TRIAL WITHOUT JURY-BAD DAY FOR JUSTICE.

[REDEYE_420]

I hope this doesn't become the norm!

Jury-free court case makes history in England

The conviction of four men for a £1.75m armed robbery at Heathrow marks the end of a historic case. After allegations of jury tampering at a previous trial, the case was the first criminal trial for more than 350 years to be heard in a Crown Court in England and Wales without a jury.
For those accustomed to the drama of a conventional court case, recent proceedings in the Old Bailey made for an unusual spectacle.
Gone was the jury of 12 tasked with weighing up the arguments of defence and prosecution.
Instead, the court often resembled a legal version of the X Factor, with a high-powered judge - Mr Justice Treacy rather than Simon Cowell in this case - considering impassively the presentations before him.
Evidence often had the air of a quiet conversation between old friends, with none of the normal rhetoric directed at juries.
Some barristers did their best to emphasise the sense of occasion.
"We're breaking history," said Sam Stein QC as the trial started in the vaulted surroundings of court 35 of the Royal Courts of Justice.

But a group of supporters of the defendants outside court were less impressed, waving placards saying "No jury = no justice".
It was a series of unfortunate events that led to this unprecedented trial - the fourth relating to a robbery in February 2004 in which a group of gun-wielding masked men raided Menzies World Cargo warehouse, seizing £1.75m in foreign currency kept in a vault.
Three previous trials collapsed, with the one in 2007 ending after a juror complained of being "stressed" and refused to return to court after a bank holiday.

Then after six months of evidence in 2008, allegations of jury tampering led to the third jury trial being abandoned.
The prosecution, fearing the same might happen in the next trial, successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal to allow an unprecedented trial without a jury in England and Wales.
The Appeal Court agreed there was a "real and present" danger of jury tampering, and considered that even a £6m package of protective measures by the police would not prevent it.
Despite defence objections that they had not been provided with any evidence of jury interference, the first jury-less trial went ahead.

Trial number four started in January 2010 at the Royal Courts of Justice with Mr Justice Treacy in charge.
The defendants were John Twomey, 61, Peter Blake, 57, Glenn Cameron, 50, and Barry Hibberd, 33.
They were all on bail despite being accused of a violent armed robbery, and mixed freely with their lawyers, friends and supporters.

There is more to the article, read the full article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8592505.stm

What are your thoughts on this peeps?

 

[cork144]

boom there theyve set the example, itll be the norm soon.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Trial without jury. Setting precedent is always the first step. Tyranny 101.

 

[Yes4Prop215]

awesome...UK never fails to disappoint in their quest to be the ultimate police state..

 

[tonto]

this was just a once off

 

[SpasticGramps]

this was just a once off

History changes constantly by one off judicial precedent.

Now all the PROSECUTOR has to do is argue jury tampering and it's turned into a military tribunal like that.

No wonder this so easy them to do.

 

[jpm]

one off i say, if its jury tampering multiple times then of course they'll have to get rid of the jury.

 

[Mala Tempora]

How many of you read the whole story? The jury kept getting tampered with. If they didn't remove the jury, the trial would have kept getting delayed.

 

[REDEYE_420]

Trial without jury is unacceptable.

Trial without jury is unacceptable.

How many of you read the whole story? The jury kept getting tampered with. If they didn't remove the jury, the trial would have kept getting delayed.

Three previous trials collapsed, with the one in 2007 ending after a juror complained of being "stressed" and refused to return to court after a bank holiday.

Then after six months of evidence in 2008, allegations of jury tampering led to the third jury trial being abandoned.

The prosecution, fearing the same might happen in the next trial, successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal to allow an unprecedented trial without a jury in England and Wales.

The Appeal Court agreed there was a "real and present" danger of jury tampering, and considered that even a £6m package of protective measures by the police would not prevent it.

Despite defence objections that they had not been provided with any evidence of jury interference, the first jury-less trial went ahead.

I read the whole story, that's why I put it up here and that was because I was shocked at what I read. Did you read it?

There was no mention about what spoilt the first trial, the second trial was ended because someone was "stressed" and the third trial had allegations of jury tampering.

Not only that, but the prosecution didn't even supply the defense with proof of jury tampering. WTF?!

And then with that said, a £6 million package of protective measures wouldn't have stopped the jury getting tampered with?

Come on, is the prosecutions story really that easy for you to swallow bro?

Trial without jury. Setting precedent is always the first step. Tyranny 101.

In this day and age I find wholly unacceptable that we can't protect a jury, and even less acceptable to me is that our right of a jury should be removed from us.

