This really is a very big step too far. One ponsy judge, no doubt privately educated, a man of the establishment, cannot possibly be considered to be anything like the minds of twelve people on a jury.

Lord Shitface-Judge gave his reasons why he allowed this so-called trial to go ahead. Among them were "cost of protecting the jurors", and "possible interference with the jury". It's funny, Lord Shitface-Judge, how we have managed for hundreds of years. But today, it seems, the courts and the police are too inept to do so.

When the law was changed to allow judge-only kangaroo courts, it was introduced under the The Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill. At the time, the Solicitor General, Mike O'Brien, told the House of Commons "No fundamental principle is being breached in this bill." Up your arse, O'Brien. Since when is a trial WITHOUT a jury NOT a fundamental prinicple?

The (stated) purpose of the change, as the Bill's name suggests, was for COMPLEX fraud cases. It is now immediately being misused for a case of robbery.

Yes, this is the thin end of the wedge. The judges are complicit with this act of treason against the people of this country.

Up yours, so-called Lord Shitface-Judge.

having just spent 2nhalf weeks on jury service,i am appalled at this latest addition to our great(ha) justice system.
i really did not want to "do my duty"-who am i to decide the fate of another?
but the subversive side of me thought it might be interesting to dress down n c inside the system so off i went.after what ive seen,the thought of one judge doling out his take on justice,will give me more sleepless nites than when i was on jury duty.
god(s) help us all
graffeve09.

"i really did not want to "do my duty"-who am i to decide the fate of another?"

You are the defendants "peers" your there to represent the common person. If you think your better than this person i.e not their peer then prehaps you should have stated that you felt yourself moraly against trial by jury and been excused.

I would like to hear the end result of this 'trial', Europe has had investigating judges for decades for small matters (Italy almost ran out, kept being shot). This I fear does breach magna carta for large cases. A full investigation must be held as to what these jury nobbeling alegations are.

I feel that if the person is found guilty of the tampering then the fullest sentence must be used as this hits at the heart of free society and personal rights under the magna carta.

i was not implying that i was better than the defendant,anon,
i was trying to explain what a huge responsibility i felt holding anothers life in my hands.
u dont even know me,so dont assume things about me.
im well aware of why i was there.

Ken Craggs - "Surely with modern technology, the jury could sit in complete anonimity in another part of the country, instead of the case being handled by one judge?"

Not with the technology that the courts presently have, video-conferencing isn't any subsitute for being able to look around yourself no matter how well it is done. The excuse for this is the risk of jury tampering, and so like in NI they justify suspending trial by jury. That is like killing your child because someone threatened them. A far better solution would be to use relatively low-tech to protect the juries identitity, a one way mirror in the courtroom and on-site accomodation for example.

graffeve09 - "i really did not want to "do my duty"-who am i to decide the fate of another? "

You are not exagerrating. It is jurors who decide what is legal and illegal, not a judge, thanks to Magna Carta. Bear that in mind if you ever get called again, because the judges never tell you that. It is called 'Jury Nullification'. The jury can ignore whatever the judge instructs you to do, ignore whatever the judge says about the law and precedent. If you want find a protestor who admitted breaking into a bank innocent, they are innocent. If you want to let the whistle-blower go free, that is your choice, the judge can go hang. The judge is just there to filter the evidence that you can see, intimidate you and sentence the guilty. Even if you can't persuade the rest of the jury to nullify a trial, you can still vote against the prevailing verdict which can be enough to hang some trials.

Russia abandoned trial by jury after they freed the serfs, as the serfs refused to convict anyone the elite wanted punished.

i was trialed without a jury in 2001 and beat the case because the police lied. also my barrister was excellent. it was after i was charged with serious rioting during the mayday demo's which the pigs used the kettle and barricaded us in...i was arrested on the way out of the kettle at around 10pm. the case lasted most of the year, i got acquitted and have been telling anyone who cares ever since. i think around 9 people were trialed over the rioting and parafin bombs in oxford circus/tottenham court road that night...i'm not sure what happened to anyone else though.
trials without jury aren't new......they just dont get reported widely until now.
peace.
PS. my name is liam rodgers, born 17/01/80, nottingham and i was trialed without a jury under anti-terror laws at middlesex crown court, parliament sq, london in 2001. i was trialed using anti terror laws passed in 2000.
i had an anti-wto t-shirt on when the pigs singled me out and lied and said he saw me throw a parafin bomb at the front line of pigs protecting Nike Town. i dint do it, but he lied...luckily i got acquited.