What exactly is the point in having a jury?
They are a panel of lay members of society who have absolutely no knowledge about law. How can these people be expected to help mete out justice?
The amount of appeal cases I have read that have gone to appeal because of the stupidity both of the jurors (who have returned verdicts wholly inconsistent with the advice of the judge) and also the trial stage judge who has misdirected the jury.
In fact I read one yesterday where the trial stage judge had mixed up intent and recklessness and therefore mixed up murder and manslaughter.
Surely we should have at the court of first instance carefully appointed justices who
(i) Have judicial experience or experience as barristers and all have a diverse range of legal interests.
(ii) Reflect society proportionately.
(iii) Are able to discuss the matter at hand in an academic and non-simplistic manner.
This would lead to:
(i) Better quality justice
(ii) Reduction in the amount of avoidable appeals to the higher courts
(iii) Less arbitrary justice in the hands of god knows who - the spectrum of who can sit as a juror is far too wide - this will sound awfully hoity-toity of me, but I have known retail assistants sit as jurors before.