If You Were Tasked With...

[agchristie]

...achieving a higher criminal conviction rate by reducing the threshold to secure a 'guilty' verdict,what phrase wud u replace 'beyond reasonable doubt' with?

[agchristie]

I see NJ,thanx

[THECORBYLOON]

"The conviction rate in England and Wales was 84.1 percent in magistrates courts and 80.8 percent in crown courts, as of the second quarter of 2019."

What would you like to see those rates at?

[10ClarionSt]

112 days is nothing |Barry. I had a relative who sat on a jury for nearly two years. A massive fraud case involving two directors. Would it happen now, Covid excepted?

[pixie374]

TCL, those are only the ones that get that far. I wonder what percentage of accusations get officially looked into.

[agchristie]

TCL,tbh I am very surprised that the rates that high.

Wot abt cases that dont go to court tho and folk who dont press charges cos of the system itself?

[agchristie]

Pix,crossed post ;-)

[barry1010]

What trial was that, 10C? Was it in the UK? as far as I know the longest trial in the UK lasted 320 days

[Old_Geezer]

I like to think that I know when I doubt something. And all I think and do is reasonable so I should be able to judge the severity of my doubt. As juror that is surely the task one has, to form an opinion on what is reasonable, otherwise jurors wouldn't be needed. May as well get Judge Dread just hang all the arrested and be done with it.

[barry1010]

Ignore my post, 10C, it was nearer two years, with 320 days in court

[THECORBYLOON]

'"So that you are sure" is easy to understand and and not open to much misinterpretation.'

What is your definition of "sure"? Does it mean 100% certain, for instance? How "sure" do you need to be, can you have one or two doubts?

I was reading that Judges hate being asked what is meant by "beyond [a] reasonable doubt" because it is very easy to say but difficult to define without leading to more confusion.

When I worked at the DWP as a Decision Maker, we were encouraged to write decisions that were simple enough for a nine-year old to understand as the claimants would be sent a copy to read.

[agchristie]

TCL, everything is open to interpretation,even some of what appears to be straightforward terms.

But,we have to abide by some wording that minimises errors.Hence my question to AB folk,can they do any better than what we have? ;-)

[New Judge]

//...can they do any better than what we have? ;-)//

I can't. I have a reasonable knowledge of the UK judicial system and I know it has it faults. But I really can't think of anything better than the Magistrates' Court system for relatively minor offences (where 95% of criminal prosecutions are seen to a conclusion) and the Crown Court with its judge and jury system for more serious matters. The only general misgivings I have is the use of District Judges sitting alone in the Magistrates' Courts presiding over trials and, as mentioned, the use of lay juries on complex and lengthy fraud trials.

I should emphasise that my remarks relate to the systems in principle. Like anything the government and civil servants have a had in, there are many, many deficiencies in their administration, but that's another story.

[agchristie]

"The only general misgivings I have is the use of District Judges sitting alone in the Magistrates' Courts presiding over trials"

Why is that NJ?

[Canary42]

In my experience, you get 12 different interpretations of "beyond reasonable doubt" in the jury room.

[Mozz71]

"According to ABers"

[New Judge]

Because if you observe a criminal trial you will realise that there are many aspects of the evidence which are not cut and dried. The entire bag of evidence has to be examined in the round and there is no better way to do that than bounce the issues of of other people. A jury has twelve people to mull it over those issues. A Bench of "lay" Magistrates has three. If you speak to anybody who has done jury service or sat as a Magistrate they will tell you that debating the issues is vital to coming to a decision with which everybody involved in making it. A District Judge sitting alone and delivering a verdict does not have that benefit.

[New Judge]

//In my experience, you get 12 different interpretations of "beyond reasonable doubt" in the jury room.//

Indeed. That's why advocates and judges provide an interpretation that is easier to understand and they have been doing so for many years.

[agchristie]

NJ,on the subject of a single judge sitting, me grandad told me yest of the Diplock trial in NI (no jury bcos of risk??) where the judge controversially acquitted Duffy but convicted Shivers who was released on appeal!

It was the murder of 2 soldiers at an army barracks which he sed has since bn demolished.

I can understand no jury but was it right for such an important case to be heard by one judge do u think?

[nailit]

Having been found guilty by a jury in a Crown Court of something that I did not do, I would replace 'reasonable doubt' with a half decent barrister instead of a lame, half ***, legal aid one.
But that wouldnt achieve a higher conviction rate would it?
Courts are more theatrics than justice!

[woofgang]

You are asking two questions....well three actually, four if you count you addition about people not coming forward because they are scared of or have no faith in the system.

1. The folk who dunnit but aren't convicted, what percentage are not convicted because of insufficient evidence presented? In the dunnit but aren't convicted are you including cases where the CPS decline to prosecute? Also how often is it because of bad work by the prosecution team?

2. Reducing the threshhold.....do you mean reducing the required level of proof? cos baaaaaaad idea

3. I think whatever phrase you use, there will ALWAYS be comprehension or other communication based problems. As has been said, it is the job of the judge and the court officials to be as sure as possible that the jury collectively and singly understand what it is they are supposed to be doing.

4. I am not sure how changing the phrase will encourage people who currently don't come forward to report crime. In criminal cases anyway, the choice to prosecute or not is not on the victim but on the CPS.