Suggesting that Judges decide verdicts in thousands of cases is Peak Starmer.

Lawyer MPs recommending that other lawyers decide things under the leadership of a lawyer leader.

Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers.

Above ordinary people.

Well, let me tell you a secret about lawyers… 🧵 They aren’t special.

Not at deciding facts.

On the contrary, they can be ill-suited to it.

Jury trials have some law, and the judge directs them on that.

But the trials are often about what happened in the nightclub queue, the pub throng, the pitch invasion, the night bus.

David Lammy is doing a ‘true or false’ exercise with his court reforms.

We can all play that game.

Let’s start with this one: if you are falsely accused of sexual assault with a sentence threat of 18 months in prison, you will still have the safeguard of a jury?

FALSE.

🪡 🧵

https://twitter.com/mojgovuk/status/2030610170141655473

They are keeping the automatic right of appeal (re-hearing) from the Magistrates’ Court as a safeguard for speedy summary justice and also to recognise that lots of those appeals are successful?

FALSE

🚨 Judge Only Trials 🚨

The law of unintended (👀) consequences.

An old-fashioned long thread.

And a prediction.

👇🏼🪡 🧵 Hello. Welcome to my theory about judge-alone trials. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. I’m not mad. Promise. It is what I consider to be the likely practical impact of the legislation being proposed.

And I don’t like it.

I don’t think you, or your MP, will like it, either.

I could literally reduce the Crown Court backlog in 9 steps starting tomorrow. And precisely none of it would involve tampering with jury trials. First. Sit at full capacity. Open closed courtrooms. The argument ‘there aren’t enough judges or lawyers’ really doesn’t lend itself to supporting a Crown Court Bench Division either. Open the physical space. Without it, prospects of success are 0%.

A few days ago, David Lammy wrote a letter to the Justice Committee answering some questions about his proposals to restrict jury trial.

This is a welcome step.

It’s a telling letter.

But not for the reasons you might think.

🪡 🧵

First, David Lammy is clarifying the numbers.

Except. Um.

I’m confused by this paragraph. Is it half the people keeping jury trial? Or is it three quarters? And why do those two different figures appear in the same paragraph?

Does anyone know? Does David Lammy know?

In all the noise about jury trials today - know this:

If you drive a car / go to work / socialise / use a mobile phone / go to the pub / date / interact in any way with other humans then you could be wrongly accused of a crime at any moment.

And you’d want one thing:

A jury. And know this. Restricting your current option to have a jury trial or to choose a jury trial is a choice.

Politicians - who you may or not vote for - are going to make a choice.

Call me a radical but if you were accused of a crime and you could go to prison for up to TWO YEARS - then a) you wouldn’t clock that it was ‘less serious’ and b) you’d be rightly surprised if your trial took only 3-4 hours.

And any conviction at that level should be by a jury.
These trials - of course - won’t take 3 hours. Because we can’t find counsel to prosecute. The interpreter will speak Urdu when they were booked to speak French. The roof will leak. The expert witness will only be available Friday.

And the prison van will - always - be late.

Ah, yes. Bang on time, Nadine Dorries has worked out the real culprits in our limping, broken justice system.

It’s those pesky juries delivering miscarriages of justice.

Let’s get rid of them, shall we? I’m sure the alternative to trial-by-jury is attractive.

Oh. Wait. No.

https://twitter.com/nadinedorries/status/1849422826907873687

The judgment in the newspaper article Nadine Dorries is linking to is available online.

Anyone can read it. You can read it.

It’s not about circumstantial evidence at all.

It’s here:

bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/…

I know we don’t really do long twitter threads anymore - but I loved them.

So, here’s a story about how I ludicrously spent much of my weekend.

It involves the perils of quick, rapid technology.

And, more importantly, it involves donuts 🍩 Yesterday, I wanted some donuts. We were having guests over and I also needed to get my neighbours a gift each - so I ordered 3 boxes of mini donuts.

Stick with this. Really.

3 boxes.

Last week a trial where the alleged incident was in 2020 and the date had been fixed for OVER A YEAR was adjourned two days before it was due to begin. Why? No courtroom. No judge.

Embarrassing. I’m embarrassed to be a part of it and it’s not even my responsibility.

