I am wont to describe juryless rape trials as “madness”, with which Wiliam Collins disagrees, with good reason. He accurately describes them as simply one manifestation of tyrannical radical feminist strategies.
Our thanks to Douglas for this. I’ve only scan-read it, but this section (pp.52/3) could have been written by Julie Bindel:
Juryless trials
In England and Wales, juries are used in serious criminal cases. The jury gives the verdict and decides the facts, while the judge determines any legal questions and will sentence the defendant if they are convicted. Jury trials can contribute to defendants having a fair trial under the ECHR, but they are not required, and a trial can be fair without a jury.There are already contexts where defendants don’t face juries in England and Wales. These include less serious offences tried in the magistrates’ court, when a defendant pleads guilty, offences tried in the Youth Court, and cases where there is a danger of jury tampering.
Some academics and stakeholders [J4MB: feminists, one and all] have suggested that juries are not the best way of reaching a verdict in sexual offences cases. Studies with mock jurors have found that levels of “rape myth acceptance” among jurors affect their verdicts. [J4MB: Absolute BS. William Collins’s piece on the matter here.] This means that jurors will be more or less likely to convict based on pre-existing ideas about sexual offences, rather than their decision being based on the evidence in the case. This reduces the chance of a fair trial. Further, it might be especially traumatising for complainants [J4MB: Women who might well be liars] to have to give evidence in front of 12 laypeople, and advocates might be encouraged to play to the jury or support stereotypes.
To deal with this, juries could be removed for sexual offences cases. Instead, a judge, a panel of judges, or a judge with some lay assessors (non-judges) could hear cases. They would give reasons for their verdicts, which would give clarity to all participants.
Rather than having to train new juries on myths and misconceptions for every trial, training [J4MB: “Training” by radical feminists] could be targeted at the judges (and lay assessors). [J4MB: a job creation scheme for otherwise unemployable feminists.]
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.
If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.
Buried in a series of provisions very clearly designed to hobble the defence and achieve more convictions there is this about the right to a fair trial. “That right is integral to the rule of law, criminal process, and justice in the courts where the powers of the state are marshalled against a defendant whose liberty is at stake”
In Scotland much of the legal profession has rebelled against the SNP’s attempt to “pilot” Jury less trials. I sincerely hope the profession does the same in England and Wales. After all the Criminal Bar Association was one of the powerful voices that reduced the “unsafe” convictions (25% of all such convictions) based on Police and CPS playing games to hide evidence from the Courts. As this report state they have no idea in fact about the effects of “myths” and “misconceptions” because Juries rightly cannot be quizzed about their deliberations! So all of this is itself based on myths about Juries !
As they themselves point out the truth is the defendant faces the full might of the Crown and can be imprisoned for long periods and be on a “register” for much longer. Despite their weasel words each provision is clearly designed to convict by preventing an effective defense.