Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 2nd December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Juries face axe under radical court reforms



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 19 September 2008
JURIES could be scrapped for long-running and complex fraud and murder trials under reforms being considered by ministers.
Such cases would instead be overseen by a panel of judges, following the precedent set in the Lockerbie trial, where three judges convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of bombing Pan-Am flight 103.

A set of proposals and ideas for Scotland'
s jury system, published by the Scottish Government yesterday, includes cutting the number of people who sit on a jury from 15, and changing the list of occupations exempt from jury service.

The radical changes were also raised in a consultation document which outlined a clear proposal to raise the age limit for jurors from 65 to 70.

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, said raising the current age limit would end a "clear discrimination" against older people. He said jury service lay at the core of the criminal justice system, but acknowledged the pressures on eligible jurors from long-running trials and the need to widen the pool of potential jury members.

He said: "On some of the more fundamental issues, such as jury size and occupational exemptions, we will take time to hear from a wide range of people, allowing us to reach decisions in light of robust evidence.

"However, as a first step we will raise the age limit for jury service from 65 to 70, recognising as we do the vast knowledge and life experience that senior citizens have to offer."

He also announced plans to reduce the exemption period for people who attend court but are not picked to sit on a jury from five years to two. The question of whether it is fair to expect people to give up a vast amount of time to sit on a jury was raised in 2004, when the gas supply company Transco was facing a six-month trial over an explosion that killed a family in Lanarkshire.

The consultation also suggests the use of "substitute" jurors to be drafted in when others fall sick.

Reducing jury size – which would lead to fewer people inconvenienced and lower costs – would be hugely controversial, as it could affect the number of acquittals.

Paul McBride, QC, said a "massive study" would be needed before any changes were made.

"We are the only country in the world where people are convicted by a simple majority. If you reduce the size of juries to, say, 12 and introduce a required majority vote of 10-2 – as is this case in England – this could result in more acquittals."

Ian Duguid, QC, the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said fewer jury trials would undermine a key pillar of the justice system. "I'm not sure that the interests of fairness can be reconciled with removing juries from trials," he said.





The full article contains 472 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 September 2008 9:44 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Legal Issues
 
1

2Right,

On Location 19/09/2008 02:46:36
Such cases would instead be overseen by a panel of judges, following the precedent set in the Lockerbie trial, where three judges convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of bombing Pan-Am flight 103.

And what went wrong with the Lockerbie (Turns out he is Innocent) case could go wrong with all other cases if this is allowed.

More Miscarriages would happen.

2

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 19/09/2008 03:46:49
#1 2Right -

One would hope that the judges would not be pressured or intimidated by foreign (and possibly UK) governments in such cases
3

terry osser,

morden 19/09/2008 05:14:21
more rights being taken away
4

Boy Wonder,

19/09/2008 06:12:40
What's next ... bringing back trial by combat or ducking in Duddingston Loch.
5

Mikey,

19/09/2008 07:14:04
Actually, this has been on the cards for years. All you have to do is have a look at the large fraud trials in Sassunn that have collapsed owing to juries being unable to understand what was going on!

If course that would never happen in Alba as the onionists know everything!
6

paulr,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:05:56
Right then,
raising the age to 70?
fair enough as a lot of our so called learned judges are well into their dotage, err i mean 70's, senility should not bar anyone from sitting on a jury as it does not bar you from being a judge.




7

paulr,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:07:03
#5
Sassunn? onionists?
8

ultravires,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:25:48
Banishing Juries on the example of the disgraced Lockerbie trial ? What other bright ideas can we expect from Mr MacAskill to limit the right to a fair trial ?
How about renaming the Court of Session to the "People's Court" and getting a rubber stamp Judge (of which there appear to be many) to do one's bidding ?
9

Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, Mebo Ltd,

Zurich 19/09/2008 08:35:49

We should never forget that conspiracies are not theories but crimes.
Governmental interference, political intrigues and
suppression instead of civil and human rights !!!

Please find the truth and visit our webpage: www.lockerbie.ch

best Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd
10

Vote UKIP,

19/09/2008 10:32:32
The end of English Common law. We'll see a lot more European Corpus Juris (guilty until proven innocent) now that the Lisbon Treaty has been signed.

You should've voted UKIP!
11

Brodric,

19/09/2008 11:10:51
No 5 Mikey - you are absolutely right. It makes more sense in cases where there is complex evidence. I wouldn't like to try to make sense of the language of financial complexities - or even some forensic evidence.

