It seems that Lord Leveson is once again
having a major influence on judicial procedures. We have no way of knowing
whether or not his colleagues view the matters presented in a similar
light. What seems plain for all to see
is that his high profile demands that government of whatever hue is elected in
May will place his proposals at the higher end of its “must do” list. As a magistrate and blogger my main interest
in his recent report is that concerning the right of defendants to choose mode
of trial in either way offences. This
allocation procedure was changed last year.
Theft to the value of less than £200 is now tried summarily only. Indeed the second ever post of my blogging
attempts (at a previous host) in November 2009 was devoted to the subject. Further posts on 26/10/2010 and 14/01/2013
seem prescient. My opinion then and currently
was not that of some crystal ball gazing individual with incredible foresight;
it was held by the vast majority of my colleagues. In other words it was in common parlance a “no
brainer”. If, as is almost certain, his recommendation on limiting defendant
choice of jury trial eventually comes into being it will not be a day too soon.
That is the worst thing you have ever written.
ReplyDeleteThe right to jury trial is nothing to do with the amount of the alleged theft, but the value of the defendant's good name. It is a shame you do not understand this.
Looks like Lord Leveson has got it all wrong then.
DeleteWhy do those who argue so vehemently for the right to a jury trial in preference to trial by a tribunal of three members of the public, not kick loudly against trial by a single DJ or DDJ? On this they have always been remarkably silent.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous, Because with the right to jury trial in all serious offences, it doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteBut is theft of a 2p screw serious?
ReplyDelete