophole. Consider that open boast above from a Palestine Action member, made with the confidence of someone not fearing justice but anticipating a sympathetic audience.  Will we have to follow the Americans in extending the right to exclude would be jurors?

Translation? Break the law, wrap yourself in a fashionable cause, and let the jury do the rest. Legal guilt is negotiable when ideology is your shield.
 

This isn’t brave resistance; it’s cynical manipulation. It’s trial by politics not trial by evidence. What these defendants are really banking on is not the strength of their case but the predictable failure of jurors to apply the law when feelings get in the way. And they’re not wrong. Recent acquittals of activist vandals some caught red-handed have shown that for certain juries a cause deemed righteous excuses criminal damage. Smash up a weapons factory or spray paint government buildings and if you cry “human rights” loud enough, you might just walk free. The more performative the better. Hence the accusation at the investigative stage against police and CPS of two tier justice.

 
  
For those of us who sat for decades on the bench striving for consistency, fairness and fidelity to the law this is not just frustrating. It is corrosive. It mocks the entire foundation of the criminal justice system: that the law applies equally, regardless of politics, passions, or protest signs. Worse still, this selective indulgence sends a message to the public: some offenders are more forgivable than others not because of what they did but because of why they say they did it. That’s not rule of law; it’s rule by narrative.

 

Let’s be clear: jury trial is a cornerstone of English justice. But when it’s treated as a get-out-of-jail-free card for the ideologically aligned it risks becoming a constitutional liability. If the law bends only for those who shout the loudest we don’t have justice: we have judicial theatre with a pre-approved script.
 

Perhaps a modernised version of the system witch finders employed for centuries in determining a woman`s guilt or innocence to a charge of practising witchcraft is a sub conscious underlying feature of facts being abandoned: the woman was tied to a stool which was immersed by a wooden beam in a lake or river.  After one or several immersions if she survived she was considered guilty and punished and if she drowned her innocence had been established. 

It`s increasingly obvious that it`s only after they retire that the most senior judges voice their often critical comments on the legal system.  Of course their conversations with government whilst they are active are top secret.  I suppose that process succeeds depending on which side of the judicial fence one is standing to view it.  

And those of us who actually believe in equal justice? We're expected to sit quietly and clap from the gallery.
 

No thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

AND SO IT CONTINUES