Common sense juries allowed in some employment tribunals

This is an extra law but could save a lot of others.

  • Juries where requested by both sides, or one side at an appeal case
  • Juries perhaps in cases where the employee gave up their right to damages, but wanted the case to be heard more like a criminal case, for a statement of guilt and deterrant against future wrongs.

Why is this idea important?

This is an extra law but could save a lot of others.

  • Juries where requested by both sides, or one side at an appeal case
  • Juries perhaps in cases where the employee gave up their right to damages, but wanted the case to be heard more like a criminal case, for a statement of guilt and deterrant against future wrongs.

Right to Jury Trial

Repeal all law that restricts the right to trial by Jury.  This was a fundamental part of Magna Carta but was severly restricted in the 1960's as it was alleged that it had become too ponderous in a "modern" society!  There are currently moves afoot to remove the right from libel trials.  This should be rejected.  Also Grande Juries should be reinstated, a role currently undertaken by the Solicitor General; if in place Blair and his cohorts would most certainly have faced trail.  This clearly demonstrates the role of juries in enabling subjects of her majesty to exercise real control over their elected rulers.  It was juries that frustrated the creation of an absolute monarch, Charles I and they would have fulfilled that role again in the modern era if allowed.  The limitations imposed on the right to trial by jury have never been challenged in the House of Lords/Supreme Court; a bit of a mystery.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all law that restricts the right to trial by Jury.  This was a fundamental part of Magna Carta but was severly restricted in the 1960's as it was alleged that it had become too ponderous in a "modern" society!  There are currently moves afoot to remove the right from libel trials.  This should be rejected.  Also Grande Juries should be reinstated, a role currently undertaken by the Solicitor General; if in place Blair and his cohorts would most certainly have faced trail.  This clearly demonstrates the role of juries in enabling subjects of her majesty to exercise real control over their elected rulers.  It was juries that frustrated the creation of an absolute monarch, Charles I and they would have fulfilled that role again in the modern era if allowed.  The limitations imposed on the right to trial by jury have never been challenged in the House of Lords/Supreme Court; a bit of a mystery.

Right to trial by jury.

Many look up to the justice system in the USA with its chain gangs, hard labour and death sentence but they also have an absolute right to trial by jury which they can evoke for any arrestable offence including public intoxication. This system works perfectly well, mainly because most don't demand a jury trial for minor offenses such as public intoxication.

The point of jury trial is to keep the power to sentence away from the state and with the people, which is a fundimental protection from a police state.

Many people do not know but juries have the right to disregard the law, it's called jury nullification in the USA, if they see fit. Lawyers however are sworn to uphold the law so are not allowed to inform the jury of this even if they believe their client warrants it; this would be where the client is technically guilty of a crime but the public may sympathise sufficiently to actually let him off.

In this country we have no right to trial by jury and so we have such things as fixed penalty notices.

Juries may not be perfect, they may not understand the law, but that is the whole point, they keep the human eliment in the legal system. If a lawer cannot explain in simple terms why a persons' liberty should be removed then it has to be questioned.

 

Why is this idea important?

Many look up to the justice system in the USA with its chain gangs, hard labour and death sentence but they also have an absolute right to trial by jury which they can evoke for any arrestable offence including public intoxication. This system works perfectly well, mainly because most don't demand a jury trial for minor offenses such as public intoxication.

The point of jury trial is to keep the power to sentence away from the state and with the people, which is a fundimental protection from a police state.

Many people do not know but juries have the right to disregard the law, it's called jury nullification in the USA, if they see fit. Lawyers however are sworn to uphold the law so are not allowed to inform the jury of this even if they believe their client warrants it; this would be where the client is technically guilty of a crime but the public may sympathise sufficiently to actually let him off.

In this country we have no right to trial by jury and so we have such things as fixed penalty notices.

Juries may not be perfect, they may not understand the law, but that is the whole point, they keep the human eliment in the legal system. If a lawer cannot explain in simple terms why a persons' liberty should be removed then it has to be questioned.