Re: Does an alleged fly-tipper have right to trial by jury?

<hanrahan398@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50cabe4f-1221-4b2b-a93c-01533ced7a9a@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 11, 9:32 am, "M.I.5¾" <no....@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote:
> <hanrahan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:f60b25c0-b8f6-4e8c-b77b-cdf55ea03e75@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Does a person charged withfly-tipping under s33 of the Environmental
> > Protection Act 1990 have the option of being tried by ajuryin a
> > Crown Court? Please could someone point me to the relevant provision;
> > I couldn't find it in the Act. (IANAL). Many thanks.
>
> You won't find it in the Act. Offences under the Environmental Protection
> Act 1990 are either-way offences (which means - yes).

[..]

> Source: Magistrates' Adult Court Bench Book.

Thanks!

Out of interest, why isn't an offence defined as triable either-way in
the Act that creates it? Is this the "default"?

---------

Because it can change at the government's whim.  Indeed Nu-Labour have
recategorised a number of offences as summary only that used to be
either-way.  Notably, David Blunkett did a whole raft of them precisely
because the required standard of proof is lower in a Magistrates' Court than
a Crown Court*.  It shouldn't be, of course, but it is mainly because
Magistrates will convict purely on the word of a Police Officer even if the
defence can show doubt whereas the Jury in a Crown Court actually demands a
rather old fashioned concept known as "proof".  Magistrates have been
frequently criticized for committing cases to Crown Court trial when there
isn't actually any evidence of a case to answer (and I have sat on the jury
of at least two and am aware of another where the judge had a few choice
words for the magistrates concerned - and the CPS and the police).

* Blunkett firmly believed that every 'not guilty' verdict meant that the
defendant had 'got away with it'.  Blunkett should never have been Home
Secretary.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]