What is said below about a lucky jury is so true but shouldn’t be the case. Each sides get 3 strikes in jurors and I won’t say here what you try to avoid but there are two types in a sexual assault case. In WA all sexual assault cases are heard by a judge only. In my opinion this is a far safer way to go. Juror get lazy, they get sick of…
What is said below about a lucky jury is so true but shouldn’t be the case. Each sides get 3 strikes in jurors and I won’t say here what you try to avoid but there are two types in a sexual assault case. In WA all sexual assault cases are heard by a judge only. In my opinion this is a far safer way to go. Juror get lazy, they get sick of it and let me tell you it’s not black and white when it comes to the judges summing up and liberato direction. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/86024/sd-bb-26-defendant-giving-evidence.pdf
I agree that most cases should be overseen by legal professionals, either a Judge or number of judges, or a board of Barristers/Solicitors. Unfortunately todays population appears lazy in their thinking or just moronic; or they have an activist agenda.
'In WA all sexual assault cases are heard by a judge only. In my opinion this is a far safer way to go.'
I disagree. There are moves to end jury trials for alleged rape cases in England, solely for the purpose of increasing the number of convictions, and the proposal is causing concern. A jury trial is not a guarantee of a just outcome, however, it is a guarantee against a corrupt judge, and far too many are ideologically corrupted or politically motivated. 'Sir' Keir Starmer was the Director of Public Prosecutions responsible for the imposition of the 'believe the victim' doctrine at the Crown Prosecution Service and innocent men's lives have been destroyed as a result.
What is said below about a lucky jury is so true but shouldn’t be the case. Each sides get 3 strikes in jurors and I won’t say here what you try to avoid but there are two types in a sexual assault case. In WA all sexual assault cases are heard by a judge only. In my opinion this is a far safer way to go. Juror get lazy, they get sick of it and let me tell you it’s not black and white when it comes to the judges summing up and liberato direction. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/86024/sd-bb-26-defendant-giving-evidence.pdf
Have a read please i would love other opinions.
I agree that most cases should be overseen by legal professionals, either a Judge or number of judges, or a board of Barristers/Solicitors. Unfortunately todays population appears lazy in their thinking or just moronic; or they have an activist agenda.
'In WA all sexual assault cases are heard by a judge only. In my opinion this is a far safer way to go.'
I disagree. There are moves to end jury trials for alleged rape cases in England, solely for the purpose of increasing the number of convictions, and the proposal is causing concern. A jury trial is not a guarantee of a just outcome, however, it is a guarantee against a corrupt judge, and far too many are ideologically corrupted or politically motivated. 'Sir' Keir Starmer was the Director of Public Prosecutions responsible for the imposition of the 'believe the victim' doctrine at the Crown Prosecution Service and innocent men's lives have been destroyed as a result.
Be careful what you wish for.
Excellent point, Ian.
We are seeing overt partisanship within the judicial system right across the Western World.
In Australia, we now have barristers who are thumbing their noses at the "cab rank" rule, and refusing cases on ideological grounds.
Today's barristers are tomorrows judges, which reinforces the point that impartiality and fairness are now implicitly at stake within our judiciary.