Tagliare i processi con giuria rischia di “minare la giustizia” per le donne e le ragazze vittime di abusi, ha avvertito Lammy
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/mar/17/cutting-jury-trials-risks-undermining-justice-for-abused-women-and-girls-lammy-warned
di winkwinknudge_nudge
9 commenti
On the flipside
I bet cutting jury trials will help justice for abused men and boys
Cutting jury trials to lower the backlog while prison’s are at 99.99% capacity is just clearly a way to make numbers better for elections.
Same as how Labour is saving the NHS and improving wait lists…By removing many from them. I was one such person just randomly removed, and have had to rejoin at the back of the queue once they assessed my condition and agreed I should have never been removed. Thanks NHS.
They’re just pumping numbers, they don’t care how.
honestly, why does it seem like over the past year or 2 everything is looked at through the lens of how it effects women and girls
i mean wasn’t the argument FOR cutting jury trials in the first place based on the the belief that it would help abused women and girls?…..
dont get me wrong i do support having extra help for women and girls in areas where support for them is lacking, but it just seems excessive at the moment, like this, deciding to cut jury trials will effect EVERYONE, so the argument for and against should be primarily focused on that, not just women and girls
Next week ‘Government warned randomly executing people in the street may harm women and girls’
Because clearly the impact on women and girls is the only metric that matters these days.
Of course it will allow judges to wave rape charges to protect the imports
Which raises the question: if it were undermining justice for abused men and boys, would it be considered acceptable?
This article is very odd. Conviction rates for these kinds of crimes are already very poor. I’m sure I had read that evidence was this was better when you removed the jury. You also don’t incentivise the unpleasant ‘playing to the gallery’ you get in these kinds of cases with the defendant’s lawyers suggesting unpleasant things about the victim.
Is there evidence a judge is more likely to be prejudiced than a random member of the public? We just don’t have an American style jury selection where you quiz people about their views. You can end up with all sorts and you only need 2 people with a particular world view to completely block a verdict if they so choose.
There’s not a single coherent argument put forward in the article.
I wish people would stop calling them jury trials…they are Trial by Jury and part of our foundational laws and we must keep them for true justice process and rule of law for everyone.