Contempt of court......

[DiscoDancer]

Taking the one example above, I think it would be impractical to have to have a full jury trial if breathalyser or blood test evidence of high blood alcohol levels are present. I'd like to think that, even in such circumstances, the option of a full trial should be made available to the person being charged, if they felt they wanted it. However, if found guilty (which would be almost a certainty) they would have to pay all court costs.

JBR, perhaps you've misunderstood the reason for trial by jury, maybe your lack of personal experience is the reason.

Anyone who elects to go to trial at the crown court (if election is available) are tried by a jury IF they plead "not guilty". A "guilty" plea does not require a trial, merely a sentence, by the judge.

So, in the event of overwhelming evidence an accused can still elect to plead "not guilty" and thus "trial by jury" but they would need to convince the jury of the fallibility of the evidence. I doubt that they would receive such advice from their counsel.

I'm not sure if costs are based on the need for a jury, 'cos they receive so little compensation. I think the costs are based more on the number of days the trial takes, and other such associated costs.

Edit: As an after thought, I suspect that recent changes to "Legal Aid" means that financial assistance is more forthcoming in Crown Court affairs (i.e involving juries) than in Magistrates Courts.

 

[gasbanni]

Some very interesting reading here !


http://contempt.fmotl.com/


from further down the link ~

Now, since the Magna Carta 1215 TREATY is the best-known start to a written Constitution that we have, where do 'Bill of Rights (1689) ... etc ... the Supreme Court Act 1981' obtain their Constitutional legitimacy? The Magna Carta 1215 says NOTHING about any legitimacy for any Parliament - nor (obviously) for any Acts of Parliament. In point of fact the Magna Carta 1215 specifically states that any attempt to supersede it is null & void.

How very clever ~

In point of fact the Magna Carta 1215 specifically states that any attempt to supersede it is null & void. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But what you omitted to point out was a paragraph prior to the one that you refer to, namely:

1221. Constitutional Acts.

The British Constitution is said to be 'unwritten'. This only means that, unlike most countries, the United Kingdom does not possess a single comprehensive constitution and much of its constitutional principle is embodied in the common law. There are nevertheless a number of historic statutes regarded as embodying and setting forth the state's constitutional principles. Any modern Act which amends or adds to these may also be regarded as a constitutional Act. The main significance of classing an Act as a constitutional Act lies in the nature of the interpretative criteria which then apply to it. In particular, the rights the Act confers, having the quality of constitutional rights, will be regarded by the courts as fundamental and not to be displaced except by clear words.

But exactly what was the point of your post?
if it was to contest the Bil of Rights (1689). Then this Bill was an Act of Parliament.
Magna Carta was designed to limit the power of the king. It had no concept of Parliament at that time.
Magna Carta 1215
The first concept of Parliament 1236 The King (parler) talking with his nobles. The King was head of "parliament" then.

Yes and the Queens the head of parliment now