The idea of a jury is to be judged by your peers, not by a 'jury' of judges. I agree with SpasticGramps.

Some senior barristers are concerned the trial of Twomey and others has created an unwelcome precedent that could open the door to further similar trials.
Paul Mendelle QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, told the BBC: "A body of law might build up to make it more and more possible for a trial without a jury to take place."

So even barristers are worried that this might set a precedent!

CPS lawyer Neil Sweet said the Heathrow robbery trial was no different - apart from its scale - to what happened in magistrate courts around the country every week.

Trial without a jury should NEVER EVER happen.

WIKI:
English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right that allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by judges or a jury.

I rest my case-all rise....

 

[tonto]

stop being paranoid, those guys were no angels

 

[lost in a sea]

it will be the start of it happening more.....but only for big cases..

im not worried about it.........lets just keep rotting their system from the inside..

those lizard men and their shananigans!

 

[SpasticGramps]

stop being paranoid, those guys were no angels

Stop rationalizing tyranny. All you have to do is set legal precedent and then you can do what you want.

Those guys were no angels, but in ten years time, if this slowly becomes normalized, it may be your ass sitting on the stand without a jury.

 

[Cookie monster]

Stop rationalizing tyranny. All you have to do is set legal precedent and then you can do what you want.

Those guys were no angels, but in ten years time, if this slowly becomes normalized, it may be your ass sitting on the stand without a jury.

Precedent was already set in the 70's in Northern Ireland, non jury trials are nothing new.

Operation Demetrius (or internment as it is more commonly known) began in Northern Ireland on the morning of Monday 9 August 1971. Operation Demetrius was launched by the British Army and Royal Ulster Constabulary and involved arresting and interning (without trial) people accused of being paramilitary members. During the operation, the British Army killed 10 civilians[1] and detained 342 people, leading to widespread protests and rioting.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Precedent was already set in the 70's in Northern Ireland, non jury trials are nothing new.

Operation Demetrius (or internment as it is more commonly known) began in Northern Ireland on the morning of Monday 9 August 1971. Operation Demetrius was launched by the British Army and Royal Ulster Constabulary and involved arresting and interning (without trial) people accused of being paramilitary members. During the operation, the British Army killed 10 civilians[1] and detained 342 people, leading to widespread protests and rioting.

Ah, thanks.

Shit, they are already pro's over there then.

So much for the Luck of The Irish.

Trail without a jury is what you call being Shit Out of Luck in the game of Gotcha.

 

[Blckbrd]

If you were arrested for cultivating beautiful (but illegal) flowers, would you want to have a group of citizens decide your fate or political insiders and members of the criminal justice system decide?

The right to a trial by jury is Constitutionally guaranteed (in the U.S.). Justifying its deprivation is further erosion of individual rights in favor of what is nicer for the social group.

On the edge of the silver 2 and 5 Reichmark 1930's - 1940's German coins is the phrase "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eignnutz" or "the community comes before the individual."

It would seem that our legal trends, our new Acts (Patriot plus), and our representatives are adhering to this "sacrifice the individual for the good of all" approach to re-structuring the U.S. It's all great till its you or someone you care about who is gonna get sacrificed for the safety, security, or convenience of the group of lemmings.

 

[Cookie monster]

Doesn't happen any more thank god, was a different era back then.

 

[EstimatedProph]

Stop rationalizing tyranny. All you have to do is set legal precedent and then you can do what you want.

Those guys were no angels, but in ten years time, if this slowly becomes normalized, it may be your ass sitting on the stand without a jury.

You know very little about law. Read some Llewellyn, dwell upon it, come back. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution to prove that their case is the EXACT SAME as a prior decision. Any unique circumstance of a trial can legitimately make precedent null and void. Even in the common law system (England) this holds to be true and in post 19th century American jurisprudence is ALWAYS the case.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Any unique circumstance of a trial can legitimately make precedent null and void.

How often is precedent overturned such that it benefits the defendants and we the people?

Not very often in the US. It's usually the other way around.

 

[tonto]

Doesn't happen any more thank god, was a different era back then.

expect for gang members and terrorists.


would any of you guys have taken the durys place? even after
£ 6 million offered to protect you.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Smell that in the air? Smell's like fear to me. Kind of thick in air now with all the media banter of extremism, violence, and terrorism. Thinly veiled as "news" of course.

They are awesome at manufacturing it and yielding it as weapon.

This is the shit the well schooled elites read while taking a crap on the toilet. All you need to exercise the philosophy is absolute power and a nasty ego.

They are working hard on it.