£ DRIVENMy second ever post on this site over three years ago headlined the defendants` right to choose mode of trial in either way offences and my opinion that it was time for this anomaly to end. Whilst it appears that the judiciary as a body has been silent on this issue (please correct me if I`m wrong) there is at least one crown court judge who spoke his mind albeit indirectly on this subject recently at Carlisle Crown Court. The report makes interesting reading.

Bearing in mind certain, one might say, restrictive guidelines on what a judge might or might not say in court, could it be argued that welcome though his honour`s sentiments might have been they could conceivably have affected the confidence in which the judiciary is held? I pose the question because by putting this post on line as a magistrate I {and colleagues doing similar} am perceived as possibly damaging confidence in the judiciary.

“Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, officer holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary. They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general.”

I ask yet again why are there defence lawyers who are unwilling to criticise single District Judges presiding over summary trials and yet argue passionately for trial by jury. My impression of lawyers` unwillingness to concede the anomaly that is defendants` right to choose mode of trial and wish it to continue unaltered is that it is driven more by pecuniary interest than anything else.