Has David Lammy been watching Judge Judy?

[CPR Dave]

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. 

[HeadNun]

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? 

[Sephiroth]

56 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

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. 

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"

Edited 17 hours ago by Sephiroth

[HeadNun]

6 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

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"

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. 

[Angelina]

I think it's outrageous that he thinks he can do this. This is about reducing waiting lists. How dare he seek to fundamentally change the judicial system to address administrative failings (for which he is responsible).

Courts are notoriously slow. Judges are slow. Perhaps look at WHY there are so many cases - what's going on? is crime going through the roof? Why not more judges, why not look at how court admin is managed? 

We had one judge - over retirement age, who only worked once a week (possibly) and was slow, frail and no idea about emails etc. no sense of urgency. I actually complained which did hurry things up.  This is not a dynamic private company who wants to get things done - it takes time, it's a complicated and thorough process. RIGHTLY SO. 

As least he's not lifting the lid on free legal aid and increasing the tax payers funding of it.