Tonight:
4°c
The first criminal trial in England to take place without a jury has been given the go-ahead to combat the threat of jurors being “nobbled”.
In a historic decision three Appeal Court judges ordered the move in the trial of four men accused of a £1.75 million Heathrow robbery in 2004.
The case has already come before three different juries and cost the taxpayer an estimated £24 million — 14 times more than the robbers' haul.
One of the key tenets of British justice is a defendant's right to trial by a jury of 12 men and women.
Throughout legal history judges have refused to consider anything that would jeopardise this fundamental right.
But the Appeal Court was told that if a new jury was sworn in for a new six-month trial of the
Heathrow case they would require 24-hour protection involving 82 police officers and
costing a further £6 million.
A second suggestion was put forward of lesser protection costing £1.5 million and requiring
32 officers.
But the judges ruled that the threat of jury tampering was so great that even such protective
measures “would be quite unacceptable”.
“The danger of jury tampering and the subversion of the process of trial is very significant,”
said the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, sitting with Lord Justice Golding and Mr Justice McCombe.
“But in our judgment these protective measures do not sufficiently address the extent of the risk... nor sufficiently address the potential problem of interference with jurors through their families.”
Later the judges lifted restrictions on naming the four defendants who will face trial without a jury.
They are: Peter Blake, of Westbourne Park, John Twomey, of New Milton, Hampshire, Barry Hibberd, of Goldhawk Road, and Glen Cameron , of New Milton.
The charges in the case include robbery, conspiracy to rob and possession of firearms with
intent to endanger lives. The raid was carried out in February 2004 at a warehouse at Heathrow
Airport by armed and masked raiders.
They aimed to take £10 million in sterling and foreign currencies but were only able to
find £1.75 which mostly remains unrecovered.
Trials without jury have taken place elsewhere in Britain. The trial of the Libyan intelligence
agents accused of carrying out the 1988 Lockerbie bombing was held in the Netherlands but
presided over by a panel of Scottish judges.
More controversially “Diplock” courts were introduced in Northern Ireland in 1972 on the
recommendation of a senior English judge to allow alleged terrorists to go on trial as an
alternative to internment.
A single judge heard evidence but they were hugely controversial with accusations from
Nationalists that they were institutionally
anti-Catholic. They were abolished in 2007.
Reader views (17)
First they came for Habeus Corpus. Then they came for trial by Jury. Then they came for the Human Rights Act.
Then they came for the journalists who dared speak out...
- Londoner, London, England, 19/06/2009 10:18
Report abuse
I think that a panel of judges, trained in the law, and wanting to do the job is at least as likely to reach 'a true verdict according to the evidence' as a panel of 12 people picked off the street, some of whom probably do not want to be there. What does concern me is that the trial may be conducted by one judge sitting alone. This is grossly unfair both to the judge, who would be given too much responsibility, and to the defendants. A 'judge only' trial should be heard by at least three judges sitting together.
- Aubrey Allen, London, 18/06/2009 22:14
Report abuse
Welcome to Police State UK.
- Reuben Camara, Morecambe UK, 18/06/2009 18:42
Report abuse
Clif, you've hit it right on. The U.K. has already agreed to adopt many of the continental legal procedures, and the aim is to make procedural law uniform all across the E.U. The U.K. is the odd one out, with its common law and juries as opposed to the continental judge/judges without juries. This is the "thin edge of the wedge". After the Lisbon Treaty (E.U. Constitution) becomes law, watch for a lot more of the same, including the Left-Hand-Drive Directive and the Euro Directive!! You can't have one province operating differently from all of the others!! The British don't seem to fully appreciate what they have given away -- their right to self-govern, in effect, their country. The Lisbon Treaty, which Brown and Clegg shoved through Parliament with virtually no debate, was far far far more important for the British than even the recent financial downturn. Once you have given away self-government, you'll never get it back. The right to self-govern is EVERYTHING, and it is largely already gone for the British people.
- Phil Jones, London UK, 18/06/2009 18:41
Report abuse
NuLiebour have been trying to find an excuse to foist the EUropean system of "justice" upon us, it looks like they have finally succeeded.
Up until now this system of trail has only been used in Northern Ireland (Diplock Courts) because the thtreat of disruption from paramilitaries, especially republicans, is so high.
This is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. The jury system has protected the common man from the state for over a thousand years in this country. How long before people are tried for political crimes without the protection of their peers?
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 18/06/2009 17:30
Report abuse
I am more concerned about Judges looking after there own, than I am being Judged by 12 men and true. A Jury keeps evidence simple and easy to undertsand and lawful. Now Judges have too much power. A sad sad day
- Ge, Kernow, 18/06/2009 17:06
Report abuse
it is high time you got rid of this archaic and outmoded system of jury trials.let the people who are trained in the law do the job for which they are appointed and paid.if this had been the case this waste of public funds and time would not have taken place.why have judges if they dont judge?
