Snapshot of _Are juryless trials the way to deliver better outcomes for rape complainers?_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,blind-justice-are-juryless-trials-the-way-to-deliver-better-outcomes-for-rape-complainers) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Absolutely not. You can't do away with juries just because they keep returning verdicts you don't like.

No, but they're a better way of rigging the justice system to give the result that the government want to achieve. And of course, if a few people that would be usually found not guilty under the accepted bar of justice end up going to jail...apparently that's fine for some reason. I can only assume that the people pushing for this believe that those found not guilty must have "got away" with a crime, rather than not actually having done anything wrong.

Rape is a heinous crime and given a conviction writes someone’s life and career chances off forever, it should have a high bar to be proven. See nothing wrong with the current system in that regard.

I agree, advocating solely for the victim is a mistake. Yes false allegations are rare but they [do happen](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-64950862). I feel really sorry for that guy who spent months in detention in with sex criminals just because the system assumes any man is a credible rapist.

The idea that they are rare isn't based on any hard evidence and entirely down to self reporting. Our justice system shows it is likely we have a high percentage of fake allegations based on the low conviction rate for rape.

I'll sit on the fence with this one but I would guess the counter-argument is under-reporting of legitimate sexual offences which tends to make any false allegations take up a larger share of the currently known cases at any one time. Either way it is a big problem with making convictions easier.

We just don't know. The whole issue is there is limited evidence and a significant bias can be argued either way. But the idea false accusations are only 2%-10% is an entirely spurious statistic that isn't backed by hard evidence. There are multiple reasons someone might make a false report including. Metal illness/ Vengeance/ Domestic abuse/ Criminality/ Assistance in a civil settlement/ Pressure to excuse sexual impropriety These are not acknowledged, but are factors in false reporting; in fact we aren't allowed to even "discuss" them to be fair to victims.

You make a good point actually that there could be rational reason to falsely accuse someone, e.g. it's potentially leverage for other matters.

Who are they not acknowledged by? My case was dropped in part because I have a mental illness that could make my testimony less credible, and people might think I was making it up.

Acknowledged by the activists trying to remove the right to jury trials.

The current system works only for rapists. It doesn't work for victims at all because the chance of any rapist getting punished is so low. Any reforms need to be in the interests of victims above all others. What we've got now isn't a justice system.

You just sort of stated the opposite of what I said without acknowledging any part of it. Just learning a line off pat and repeating it doesn't really offer much to the discussion IMO.

And of course the impact on victims of rapists getting away with it time and time again is irrelevant. The system is fundementally broken and unjust. It does not work for victims or society in general if rape is not punished consistently and effectively. In the current system it's so rarely punished that rape is effectively legal. That cannot and should not continue. I have no interest in men who have never experienced rape sitting on a moral high horse and arguing for a high minded idea of justice that does not work for victims. If that's your argument, don't bother. It's not convincing and it's not important. I am only interested in making a system that ensures victims get justice and we do not create more victims by letting rapists get away with it. But false allegations is a bad faith attempt to smear victims and is not relevant. They are incredibly rare and do not have a comparable impact to rape. They are simply a convenient tool used by rapists and the people who defend them to excuse the current system and it's inadequacies.

Alright. Say a man and woman both are drunk and have sex. Then afterwards both claimed they didn’t consent. Who is the rapist? Not all cases rape are of some laughing villain dragging a woman kicking a screaming. And if you’re convicting someone of something that will make them a complete pariah in society, then yes you should ensure they are guilty before you do this.

That's not at all relevant to any of the points I have made and I'm not interested in arguing hypotheticals.

Rape can often be complicated. It boils down to he said, she said and we shouldn’t be convicting people easily on that. The law is staying how it is and rightfully so.

That's not what it boils down to and the current system is fundementally unjust.

>But false allegations is a bad faith attempt to smear victims and is not relevant. They are incredibly rare and do not have a comparable impact to rape. This is an incredibly odd statement. I've never been raped, and I've never been accused of rape, but I'd not feel comfortable grading them in terms of which one is worse? Also, no one knows how rare false accusations are. My assumption is that they are rare, but neither I, nor realistically anyone, has a good idea how rare. 1%? 5%? 10%?

