Sumption's strength is a non-tribal approach to issue resolved for too many people by the narrative peddled by their current political icons of choice. That is a strength of Nelson's approach too.
Sumption and the establishment are reading from a script that is intent on enslaving the people through trial by judge. The jury don't have to give reasons because the people, the jurors, as a community, deliberating in conscience, are the final arbiter of law, the supreme sovereign power invested by the constitution of the people. 12 random people represent "the voice of the country" so far as is practicably possible and this is an ancient common law practice that the people, throughout the ages, have passionately afforded themselves to protect from all species of oppression. A practice so sacred that the people present the king with a promise to uphold this equitable framework - the coronation oath.
The people are being gaslit and deceived because they don't know how the constitution is supposed to operate. It's all about inviting the public to abdicate their conscience and blindly follow orders. A total inversion of justice.
Having done jury service, I'm sympathetic to pivoting to judges making the final evaluation.
In my experience, 1) most of the jurors would rather not have been there, and their level of commitment and focus mirrored that, 2) despite the judge emphasising the significance of 'without a reasonable doubt', at least half the jurors couldn't help themselves making suppositions based entirely on their 'instincts', 3) So much seems to depend on a sensible foreman corralling the group into the right position - without that steer it's just a free for all..
Net all, the concept of 'twelve good men and true' is clearly well past it's sell by date.
Having exercised my right to trial by jury and received a fine as opposed to a prison sentence ,which the CPS were pushing for in Bath Magistrates Court,I totally disagree with Sumption.I'm not interested in his high faluting contrarian arguments ,no matter how learned.God Bless you Judge Picton.(The charge was a racially aggravated one ,a few misplaced words on a neighbourhood dispute).
Judges who made wrong decisions can be challenged and appealed against? If your dreams my lord!!! Have you read any no of the thousands of bad judgements by woke human rights lawyers / judges? Yes some of them are just lawyers acting as judges, as both sense of the word ‘acting’!!!
Thanks for moralising away 900 years of jurisprudence because you do not like particular results. The Brits are real winners, whose economy is failing , as are Labor’s leadership. Too bad Guy Fawkes screwed up the revolution
Sumption doesn’t understand Americans . Neither you nor he are listening to the result of poor education amongst the majority of people in U.K. there is a downward spiral . They can’t spell democracy nor understand it.
You’re misusing the word ‘Islamophobia’. When people use it, they just mean racism against Muslims in the same way as ‘antisemitism’ is racism against Jews.
Both terms are misnomers, but that doesn’t matter, many words are.
When people complain about making Islamophobia illegal, they generally mean that they think it’s ok to be racist against Muslims. Are those are usually the people who are.
Question-is it possible to be critical of Islam as a religion which only finds expression through Muslims without being taken to be Islamophobic towards its believers and therefore racist? It seems to me that Muslims identify so closely with their religion that a perfectly reasonable view that the religion’s claims are preposterous and some of its teachings immoral immediately tag the critic as a racist.
Ok but can you tell me why there is anti Muslim sentiment? If it’s skin colour or simply that Muslims come from somewhere else then that racism pure and simple. But I believe it is more than that and I wonder what it is? Is it akin to anti semitism i.e possibly a sense that there is no desire or feeling (unfounded or not) that whilst they want to live in a society that does not follow their religion or cultural values they themselves do not want to integrate. Is it the feeling that to accept a Muslim population you have to accept their beliefs and practices (say cousin marriage or views on homosexuality) and if you don’t you are an anti Muslim racist?
Yes I can tell you very easily why thete is anti Muslim sentiment.
It’s called demagoguery. Very similar to anti Jewish sentiment in 1930s Germany. Anti catholic sentiment in 20th Century Northern Ireland, anti black sentiment in 20th Century USA. I can give you as many examples as you like.
It’s the powerful attacking the weak, scapegoating a particular group in order to rally people behind a particular cause and/or as a distraction from real issues.
