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

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

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more.

The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show. Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda. The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more. The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion,...

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

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

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/ccfb64fd-4b56-4699-96bb-b3a5014f5494/transcript

Advertisement