There are times when we need "expert"s to assess the rights and wrongs of an issue.
12

Guga II,

Rockall 19/09/2008 11:34:07
I knew that waste of space, Kenny MacAskill, would come out with even more garbage.

Using the Lockerbie trial as an example of how the system would work without a jury is not a good idea. That particular episode has brought the whole of the Scottish legal system into disrepute by railroading an innocent man.

As for raising the age of jurors, perhaps he should be thinking of giving an IQ, mental acuity or mential health tests to ALL potential jurors, as well as to ALL judges and Sheriffs. Age is no bar to mental deficiency, nor to mental deterioration. Such things as alzheimers, dementia and similar can strike people long before they reach the age of 65 or 70.

With regard to accupational exemptions, these should be scrapped. Everyone should be available for jury service without exemption, other than for health reasons.

As to the number of jurors, from my understanding of the system, there needs to be 15 for a criminal trial, but that the number can vary for civil matters. In any event, the system has served us well, so why change it?
13

ultravires,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 11:42:33
Brodric

And what exactly defines an expert ?

I know of some "experts" on the list of "expert witnesses" who have no qualifications at all - the only reason they are there is because some of those who profess to have higher morals than the rest of us want them in position for a guaranteed verdict when it is needed.

How about an expert witness such as this : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/23/ukcrime.law

Most of these Judges lead such sheltered lives they are aloof from anything that happened post 1918 so trusting them on their own to decide a person's guilt falls far short of a fair trial, which the rest of you should start screaming about before you are bitten by the Crown Office or less-than-honest-cops later on in life.
14

,

19/09/2008 14:26:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

hertscot,

19/09/2008 14:53:48
So how does the bloke from acoucil estate get a fair trial when he is faced with a panel of people who have never even seen a council estate.
16

hertscot,

19/09/2008 14:54:24
that should of course read...a council estate...
17

Jingo,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 15:27:31
"The end of English Common law."

We don't have English common law on account of the fact that we are not England.
I don't agree with reducing the jury from 15. It's part of our heritage and at least we never get a hung jury as they do in England.
18

Jingo,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 15:29:32
Hertscot, we don't have council estates in this country, we have housing schemes.
19

albanman,

19/09/2008 17:29:44
I'm wondering how juries are selected. I'm British, and from 1979-2004 lived in the USA, becoming a US citizen in 2000 (so I have dual nationality). Between 2000-2004 I was called for jury service 5 times, but was never selected to serve.

I've been back in the UK for 4 years and am on the voting register but have never once been requested to present myself for possible selection to serve on a jury. I'm a strong believer in the system, especially having witnessed the process in the US. It would be a bad move to 'ditch' juries on the cases mentioned.
20

ultravires,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 18:33:00
albanman

It would be a bad move to ditch juries, but as part of the jury ditching process of the Scottish Government, Kenny MacAskill recently supported the release of jurors names & addresses.

Would you go on a jury of say, a gangland murder trial, if you knew your name & address might be released to anyone who wanted it, including those accused of the crime ?
21

Kitti Kat,

19/09/2008 18:41:14
sure hope this doesn't happen here! Being judged by a panel of one's peers should be the way to decide "guilty or not guilty!". a biased judge could convict a possibly innocent person or perhaps let a violent criminal loose. Not a good move.
22

2Right,

On Location 20/09/2008 01:45:56
Ultravires

Yes I agree with you on the Jurors names and addresses being released.
Who would want to sit on some of our recent Glasgow High Court trials as Jurors if they know their names and Addresses will be made available to the accused.

This should never happen yet the following site has them posted:

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/2008/08/sccrc-say-its-ok-to-reveal-jurors-names.html

As well as that they appear to have "Crown Precognitions" with witnesses names and addresses too

23

ultravires,

Edinburgh 20/09/2008 10:19:33
2Right

Given the comments of Paul McBride & Ian Duguid in the story above, they should perhaps ask Mr MacAskill why the Crown are supporting the release of jurors names & addresses - because if there has been no investigation or no charges, the Crown must surely support what happened.

Is this all part of the plan to undermine juries by the Government ? Require a person's attendance for jury duty then release their names, addresses and what have you to all & sundry ?

24

bluehead,

edinburgh 22/09/2008 12:45:42
what the really mean is that it will save money,and that of course is far more important than proper justice.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.