- P Campbell, Port Elizabeth South Africa, 18/06/2009 15:41
Report abuse
So what is to stop the Judge being 'nobbled' ?.
Sadly this is a slippery slope into European Law brought about by our entry and ratification of European Treatys.
The European Arrest Warrent allows for a person to be detained without evidence, shipped to the Country that issued the Arresst Warrent, where further charges could be brought and in many European Countries there is no trial by Juryand Guilty until proven innocent.
British Courts for example already pass judgement of ' heresay' evidence when presented by the CSA,,..no proven evidence is required just the fact the person A owes X amount of money.
You will find that all those habus corpse old Laws have been swept away in the fine print of those EU Treatys the MP's did not want you to vote on.....just one more reason to understand why.
- Clif, London, 18/06/2009 14:43
Report abuse
I'm in two minds here. I'm sure that the risk of jury tampering is very real, but also aware of the dangers of denying someone a jury trial. Perhaps it should be explicit, that trials without juries be restricted to violent crimes where the accused have prior (jury) convictions for violent offences or intimidation?
And yes, I do think the rules should be different for a previously convicted felon. If someone wanted to retain the right to a jury trial, they should not have committed a serious crime in the first place. Or perhaps waiving the right to a jury trial should be a condition of release from jail on parole.
- Nigel, London, 18/06/2009 14:36
Report abuse
How is it not possible to protect a jury, say by bussing them into a secure court and away again? How is it that their identities cannot be protected from a bunch of thugs? Situations like this have occurred before without a surrender of this kind.
Government is alway trying to erode the power and influence of juries (ie, you and me) on the administration of justice: just look at the nobbling of the de Menezes jury by saying - quite illegally- what verdicts they could and couldn't return.So it's possible that public danger is being used as an excuse for administrative laziness . The precedent of the Lockerbie trial, which sent an obviously innocent man to jail for political convenience, is one we should dread.
- Mdj E10, london uk, 18/06/2009 14:30
Report abuse
More insidious creeping cancer from the eu - thanks.
- Wen, Oxfordshire, 18/06/2009 14:18
Report abuse
I agree with Micky in London. This country is losing any claim it had to be a champion of people's fundamental rights. Judges get nobbled - FACT. I would rather have 12 ordinary people making a non-political decision about my case. This will soon spread if the British people don't start fighting this now.
- M, London, UK, 18/06/2009 14:15
Report abuse
Lickyalips - Some people are just not up to the job.
When I served on a jury I was astounded at the feeble mindedness and unwillingness to take some social responsibility by some of my fellow jurors.
One couldnt find the accused guilty because he reminded her of her own son!
Another said, finding him guilty would ruin the accuseds life and he couldnt do that!
After winning these fools around and finding him guilty, the judge announced sentencing which took in to account several other cases where he had been found guilty of similar offences.
If my feeble fellow jurors had their way, "little Jimmy" would be on the streets continuing his life of crime.
- Dave Davies, Basingstoke, Hants, 18/06/2009 13:43
Report abuse
Every Jury Trial has the risk of interference; but rarely happens in reality; there are measures in force already to protect juries; and always have been there etc.
One can always say with some honesty; that some juries have let some of the guilty go free etc; but it can also be said with fact; that some juries convict the innocent as well etc.
The law is far from perfect; but everyone has the right to a trial by jury etc.
It is a fallacy to think that Judges alone will give true justice to anyone in court; they are just as fallible as any jury etc; but with a jury you have 12 minds hearing all the evidence; and not just the one mind of a single judge etc.
I personally see this ruling as the start of State Control; over all the people.
Remember this; the Judge is paid by the State; and the Judge can be controlled by the State; the State cannot control 12 members of a Jury?
You have all seen the corruption of your MPs; not one has been charged with any crime; in-fact none has even been questioned etc; yet these people are the State; do you trust them with meddling and altering the Law of the Land?
Having one judge to judge MPs and the elite; will suit them fine; after all they are all from the same elite that rules and legislates for the masses etc; one judge for the people will result in no law at all for any of the ordinary people.
I point out also; that the police and the prosecution, have often interfered with the evidence in the past.
- Mickyinlondon, london, 18/06/2009 13:33
Report abuse
Jury tampering and witness intimidation are probably more serious threats to fair criminal trials than exceptional trials without jury and witness anonymization.
- Bloke, London, 18/06/2009 12:50
Report abuse
This decision is against constitutional law. The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights specify that a defendant has a right to trial by jury.
Farewell habeus corpus.
- Lickyalips, Londonistan, 18/06/2009 12:25
Report abuse
If the jury I served on is anything to go by , this is a godsend for the law abiding.
- Chris M, morbihan,france, 18/06/2009 11:55
Report abuse
