Request a Tradesperson
Need a job done? Require a plumber, builder, gardener...? Ask in here!
Subforums
-
- 842
- posts
-
- 826
- posts
41,728 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 342 views
-
- 0 replies
- 650 views
-
- 0 replies
- 684 views
-
- 0 replies
- 118 views
-
- 0 replies
- 390 views
-
- 0 replies
- 357 views
-
- 0 replies
- 117 views
-
- 0 replies
- 469 views
-
- 0 replies
- 149 views
-
- 0 replies
- 317 views
-
- 0 replies
- 425 views
-
- 6 replies
- 1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 122 views
-
- 7 replies
- 900 views
-
- 0 replies
- 125 views
-
- 7 replies
- 551 views
-
- 0 replies
- 326 views
-
- 0 replies
- 308 views
-
- 0 replies
- 330 views
-
- 4 replies
- 680 views
-
- 0 replies
- 354 views
-
- 0 replies
- 335 views
-
- 4 replies
- 586 views
-
- 0 replies
- 346 views
-
- 0 replies
- 346 views
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
Do you have a link to this? The only one i could find was on the 24th July -
Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it. Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story. But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. -
judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW" -
Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same?
-