Yesterday on the BBC site they were carrying a report on the first trial to go ahead without a jury. The case involved several men who were being charged with (I think) armed robbery. The justification that the judge put forward was that this was the fourth time the case had come to trial due to persistent issues with jury tampering in the previous 3.

I am curious to know people's thoughts on this. Can it be seen as a pragmatic solution to dealing with some people trying to abuse the legal system, or is this setting a dangerous president?

P.S. If anyone can find a link to the article, that would be grand.

Edit: Here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8106590.stm

A Mutha effing dangerous precedent!!!!
We will now see a dangerous expansion of this. All in the name of Justice and protecting people of course and before you know it PC plod is breaking down you door to pronouce you guilty ala Judge dredd.

Didn't the government want to have less trial by juries? I seem to remember a big hoohaa about it some time ago.

I would be more comfortable if it were a trial by a panel of judges, rather than just one.

+1 for dangerous precedent.

i believe that some serious cases should be heard in front of a panel of 3 judges without a jury
only any appeal would go before a jury which would be held behind closed doors and the identity of the juror's to remain secret

that way they can not be threatened while hearing any appeal but the evidence for and against the case has already been placed before a court with judges only presiding …

How's that going to work? They already complain that cases are too technical for juries (which personally I think if that's the case then they're not explaining the law well enough), the initial trial decides guilt, the appeal only deals with points of law and legal technicalities, hence why at the moment it's juries who decide guilt and judges who handle appeals.

I don't agree with secret trials or anonymous testimony, that path leads to the dark side. Every man has the right to face his accuser, so that the character of the witness may be subject to scrutiny (ie. so that a person with a grudge against you can't just give evidence and get away with it), and if you hold "jury trials" in secret, how are you going to know that it's a real jury and not a load of government sponsored goons?

they would face there accuser and all evidence would be placed before them and the court in public view but being judged by a panel of 3 judges only after this court case would any appeal arise
any appeal would be heard by a jury behind closed doors but the evidence would already be in the public domain that way the jury can remain secure and anonymous and have the case history before them to make any decision

the greatest threat to our justice system is the ease that the juries can be got too before and during a trail …

nope the greatest threat to our legal system is that we dont have a written constitution, so our beloved politicians try and fix/bodge the system to suit there own agendas.

For the record the UK constitution is partly written (Statutes), but it's not codified.

The statues can be rewritten and so much of our system is based on precedent not on codified rules.
Using crown perogative and the parliment act a government with a big enough majority can push through any law they wished.

a constitution and a statute (bill) of rights will only come about under parliamentary reform
that is one of the major reasons i believe in PPR as i believe that only when PPR has been achieved will a constitution and a statute (bill) of rights will be looked at and placed within law

to have justice you must protect the jury's the jurors must be safe guarded or they we not sit on a jury especially on the serious criminal cases

that's why i believe that these cases should be heard by a 3 judge panel in open court so the evidence is placed in the open and only an appeal to be heard by a jury behind closed doors which will safe guard the jurors

i can also go one step further and state that the jury in specialised cases should come from the background of the case such as fraud were only trained jurors would have the knowledge and background to understand the case fully but only on appeal would such jury's be required …

But surely judges, whether it be one or multiple, are just as prone to tampering as jurors?

Discrimination is always bad, whether it means that one has to endlessly repeat trials of this type or that one cannot prevent Dick Griffin attending a party with Brenda HRH