-
-
Latest Discussions
-
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? -
It's not magistrates that are needed, it's judges and they will rattle through these cases whether the loos are working or not. Barristers get a brief fee and a day rate. -
I'm not sure that's true. I don't know how they bill (and I might be wrong) but I doubt they get paid each time they turn up at court and a witness or defendant fails to show, or the printer's broken, or the loos have flooded, or whatever. I think most remaining criminal barristers and solicitors these days (now there's no money in it) genuinely care about the justice system and would like to see trials coming to court quicker, but not like this. Plus, I don't see how these measures will help - they won't suddenly magic up all the courtrooms the system demands (that prev govts shut down), and do we even have enough mags to pick up all the extra non jury cases that will arise? Picking and panelling juries isn't what's causing the delay in trials going to court.
-
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.