Thank you for this very interesting note. You might take a look at the criminal justice system the British established in Hong Kong - JS certainly has, having sat on the CFA there until very recently. In short the Prosecution decide the venue based largely on likely sentence. Mags up to 2 years (3 for multiple offences) District Court - judges equivalent to our Crown court judges sitting alone - up to 7 years; High Court jury of 7 or 9 - for sentences 7 years to life. Together with the Court of Appeal and CFA this remains based on English law and procedure with little change since 1997. Of course post- 'Yellow Umbrella’ protests, the PRC imposed National Security Law using what amounts to ‘Diplock Courts’ is a whole other discussion - but otherwise Hong Kong, follows English criminal trial procedure and evidence to this day. In my 20 years experience, criminal justice works well and I have never heard any serious criticism from the many English or Australian criminal trial lawyers currently working there.
You didn't read it carefully enough, which sort of proved his point. The key problem with juries, as he clearly stated, is they don't give written reasons for their verdicts which, in turn, makes appealing their verdicts extremely problematic, because who is to say what evidence swung their verdict?
This is clearly evident in the very dubious Letby case, where a successful appeal will find it difficult to *prove* innocence in a case where no murders at all may have taken place.
"Don't be patronizing git" says someone who responded to a reasonable post with patronising blather about "elites" and "elitists". 😂 Ad hominem means you didn't argue.
And I'm old enough to recall Marxists talking this sort of crap about "bourgeois" "enemies of the people". It's meaningless, cliched garbage.
PS You *clearly* didn't understand it, because you took it to mean financial "cost"; he was talking about the cost to actual justice i.e. correct or incorrect verdicts, not "efficient civil servants".
The "man bun" comment just shows you're a cretin. Byeeee
Sumption's strength is a non-tribal approach to issue resolved for too many people by the narrative peddled by their current political icons of choice. That is a strength of Nelson's approach too.
Thanks for the write up. His argument against juries was certainly not one I’d heard before.
Sumption and the establishment are reading from a script that is intent on enslaving the people through trial by judge. The jury don't have to give reasons because the people, the jurors, as a community, deliberating in conscience, are the final arbiter of law, the supreme sovereign power invested by the constitution of the people. 12 random people represent "the voice of the country" so far as is practicably possible and this is an ancient common law practice that the people, throughout the ages, have passionately afforded themselves to protect from all species of oppression. A practice so sacred that the people present the king with a promise to uphold this equitable framework - the coronation oath.
The people are being gaslit and deceived because they don't know how the constitution is supposed to operate. It's all about inviting the public to abdicate their conscience and blindly follow orders. A total inversion of justice.
Having done jury service, I'm sympathetic to pivoting to judges making the final evaluation.
In my experience, 1) most of the jurors would rather not have been there, and their level of commitment and focus mirrored that, 2) despite the judge emphasising the significance of 'without a reasonable doubt', at least half the jurors couldn't help themselves making suppositions based entirely on their 'instincts', 3) So much seems to depend on a sensible foreman corralling the group into the right position - without that steer it's just a free for all..
Net all, the concept of 'twelve good men and true' is clearly well past it's sell by date.
Having exercised my right to trial by jury and received a fine as opposed to a prison sentence ,which the CPS were pushing for in Bath Magistrates Court,I totally disagree with Sumption.I'm not interested in his high faluting contrarian arguments ,no matter how learned.God Bless you Judge Picton.(The charge was a racially aggravated one ,a few misplaced words on a neighbourhood dispute).
I think you'd have been ok with Lord Sumption as the judge. Maybe not so much with the average judge.
I hardly think so ,he'd have punished me for having the temerity to dare to exercise my right to trial by jury as is obvious from his views .
Thank your lucky stars you're not American, then, where opting for trial results in sentences of multiples of the original plea "deal."
I'm certainly glad I'm not American with that orange clown madman in charge.
Nothing to do with him, it's systemic and about gambling your life on a trial.
Go to trial? LWOP on conviction.
Or take the plea deal and serve 10 years.
Justice for the wealthy, only.
Have you actually read Fraser's summary of what Lord Sumption said? He is clearly not a fan of judicial activism.
Judges who made wrong decisions can be challenged and appealed against? If your dreams my lord!!! Have you read any no of the thousands of bad judgements by woke human rights lawyers / judges? Yes some of them are just lawyers acting as judges, as both sense of the word ‘acting’!!!