It’s yours.

https://twitter.com/dominicraab/status/1646453196183805953

Tomorrow I’m supposed to be conducting a sentence for someone who pleaded guilty LAST YEAR.

I won’t be.

Do you know why? Sing along if you know the words.

No courtroom. No judge.

This government’s Law and Order record is ripe for criticism, ripe for opposition and ripe for reform. But Labour clattering in, calling Rishi names on Twitter and then conducting some kind of conga line of blame is not only the worst way to do it - it’s a missed opportunity 🪡🧵 Firstly, since 2010 the government have closed 51% of Magistrates’ Courts. That’s local justice for local people out the window. That’s 151 constituencies that have lost their local court. I wrote about why local justice mattered (via the generous @BarristerSecret) here:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1090926968890101760

Let me tell you who might need a criminal defence barrister one day when they least expect it:

It’s you. If you believe the state only points the finger at guilty people or bad people or people who aren’t like you then I’m going to need you to sit down for this one: you, your spouse, your kid, your parents, your mate at work could end up in the dock.

And it could happen tomorrow.

If you were the victim of a crime tomorrow and the suspect was not tried until 2024 - would you consider that tough on crime?

If you were wrongly accused of a crime and did not get the chance to clear your name until 2024 - would you consider that a functioning justice system? This is where we are. This is what is left. Victims waiting. Innocent people waiting.

Justice, waiting.

And the winners from delay?

Guilty people. Just waiting it out.

The government is being outmanoeuvred by guilty people who deal MDMA from their socks.

And it’s a disgrace.

Guys. I dunno. I’m starting to think the Rwanda policy might not be about the boats, not about those seeking asylum or refuge, not about taxpayers but about the current pet battle:

The mythical enemy / policy thwarter of the Left Wing Do Good Lawyer (*panto villain music*) This allows proposals of headline policy ideas that will either never work or will work in such small numbers that they won’t make a realistic difference to the purported aim.

But, BUT it allows creation of an enemy: a blame-conga line landing at a politically convenient spot.

This site is so miserable at the moment - it is time for a Thread.

I grew up in the era of the radio show phone-in. They were A Big Deal in the early 00s.

And the biggest of all the big deals was when a radio station held Party in the Park.

You could call to win tickets. Not just any tickets. Oh no. Hoo boy. You don’t want tickets sitting at the back near the ice cream van.

You could win ‘Pit Passes’.

To the front. With a few hundred other hardcore people.

@SBarrettBar The criminal law is not just a list of rules though, is it? The rules have elements. Which the prosecution must prove. And doing that might be on a scale of human behaviour. And breaches of the rules might have justifications or lawful excuses. Again, often involving scales. @SBarrettBar So, if someone punches me (🥺) and I punch them back three times. Am I guilty of unlawful assault? Some might say yes, *three* punches was over the top. Some might say no, it was reasonable and proportionate to get them away. But that assessment is fluid, fact-based and human.

Let me tell you who might need a jury to give them the benefit of the doubt one day.

It’s you.

But, please, do carry on with this knee-jerk reaction to a single verdict, in a single case, because you - who heard precisely none of the evidence or the legal directions - disagree. If you don’t like juries then, please, take a seat, we can discuss the alternatives.

They’ll apply to you, though, should you be accused of a crime.

Of course, many think they’ll never be in the dock - that they’ll never need a jury of peers - and maybe that’s half the problem.

I see the government are trashing defence lawyers again! Hurrah! Comes around earlier every year, doesn’t it?

Let me tell you who might need a defence lawyer one day.

It’s you. Any one of us - except the most arrogant - should recognise it. We could drive our car or go to a nightclub or go to work or fill in a form or intervene in a situation and end up in the dock. You think it won’t happen to you.

But - and trust me on this - it happens all the time.

I see it’s the official season of trashing Legal Aid. Like clockwork.

The arrogance of some of that criticism is breathtaking.

A thread. Anyone (I really do mean anyone) can be accused of a crime at the drop of a hat. It might happen when you least expect it. Sometimes things go wrong. Sometimes humans hit other humans with their cars. Sometimes people make allegations that are true / false / somewhere in between.