Liquid Vortex trial starts

Talulah said:
Not quite what I said but in a lot of cases the Jury system is flawed. Complex fraud cases would be one example.
Click to expand...

Surely that's the point though? If a jury is "expert" or "competent" in the subject being tried, then surely they will have some form of bias regarding the person being tried.

Whereas a jury of the "common man" has to be persuaded by the facts and evidence of experts one way or the other, entering the subject as if a blank piece of paper to be written on.

They're like the "control" in an experiment.
 
FishyInverness said:
Surely that's the point though? If a jury is "expert" or "competent" in the subject being tried, then surely they will have some form of bias regarding the person being tried.

Whereas a jury of the "common man" has to be persuaded by the facts and evidence of experts one way or the other.

They're like the "control" in an experiment.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with you. The implementation though isn't perfect.
 
FishyInverness said:
Surely that's the point though? If a jury is "expert" or "competent" in the subject being tried, then surely they will have some form of bias regarding the person being tried.

Whereas a jury of the "common man" has to be persuaded by the facts and evidence of experts one way or the other, entering the subject as if a blank piece of paper to be written on.

They're like the "control" in an experiment.
Click to expand...

Except that our current adversarial justice process means that advocates will deliberately obfuscate & confuse in order to get a result favourable to their own client rather than seek the truth.

The justice system stinks, but it's the best we have & I can't offer any sensible suggestions to improve it.
 
Searush said:
Except that our current adversarial justice process means that advocates will deliberately obfuscate & confuse in order to get a result favourable to their own client rather than seek the truth.

The justice system stinks, but it's the best we have & I can't offer any sensible suggestions to improve it.
Click to expand...

FishyInverness said:
Given - I was just playing Devil's Adversary in defending the Jury ;)
Click to expand...

It's a bit like democracy being a terrible way to govern a country - but we haven't come up with anything better yet!

In technically complex trials, the issue really boils down to the role of expert witnesses. Ideally, the court ought to be able to engage experts independent of either side, as amici curia, and such experts should be drawn from a national register of suitable experts. Sadly, the current system often obfuscates issues by one or the other side bringing in "expert" witnesses who have views outside the mainstream of scientific understanding, but which are convenient to one side or the other. It is also sadly the case that expert witnesses are asked to testify on matters outside their immediate competence. Unfortunately, the court cannot initiate its own enquiries into the competence of the experts called - that is down the the defence and prosecuting lawyers, who do not have the knowledge to judge the issues.
 
Searush said:
Except that our current adversarial justice process means that advocates will deliberately obfuscate & confuse in order to get a result favourable to their own client rather than seek the truth.
Click to expand...

I believe that judges have authority to challenge and stop such actions, if they are awake...

Mike.
 
Searush said:
Except that our current adversarial justice process means that advocates will deliberately obfuscate & confuse in order to get a result favourable to their own client rather than seek the truth.
Click to expand...

The jury system was introduced at a time when members of the jury were likely to be as knowledgable about the crime as anyone else. eg Did he steal a chicken

With modern laws the jury does not understand the responsibilities in a corporate structure, legal entities, products such as derivitives, or the laws governing complex financial matters let alone understand balance sheets.

A "Beyond all reasonable doubt" verdict is not possible when the jury cannot understand all the elements hence the almost 100% failure of the system to find anyone guilty in complex legal cases like fraud. This farce must cost the taxpayer £100m a year.

The cases have become more complex than the common man can understand.

I think its time we went to an inquestorial system rather than adversorial and let a team of expert search for the truth rather than a jury deciding which of the two barristers put on a better "act".

Give me truth any day than aquittals on legal technicalities.
 
Last edited:
Searush said:
Except that our current adversarial justice process means that advocates will deliberately obfuscate & confuse in order to get a result favourable to their own client rather than seek the truth.

The justice system stinks, but it's the best we have & I can't offer any sensible suggestions to improve it.
Click to expand...

British Justice- the best money can buy......................
 
Sailfree said:
The cases have become more complex than the common man can understand.

I think its time we went to an inquestorial system rather than adversorial and let a team of expert search for the truth rather than a jury deciding which of the two barristers put on a better "act".

Give me truth any day than aquittals on legal technicalities.
Click to expand...

I sat in on a small claims court hearing where the judge came from the Families Court where they do employ an inquisitorial format.

The case in question actually related to a dispute between boat owner and yard where the yard had changed hands after a wooden boat was brought ashore for restoration. After it had several planks below the water line and the deck removed the owner was told that from now on he would have to pay "yard rates" (from which the yard would take their cut) for his friend - a shipwright who was working for a basic hourly rate. This increased the cost of labour three fold.

He declined this, they declined access to his shipwright, they raised invoices which he declined to pay. This ended up in court with a claim by the yard for unpaid invoices and a counter claim by my friend who now had a boat in pieces that could not be moved from the yard and he could not afford to repair at labour rates three times higher.

The court lost my friends paperwork and only found it after the case had begun.

The judge had only seen the yards paperwork although she did read his papers over lunch.

She had clearly decide that this was a simple case of non payment of storage invoices and proceeded to work on inquisitorial principle. In short she asked questions and only replies to her questions were allowed.

My friend had taken the precaution of getting another friend - an eminent QC with experience of this precise field to prepare a detailed explanation of the law and the facts. This was the paperwork that the court lost and then found just before lunch.

My friend was not allowed to introduce this material because the judge had decided that she knew enough to ask the right questions.

Each time my friend tried to elaborate on the answers to her essentially closed questions she prevented him from doing so. He lost his case! He still cannot get his boat restored.

Having witnessed this I can assure you that the inquisitorial approach is a very bad one.

Oh, and incidentally because the judge stated in her judgement that she was making findings as to fact rather than as to law she has protected herself - he cannot appeal.
 
ribrunt said:
Well there's the problem.

The Passage Plan, and even the official reports, did not mention the wedding at sea which clearly created all the difficulties!
Click to expand...
it is a major problem..I think there is no claims in such case and your lawyers cannot do much.. Even I faced similar problem earlier
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top