Thanks for moralising away 900 years of jurisprudence because you do not like particular results. The Brits are real winners, whose economy is failing , as are Labor’s leadership. Too bad Guy Fawkes screwed up the revolution
`
Sumption doesn’t understand Americans . Neither you nor he are listening to the result of poor education amongst the majority of people in U.K. there is a downward spiral . They can’t spell democracy nor understand it.
You’re misusing the word ‘Islamophobia’. When people use it, they just mean racism against Muslims in the same way as ‘antisemitism’ is racism against Jews.
Both terms are misnomers, but that doesn’t matter, many words are.
When people complain about making Islamophobia illegal, they generally mean that they think it’s ok to be racist against Muslims. Are those are usually the people who are.
Question-is it possible to be critical of Islam as a religion which only finds expression through Muslims without being taken to be Islamophobic towards its believers and therefore racist? It seems to me that Muslims identify so closely with their religion that a perfectly reasonable view that the religion’s claims are preposterous and some of its teachings immoral immediately tag the critic as a racist.
Of course it’s possible to be critical of a religion without being racist.
But that’s not what motivates this mass hysteria about Islam. Anti-Muslim racism is rife in the west.
Ok but can you tell me why there is anti Muslim sentiment? If it’s skin colour or simply that Muslims come from somewhere else then that racism pure and simple. But I believe it is more than that and I wonder what it is? Is it akin to anti semitism i.e possibly a sense that there is no desire or feeling (unfounded or not) that whilst they want to live in a society that does not follow their religion or cultural values they themselves do not want to integrate. Is it the feeling that to accept a Muslim population you have to accept their beliefs and practices (say cousin marriage or views on homosexuality) and if you don’t you are an anti Muslim racist?
Yes I can tell you very easily why thete is anti Muslim sentiment.
It’s called demagoguery. Very similar to anti Jewish sentiment in 1930s Germany. Anti catholic sentiment in 20th Century Northern Ireland, anti black sentiment in 20th Century USA. I can give you as many examples as you like.
It’s the powerful attacking the weak, scapegoating a particular group in order to rally people behind a particular cause and/or as a distraction from real issues.
Thank you for this very interesting note. You might take a look at the criminal justice system the British established in Hong Kong - JS certainly has, having sat on the CFA there until very recently. In short the Prosecution decide the venue based largely on likely sentence. Mags up to 2 years (3 for multiple offences) District Court - judges equivalent to our Crown court judges sitting alone - up to 7 years; High Court jury of 7 or 9 - for sentences 7 years to life. Together with the Court of Appeal and CFA this remains based on English law and procedure with little change since 1997. Of course post- 'Yellow Umbrella’ protests, the PRC imposed National Security Law using what amounts to ‘Diplock Courts’ is a whole other discussion - but otherwise Hong Kong, follows English criminal trial procedure and evidence to this day. In my 20 years experience, criminal justice works well and I have never heard any serious criticism from the many English or Australian criminal trial lawyers currently working there.
At the moment there is chat via Traders Big Short 2 and USA has a lot of rare earth in old devices ... cool data
I suppose you know what you're on about you idiot.
You didn't read it carefully enough, which sort of proved his point. The key problem with juries, as he clearly stated, is they don't give written reasons for their verdicts which, in turn, makes appealing their verdicts extremely problematic, because who is to say what evidence swung their verdict?
This is clearly evident in the very dubious Letby case, where a successful appeal will find it difficult to *prove* innocence in a case where no murders at all may have taken place.
"Don't be patronizing git" says someone who responded to a reasonable post with patronising blather about "elites" and "elitists". 😂 Ad hominem means you didn't argue.
And I'm old enough to recall Marxists talking this sort of crap about "bourgeois" "enemies of the people". It's meaningless, cliched garbage.
PS You *clearly* didn't understand it, because you took it to mean financial "cost"; he was talking about the cost to actual justice i.e. correct or incorrect verdicts, not "efficient civil servants".
The "man bun" comment just shows you're a cretin. Byeeee