The government want to be able to bar juries and change coroners in inquests "in the public interest"

Question

Isn't it clear to every one that juries *are* the public - they are chosen from society to represent us without any additional agenda.

To 'bar a jury in the public interest' is surely an oxymoron?

What next - ignore certain MP's 'in the public interest' ??

Answer 1

Counter-question: what country does this apply to? (From the reference to MPs I assume you are in a country that is a member of the British Commonwealth.)

My answer applies to my knowledge of the USA, except the state of Louisiana. (That state is excluded because their legal system is based on the Napoleonic Code.)

In countries where the legal system evolved from Magna Carta and English common law, the right to a jury trial applies to a CRIMINAL proceeding. In most jurisdictions, a coroner's inquest is not a criminal proceeding. The result is a finding of fact as to the probable cause of a death, and that finding then MAY become a basis for a criminal charge. A jury at an inquest is often a custom, but is not a right unless local legislation has made it so. Many places do not even have coroner's inquests - the cause of death is determined by a medical examiner (who may be titled a coroner).

If there is a situation where an inquest is commonly held in front of a coroner's jury, and the information that may come out is either potentially inflammatory or may be subject to national security laws, it is conceivable that a hearing may be closed to the public. It is even reasonable that a coroner's jury may be excluded, unless the jury is required by law.

If a coroner (the person) has a personal relationship or interest in the case, or is a potential suspect, then it is reasonable that he or she either recuse themself or be barred from participating.

It is hard to give a specific answer without information about the the specific situation. However, the decision is made by public officials who are ultimately responsible to the public - the voters. If you feel they made a bad decision, put up a good (calm, reasoned, logical) argument and try to to get press coverage favorable to your views. If that is not enough, work to throw the rascals out at the next election.

Answer 2

It is a good question and you make a strong point. If everyone felt the same way as you do, then this would not be an issue.  But many might feel that a) jury service inconveniences & burdens many people who would rather go to work and their employers who would rather have them;

b) members of the public are no experts at evaluating exactly how reliable particular evidence & testimony is (they only understand their emotuons & gut instincts, very unscientific);

c) juries could be smaller without losing their useful role;

& d) members of the public may not understand  the legal wordings or the legal procedure

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the prosecutor's best pal, the judge (well, they will get to know each other after a while and hence lose their impartiality / they might even be employed in a really bad judicial system by the same persons), should take the place of a jury.

Also, the bandings should be wider, so that if a criminal was really violent or uncooperative they get a harder sentence, and if it was an act of revenge by someone who had every right to want to get even with someone, especially an act of self-defence when under attack, a lower minimum sentence should be applied.

Answer 3

Good or bad I believe that the jury system of 12 men, good and true to be the mainstay of our legal system.  I quite agree that with cases of complicated fraud and law it is necessary to have experts to look at the evidence but for anything else a jury made up of ones peers is very important.

Although we moan about the legal system, it is better than that which is in alot of other countries and I do not want it changed - especially when we have a government who is so fond of setting targets!

Answer 4

Could you provide a link? It sounds like they are further subverting the rights of the public. Worded so it will slip by without to many people speaking out against it.