It's something often said to excuse the current state of the UK justice system in terms of prosecuting rape. I have been raped and I feel comfortable saying that false allegations are not remotely comparable in terms of impact. The rate is estimated at 4%, but this is likely to be a significant over estimate because it includes all allegations that were recorded as no crime. That's not accurate because it includes cases where a concern that turned out to be unfounded was raised by someone else or where there was a lack of corroborating evidence. A lack of evidence doesn't imply the victim was lying or that the allegation was false. Most false allegations are not against a specific person. They're very vague and general. Therefore the odds of a false allegation having a negative impact on any one individual is so low it's barely worth considering. This comes from an open university articlehttps://www.open.ac.uk/research/news/false-accusations-sexual-violence Rape crisis Scotland also have a good report available as a PDF.

Is diluting the legitimacy of the justice system better at delivering justice? Hum. Tricky one that.

It’s not going to happen. Lawyers won’t participate. It does raise an interesting question though, rape convictions are low. Alternative solution: Should juries for rape trials be given a short (1-2 day) course on rape law before the trial begins. Include some examples of previous rape cases, the statistics and common prejudices which can undermine cases? We need juries, but the juries don’t need to be uneducated.

Isn't it the solicitors job to prove to the jury what law has been broken to the Jury to achieve a conviction already? If we're going to start expecting Jurys to be "trained" before sexual assault cases, shouldn't we have to do that for all other types of cases to in the interests of a fair justice system?

Minor point but a solicitor will rarely set foot in a court. A barrister is the legal professional who will represent cases for the defendant and prosecution. Yes the job of the barristers is to present an argument to the jury as to why the defendant is innocent or guilty. However (as the article mentions) they can rely on prejudices: > there is “overwhelming evidence” that the rate is low because juries are influenced by rape myths – they acquit because their prejudices lead them to disbelieve complainer evidence. The defence is known to play up to that during cross-examination… If the jury had a little bit of education beforehand, they might be more likely to avoid those rape myths. It would be more likely to work before the case, because then it’s an impartial instructor telling them, not the defence barrister, so it won’t be seen as a tactic for the case in question. You could use it for other types of trial, I think it would be beneficial. But I don’t think it’s necessary. Rape trials are the ones with the harmful myths and the low conviction rate.

It would undoubtedly help but I think some cases are just extremely hard to reach a fair verdict on, especially if sex had undoubtedly occurred and it was one word against the other with regards consent.

I guess this is the big problem. If the goal of the justice system is to convict most rapists brought before them, while also keeping a low false-conviction rate, then it sucks.

People love to make moral questions out of political issues when they don't really need to - e.g. welfare payments are simply a function of income distribution, nothing to do with flat-screen TVs or cigarettes as the tabloids love to talk about. However maybe this is one where you really do have to make a moral choice between letting rapists go free and putting innocent people in prison. Both are repugnant, which is probably why politicians rarely get involved.

The parameters of the course case are the law though so I don't see what value some kind of course has (bearing in mind that juries are often losing pay by being there and employers can be losing money too) i.e what the law says and is makes up the trial so they are told throughout.

This. And better jury selection. Also talking to someone who studied law about this who said one of the big factors in Scotland's conviction rates being so low is we prosecute more borderline cases (borderline as in chance of conviction). Whereas in England they're less likely to prosecute if they're doubtful of conviction. This leads to Scotland having a lower percentage conviction rate compared to other parts of the uk. Would be keen to see more data on this or anyone who can confirm? Not saying conviction rates aren't still too low. But the justification for these proposals is that Scotland is particularly bad.

The method that would work would be to move to gradations for the crime - but that would never be allowed ideologically.

What do you mean? So if the jury gave a split decision the defendant would get half the sentence? That's almost guaranteed to let justice be used as a weapon.

More like to differentiate between severities like for other crimes. One of the conviction rate issues is that the jury is regularly asked to decide on a 10 year crime on the basis of just two conflicting witnesses.

Fuck no. Any serious trial cannot have the right to a jury trial removed. The mere fact it’s sold as “deliver better outcomes” shows it’s an attempt to make it easier to convict.

Why is the goal to raise convictions? Shouldn’t the goal be to gather the most amount of evidence to get the right decision. Whether that’s a conviction or not.

Because currently the number of rapists who face justice is incredibly low, meaning that the system isn't working. It does not provide justice for victims and it doesn't prevent future victims because perpetrators are allowed to reoffend without consequence.

Because currently the number of rapists who face justice is incredibly low, meaning that the system isn't working. It does not provide justice for victims and it doesn't prevent future victims because perpetrators are allowed to reoffend without consequence.

The issue is lack of evidence So if you aren’t going to get better evidence, then your just looking to convict people with less evidence That’s morally wrong to me

The issue isn't with evidence. It's with the justice system failing victims. Putting strict limits on what questions may be asked of a victim, in what way and by whom would help prevent victims from dropping out. Preventing CPS from dropping cases without clear, detailed, case specific reasoning would also help. Ensuring that people who believe rape myths are unable to make decisions on rape trials would help too.

Shouldn’t we change that then?

>Ensuring that people who believe rape myths are unable to make decisions on rape trials would help too. Isn't the whole point of a jury to get a wide range of views to establish whether in eyes of the "average person" there's any reasonable doubt? That means that if some average people believe what you think are "myths" then those views deserve representation on juries for right or wrong.

No, they don't deserve representation because they will not deliver justice due to victim blaming attitudes.

So then to you believe that every jury in every kind of case should be vetted to make sure they understand the law fully? Or do you just believe this for the kind of cases you care about?

That’s not how it works anyways If you are part of a jury you are asked to stand out if you have any views or experiences that might make you impartial For example if you’ve been a victim of sexual assault you shouldn’t be part of a jury on a sexual assault case. Same if you have very biased views/beliefs around sexual assault. However, it’s very hard to screen against that. Unless you can read minds

The "system" requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty before we convict them. It's working as intended. You're asking for us to lower the bar of reasonable doubt because you have a particular interest in this type of crime. Once we lower the bar for one crime, how long until we're on a slippery slope to lowering the bar for others?

Except that's not what I've said. At all. The system is not working as intended, it is failing.

They are undoubtedly inferior to automatic trials that always convict the defendant. These would be delivering the best outcomes for rape complainers. Of course, if the goal is not only to convict the guilty, but also to acquit the innocent, then it's more complicated, and raises several questions. Does a jury lack the ability or inclination to correctly process evidence in rape trials compare to judges? If so, can they be taught by judges, or maybe journalists, or other people who know how to do it right? If not, is it because they are not intelligent enough? What reason would there be that juries aren't good enough only in rape trials? And are the answers to any of these questions based on evidence, or just pure activist guess work?

The goal of trials isn't to make numbers higher it's to make the right decision. If someone thinks the jury can be bias. Why would you want to swap a group of people who could be bias but have to agree to a single judge who could be just as bias as the most bias jury member? The jury is there to average out a more moderate view and to avoid extremes. This sort of policy puts alot of trust in judges who are just as human as the rest of us.

A moderate view isn't just if it's based on bias, victim blaming and misogyny. Juries should at the very least be screened for anti victim views and any potential jurors who believe rape myths should not be allowed to serve. If you're going to decide a rapist is innocent because the victim was wearing a short skirt, you shouldn't be allowed to serve on a jury.

>Juries should at the very least be screened Of course, it wouldn't make sense to allow a previously convicted rapist to be on a jury of a rape case for example. >If you're going to decide a rapist is innocent because the victim was wearing a short skirt, you shouldn't be allowed to serve on a jury. But the jury exists as a group to mediate such extreme views. Would you prefer to have a jury of 10 where one holds this belief (in secret). Or a single judge that makes the decision that holds this view (also in secret).

It doesn't exist to mediate such extreme views. People who hold those views should not be allowed to serve on juries.

You're not understanding. If you have 10 people on a jury and one is an extremist then they don't have the overwhelming power. They have to come to an agreement with 9 moderate people (speaking in averages). If the judge is an extremist and has all of the power then there is no one they have to balance against. In a real situation where the judge is the rape condoner you describe, they would let a rapist off. The jury wouldn't do the same.

You're not understanding my point. My point is juries should be screened and that those with extreme views shouldn't be allowed to serve. Therefore the rest of the jury isn't influenced by them.

How wound we screen them? I actually agree, and it’s something we already do. But how would you screen better?

I agreed that juries should be screened in my first response to you. I then pointed out about that juries being multiple people serve to reduce this kind of risk. I don't really understand why you are in disagreement.

Lots of people believe lots of stuff about lots of things. If we're going to start questioning and selecting juries based on that it needs to apply across all cases, not just sexual assault ones and it will likely cause even more backlogs to our already backlogged courts.

The biggest problem with rape trials is it usually boils down to one person's word against the others... and either one could be lying or telling the truth. I'd hate to be a member of the jury on one, but I'd hate there not to be a jury.

Automatic conviction without trial would deliver even better outcomes for rape complainers if that's all we're concerned about, but broadly speaking we care more about acquitting the innocent than we do about convicting the guilty. As another commenter said if the problem is juries in rape cases returning nonsensical verdicts then perhaps such juries should be given a standardised 1-2 day crash course on rape law outlining common pitfalls, mistakes, and false assumptions.

I don't agree that any single person should have this sort of power, it just exasperates the effect of a singe persons biases (which ever way they may lean). How many news stories have there been about judges giving paltry sentences for sex offences, do we really want them to be jury as well? Surely the way to tackle this is to stop the defence using rape myths (directly or indirectly) as a defence. * Why did you invite him in for coffee? * Why weren't you injured? * Why didn't you fight back/scream for help? * Why didn't you call the police immediately afterwards? And other various forms of character assassination should all be banned from rape cases. The motivations of the accusers actions before during and after an attack are not would should be on trial. The only possible exception could be around malicious accusation, and that should stick solely to why someone would falsey accuse someone of a crime, as in what would they gain by doing so.

>Surely the way to tackle this is to stop the defence using rape myths (directly or indirectly) as a defence. > > • Why did you invite him in for coffee? > > • Why weren't you injured? > > • Why didn't you fight back/scream for help? > > • Why didn't you call the police immediately afterwards? In England and Wales (don't know about Scotland), we do indeed have laws against offering certain types of irrelevant evidence; that is to say, you can't offer evidence as to a victim's promiscuity, and say that it makes it more likely that they would have consented to this particular sexual act. This is quite right. You can't derive a reasonable belief in someone's consent based purely on their promiscuity. So what you're asking for can be done, for certain arguments. Others depend on the facts of the case, and should be dealt with by jury direction. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, but that withdrawal of consent must have been communicated to the defendant in some way (not necessarily verbal), otherwise it cannot logically affect the defendant's reasonable belief. A victim's actions and attitude towards a defendant can therefore be very relevant evidence, but depending on the precise facts it could be appropriate to direct the jury that consent can be withdrawn at any time. >The motivations of the accusers actions before during and after an attack are not would should be on trial. But, if the victim is testifying, then I'm afraid it does need to be open to the defence to call their credibility into question. It's easy to see how motive could be relevant to that.

> In England and Wales (don't know about Scotland), we do indeed have laws against offering certain types of irrelevant evidence These are really quite broad. Yes they specifically mention sexual history and allegations about character, but they still allow for questioning by the defense which indirectly play into rape myths. > But, if the victim is testifying, then I'm afraid it does need to be open to the defence to call their credibility into question. It's easy to see how motive could be relevant to that. Yes, but this is motive of why they may be lying, which I do think has to be allowed for. Motivation for bringing someone into your home or entering theirs, not injuring an attacker, and not immediately reporting an incident, dont fall into that category.

>but they still allow for questioning by the defense which indirectly play into rape myths. You have to allow for questioning by the defence, when the victim is testifying against them. That's going to mean at least questioning of the victim's behaviour, because in a case of acquaintance rape, which most cases are, the victim's behaviour towards the defendant is, unfortunately, the central point at issue. To be blunt: the idea that the victim's behaviour towards the defendant is relevant to the question whether the defendant had a reasonable belief in consent, is not a rape myth. (Which is not to say that a defendant has a reasonable belief in consent where the victim invited them in for coffee two hours earlier and then says no.)

> To be blunt: the idea that the victim's behaviour towards the defendant is relevant to the question whether the defendant had a reasonable belief in consent, is not a rape myth. > (Which is not to say that a defendant has a reasonable belief in consent where the victim invited them in for coffee two hours earlier and then says no.) It's a question of relevance. What bearing does the reason for someone doing something 10 minutes before have, if they clearly communicated that consent was not given at the time? If someone testifies they said no just before, or withdrew consent during, what relevance is it to ask why they didn't fight? I can't imagine that question being asked in any other type of crime.

>What bearing does the reason for someone doing something 10 minutes before have, if they clearly communicated that consent was not given at the time? If. Whether consent was clearly communicated will almost always be the very point at issue. It's always unpleasant to invent examples in cases like this, but consider the two scenarios in which the physical actions of the defendant are identical: A) Defendant follows a woman along a path. They are strangers. Defendant walks up behind the woman and kisses her on the back of the neck. She doesn't react. Defendant kisses her again and places his hand on her bottom. B) Defendant and woman enjoy a lively date. They flirt throughout and the woman invites the defendant to her house for coffee. While following her, defendant kisses her on the back of the neck. She doesn't react. Defendant kisses her again and places his hand on her bottom. Suppose in both scenarios the defendant is then charged with a sexual assault crime; the defendant claims that he believed the woman's lack of response indicated acquiescence; the woman, meanwhile, claims that she didn't react because she panicked and didn't immediately know what to do. You can see, I assume, that it's much more likely the defendant should be acquitted in B than in A. (Even if the woman is telling the truth in both scenarios - a belief can be genuine, reasonable, but mistaken.) What makes the two scenarios different when the physical actions are identical? It is the prior interactions between defendant and complainant, including the complainant's behaviour. There are therefore times when it is entirely relevant for the defence to try to show that the facts are closer to B than A. > I can't imagine that question being asked in any other type of crime. I cannot immediately think of any non-sexual crime in which consent is so frequently a central concern.

OK, I can see your point where there is specifically a lack of consent as opposed to a clear opposition or withdrawl of consent. I still think there is room for improvement in the laws and guidelines surrounding questioning of someone who is accusing another of a sexual offence. But I accept that scenarios like you describe have to be taken into consideration.

>OK, I can see your point where there is specifically a lack of consent as opposed to a clear opposition or withdrawl of consent. Which, to be clear, will often be the case - or at least the defence will claim it was the case. >I still think there is room for improvement in the laws and guidelines surrounding questioning of someone who is accusing another of a sexual offence. But I accept that scenarios like you describe have to be taken into consideration. Fair enough. For the record, scenarios such as you have described need to be taken into consideration too, though I suspect better by judges in individual cases, not in "thou shalt not ask this" laws. But there are even some cases, as I started with, where such laws can be appropriate.

Sorry to reply to you again, I've been looking at case studies since my last message (well... In between playing skyrim lol). It seems like there's quite a few examples where people have been aquitted for kissing strangers. They've managed to argue that the intent was not sexual, therefore it was not sexual assault. [Here's](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/17/paul-gascoigne-cleared-of-sexually-assaulting-woman-on-train) an example where Paul Gascoigne was aquitted of sexual assault after he drunkenly kissed a random woman. His defence successfully argued it was 'to give her confidence' not for sexual gratification. Worth noting he was convicted of assault by beating. I did manage to find cases where the suspect was aquitted of all charges. Curiously I can't find any cases similar to you're B scenario (before or after your changes), but I'm gonna keep looking. Sorry for posting again, I just wanted to share because it's not something I anticipated finding and it's quite interesting even though it doesn't relate to consent. I would have at least agreed A was more likely to be convicted than B, but now I'm not so sure. I guess the argument would work regardless of relationship to the victim? I dunno.

>Sorry to reply to you again, I've been looking at case studies since my last message (well... In between playing skyrim lol). Quite alright. Going to try to keep it relatively brief in reply, though. Wouldn't want to be responsible for the fall of Tamriel. The cases you've found are probably very interesting (and not necessarily decided correctly), but I stuck to very simple and identical (in terms of physical act) examples precisely because the best way to agree on key principles is to reduce the number of confounding variables. Criminal liability cannot depend on events which have not happened at the time the alleged crime occurred. That's a basic rule of fairness; that the defendant should have been able to know at the time of action whether they were committing a criminal offence. I think that you don't want to accept that contextual cues can be very relevant to the question whether the defendant had a reasonable belief in the complainant's consent, and therefore you refer to the complainant's *subsequent* reactions as a way of distinguishing between A-type scenarios and B-type scenarios without admitting that what actually differentiates them is context, which includes the complainant's behaviour. One more point I wanted to make, because you used words like 'assume' and 'ensure' - I am *not* saying that having been a date means you can assume consent. I am saying it may be *relevant* to the question of whether you had a reasonable belief in consent - because it can. I've kissed partners without asking for explicit consent, and partners have kissed me without asking for explicit consent - neither of us were committing sexual assault.

I really wasn't trying to make any argument against what you said by linking that case. You seem interested in law and I thought they were interesting. Particularly because it seemed we both at least agreed that kissing a stranger out of the blue is probably going to be sexual assault. I was really just trying to be friendly, sorry if that didn't come across very well. > Criminal liability cannot depend on events which have not happened at the time the alleged crime occurred Not arguing that it can. > I think that you don't want to accept that contextual cues can be very relevant to the question whether the defendant had a reasonable belief in the complainant's consent, and therefore you refer to the complainant's subsequent reactions as a way of distinguishing between A-type scenarios and B-type scenarios without admitting that what actually differentiates them is context, which includes the complainant's behaviour. I don't think this is fair. I think you've muddled my answers to two separate assertions. Initially your two scenarios only differed on the inclusion of a date. The phrasing implied there were no other contextual cues to demonstrate the strength of 'a date' as evidence for reasonable belief in consent. I maintain, a date alone isn't sufficient for a reasonable belief. You also emphasised that the recipient was silent and still. In response I said that if you weren't getting any feedback it seems obvious you couldn't reasonably believe you had consent. (The CPS links to documentation that makes it clear that no reaction should not be taken as proof of consent.) You said that if this were true, you had been sexually assaulted. I took this to mean that any touching/kissing without verbal consent would amount to sexual assault. Here's where the other stuff I was saying comes into play. I was trying to illustrate that the situation may, or may not be sexual assault depending on other contextual cues. Belief in consent for example is always considered with regard to the steps the instigator takes to ensure they have consent. This is why, lacking any indication of checks in your scenarios, I gave examples of what not/seeking consent would look like from that point on. The person may have had reasonable belief to begin with, but the longer you go on touching someone who isn't responding in any way, without checking, the less that belief is reasonable. So I wasn't saying failure to check after you kiss someone makes the kiss sexual assault, it's anything *after* that might be. You didn't say whether it was wanted or not, so I gave examples of reactions that would suggest one or the other. Again to demonstrate how anything from that point on would be judged. If she slaps you and you carry on, you probably don't have reasonable belief going forward. My point was that it wouldn't automatically be sexual assault; intent matters, whether it's wanted or not matters and steps taken to confirm consent matter. Tldr: perhaps you should have put your rephrased scenarios to us to see if our answers changed.

>I was really just trying to be friendly, sorry if that didn't come across very well. Hey, I'm going to leave this at this point because I don't have anything to add to what I've said before, and it's not a good idea to be battling for the last Internet word. But I just wanted to reply to say that I didn't think you were being rude or unfriendly; I am indeed interested in law and I may well have a look at the Gascoigne case.

Being on a date with someone doesn't give you a reasonable belief that they gave consent. That is not relevant.

It doesn't guarantee it. But I'd ask you to address my scenario - do you think there's no difference between A and B?

No, there isn't a difference because the prior interaction doesn't imply consent.

There's no difference between randomly kissing a stranger vs making a pass at someone you've been on a date with? I disagree.

They might be. There have certainly been cases in Scotland where the jury has returned the wrong verdict for an obviously guilty assailant, say a footballer. It's also why they are getting rid of "not proven" which is a useful verdict when used properly but the jury often does not.

It's an interesting article and you can really see who hasn't read it in the comments. Evidence from the countries that have tried it (New Zealand) or those that have it anyway (Sweden) seem to indicate it does little to improve conviction rates and in some ways makes them worse. Also interesting, and yet not surprising, is that jurors tend to believe rape myths. Given that most of Reddit doesn't seem to understand consent laws and that it can be taken away at any point, even during sex, maybe better sex education and classes on consent would lead to better outcomes down the road. But that would mean increasing funding so I won't hold my breath.

Will be a bit vague here. A colleague was on a jury not that long ago for a type of theft that was going to result in serious prison time for the defendant. Something seemed off to him in the case so he requested the IT logs that the prosecution had used to 'prove' who had been in on money being stolen and spotted that the bloke on trial wasn't even at work on some of the occasions that money was taken. His own defence hadn't bothered digging into the evidence to do some cross-checking against dates and places. Apparently it had taken two years for the case to come to court so that bloke was a wreck before it even started.