Mike's Minute: I think we should get rid of some jury trials

In the UK the Justice Secretary has suggested the end of the jury trial, except for rape, murder, manslaughter, or what he calls "cases that pass a national interest test".

The idea has received the sort of reaction you would expect from the usual quarters you would expect it from.

My hope is we might want to look at something similar here.

The wait, like in the UK, for a trial is absurd. The system is overwhelmed.

Getting a jury is hard work and will never get any easier.

So if we accept the system doesn’t function in a way we would want, judge-alone would be an immediate improvement in efficiency.

Could I be controversial and suggest the reality also is that most people who end up in court are in fact guilty of what they are accused of doing? Which is not to change the idea that you are innocent until proven otherwise.

It's just that you can mount a fairly solid argument that a jury is made up of a collection of people who may or may not want to be there, may or may not know what's really going on, may or may not get nuance and minutiae of certain aspects of the law and, therefore, as a collective be a fairly weak representation of the justice you seek.

In a way it's like democracy. We love the idea but at local body level we literally can't be bothered. We don’t even turn up so is the idea still a sound one, even if it doesn’t work?

Being judged by a jury of your peers - what a wonderful 1800's style thought. But here in the real world it's got a very stale, arduous vibe to it.

Why is it important that 12 people agree on something? Well, it isn't if they can't because in some cases we then make it that only 11 people need to agree. So you see, rules are malleable.

In some places it's 10 needed. So lets not get all rigid, because the law has been around a while.

If the basic premise is justice being seen to be done then the “doing” has to have an element of pace about it. Not rushed, not rubber stamped and open to skullduggery, but an efficient system seen to be working well.

You can't argue we have that, or anywhere close.

Lammy of the UK has been bold and good on him.

Let's hope the same boldness resides somewhere here as well.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
From the UK, just as Secretary Lammy has suggested the

(00:03):
end of the jury trial except for rape, murder, manslaughter
or what he calls cases that pass a national interest test.
Now the idea has received the sort of reaction you
would expect from the usual court, as you would expect
it from now. My hope is we might want to
look at something a little bit similar here. Now the
weight like the UK for a trial in this country's absurd.
Of course, the system's overwhelmed. Getting a jury is hard work.

(00:25):
It's never going to get any easier. So if we
expect the system and it doesn't function in a way
that we would want, judge only I would have thought
would be an immediate improvement and efficiency. Could I also
be controversial and suggest the reality is that most people
who end up in court are in fact guilty of
what they're accused of doing, Which is not to change
the idea that you were innocent until proven otherwise. It's

(00:48):
just that you can mount a fairly solid argument that
a jury is made up of a collection of people
who may or may not want to be there, or
may or may not know what's really going on, or
may or may not get nuance and minutia I have
certainly aspects of the law, and therefore as a collective
be a fairly weak representation of the justice you seek.
In a way, it's like democracy if you think about it.
I mean, we love the idea of democracy, but at

(01:09):
local body level, for example, we literally can't be bothered.
We don't even turn up. So is the idea still
a sound one even if it doesn't work being judged
by a jury of your peers? I mean, what a
wonderfully eighteen hundred style of thinking. But here in the
real world has got a very stale, arduous sort of
vibe about it these days. I would have thought, why
is it important that twelve people agree on something? Well,

(01:31):
it isn't, of course if they can't, because in some
cases you then make it eleven. Oh it's not twelve,
as it's eleven, and so the rules are malliable. In fact,
in some places in cases it's ten. So let's not
get all rigid because the law's been around for a while.
If the basic premise is justice being seen to be done,
then the doing has to have an element of pace
about it, not rush, not rubber stamped and open to

(01:52):
skull duggery. But an efficient system seen to be working
well now, you can't argue we have that, or anywhere
close to it. The UK has been bold, and good
on them. Let's hope the same boldness resides somewhere here
as well. For more from The Mic Asking Breakfast, listen
live to News Talks at B from six am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio