web analytics

Me, David Lammy; and a Jury

By Mike Cunningham On June 24th, 2020

For what is possibly the very first time, I find myself in both lockstep and agreement with David Lammy; an MP whose statements I have commented upon once or twice  before. I recall the time of Grenfell when he tried to start a riot with a Tweet, and then when he reckoned the London knife crime epidemic was caused by an £11 billion cocaine industry, and because of “Lack of Resources” (A.K.A. giving people less benefit money). 

But, just for a change, Lammy has stuck with the facts; and, it must be granted, he makes a compelling case. He writes of the ‘fundamental right’ of an individual, (Paywalled £ ) to  be tried by a ‘jury of his peers’ within the Judicial System of England and Wales; and of how this hard-won process is in danger of removal because of the CoronaVirus epidemic. A jury trial gives people the final say on the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens, and that one ideal, that ordinary people, not judicially-trained and tasked individuals, are asked to evaluate the evidence, as presented in Court, and then are asked to decide whether the Crown has made its case, or that the suspect can walk free.

The idea, as many of you will know, descends from Runnymede. That amazing time when the most powerful Barons forced a confrontation after a penniless King John’s return to England after the devastating defeat by the French in the Battle of Bouvines. The original document, as signed by the King, almost  at swordpoint; was changed, and modified, and further modified, but the result was the Magna Carta: in 1215: possibly the most important document in existence from the Norman invasion and down through the  Plantagenets, the Tudors, the Stuarts: even the Commonwealth, Lancaster, Hanover and the Windsors. The Magna Carta was not, as many think, the first, the preliminary to Parliamentary Democracy. Instead, it was an admission that the King could not rule by whim or decree, but instead by a set of rules agreed by the Barons and King John. But the one Article which could be said to be possibly the forerunner of the Jury system was Article 39, which promulgated :- Those who have been outside the forest are not to come before the forest justices on the grounds of common summonses, unless they are involved in pleadings or [are] pledges. And the evil customs of forests and foresters, of warrens, and sheriffs, and rivers, are to be put right by twelve knights of each county, who should be chosen by the good men of that countyThe ‘twelve knights’ over the centuries has morphed into ‘A jury of Twelve adults’, all  of  whom have been selected at random from the  Electoral Register.

But enough minutiae; I digress. As is self-evident, the whole Majesty of the Law has been placed in stasis, because of the CoronaVirus which has killed over 40,000 of our inhabitants. The number of postponed Jury trials has increased the backlog from 37,000 to 41,000: and, primarily because of the need for ‘Social distancing’, that figure is destined to increase. The problem is that no-one seems to have made up their minds as to how to  begin to unravel the knots which have tangled the whole process. In a normal Crown court, there are one hell of a lot of people, all working in comparative close quarters, because thats the way things have worked out. The Judge is the only one who isn’t seated next to four others, there are the lawyers, or barristers, clerks, solicitors, witnesses who have given evidence; and possibly the most important group; members of the public. With the way things have developed, Jurors are seated in two rows of six, and swinging a dead cat isn’t in the scheme of things!

So the present Lord Chief Justice has mooted the notion that, in  certain categories of trials, if the numbers (backlog) become unmanageable, limiting the possibility of Jury Trials is “Worthy of consideration by Policymakers”. This ‘suggestion’, by the most senior Judge on the Supreme Court,  a decision possibly taken by MPs who also bowed to ‘Circumstances’ by the acceptance of ‘Diplock’ trials in Northern Ireland during the Terror onslaught by the IRA. Trials with a Judge alone, it was thought, removed the distinct possibility, in Northern Ireland, of either biased or perverse acquittals, or of the worse danger of ‘Jury Tampering’,  where family members of jury members were routinely threatened by, truth be told, both sides of the Terror Gangs in that bloody time.

The problem is, as Mr. Lammy suggests, is that once a decision to remove a Jury, a centuries-old tradition of Jurisprudence can be routinely overruled as a matter of course, the fact is quite likely that they will never return. He further argues that serious thought be given instead to  the expansion of redundant buildings and underused areas to allow for more expansive courts, where the still-needed ‘distancing factor’ can be controlled and eliminated. He also points to the systematic closure of Courts, and states that, instead of continuing with the closing programme, the Government should provide the investment to increase Court sitting days when the crisis is eventually over.

He ends by starting that Jury trials are fundamental to our Democracy, and they must be protected.

I would however make one point upon Jury Trials. It is still  a fact that Magistrates have the power to send any offence triable either way to the Crown Court but, even if they elect to try the case themselves, the accused retains the right to elect for a Crown Court trial with a jury. Which is why  Tommy Robinson’s many court cases and appeals have always been downgraded so that he does not have that right to  a jury; mainly because this perverse system of Justice is rigged against a man whom the jury would have a natural sympathy for his  cause or pleading!

3 Responses to “Me, David Lammy; and a Jury”

  1. David Lammy?

    Didn’t he win the mastermind title of the least intelligent person who ever went onto Mastermind?

    That David Lammy?

  2. Lammy is hard to take. Most of the time he is one of the worst examples of grievance-identity politics, like too many in the Labour Party these days. The basic proposition is that a poor white family in Hackney is still “priveleged” compared to a poor black family in Hackney, even though their living standards are identical. Old Labour would have seen both families as victims of of inequality driven by unchecked globalism and Tory austerity policies.

    But he is right about jury trial. The state would love to do away with it, not least as a cost-saving measure

  3. More Tory corruption sleaze, nothing to see here, please move along:

    “Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, is under pressure to resign after newly released documents indicated that he had “insisted” a planning decision for a £1bn development should be rushed through so a Tory donor’s company could reduce costs by up to £50m. In one document, a civil servant in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote that the secretary of state (SoS) wanted the Westferry development in east London to be signed off the following day so that Richard Desmond’s company would avoid the community infrastructure levy (CIL). “On timing, my understanding is that SoS is/was insistent that decision issued this week ie tomorrow – as next week the viability of the scheme is impacted by a change in the London CIL regime,” the official wrote.

    The documents also show that Desmond, the former media owner and pornographer, lobbied Jenrick about the deal in writing and arranged a site visit for him. Desmond urged Jenrick to rush through the deal before the levy was introduced, writing: “We don’t want to give the Marxists loads of doe for nothing!”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/24/robert-jenrick-to-release-all-relevant-information-in-planning-row