Read on Twitter
Some observations on limiting jury trial, from the perspective of dealing with tribunals and the DWP:-
Decision makers, who would be equivalent to the prosecution in a criminal context, are very good at exploiting the tendency of people to become normalised to poor behaviour.
Decision makers, who would be equivalent to the prosecution in a criminal context, are very good at exploiting the tendency of people to become normalised to poor behaviour.
The role of arguing against it becomes socially unacceptable and you end up in a position where the tribunal (judge) is bored and annoyed at you for being right. My clients think they've spotted a sure-fire winner when a decision...
states they appeared not to be anxious at an assessment in May 2020, when no face to face assessments took place anywhere in the UK in May 2020. The whole thing is clearly a lie. But somehow I have to explain to them that the tribunal won't be very interested and pointing...
this out will probably just annoy them. The DWP obviously know they didn't do a face to face assessment in May 2020 and appear to be exploiting this effect to get lies accepted. It's similar to Trump and the media as well. Instead of getting the whole decision/case chucked out,
the lies and fallacies seem to serve a purpose of distraction or earning undeserved praise when a point is made that's even slightly less wrong. The appellant/defendant has no opportunity to exploit this effect and would be judged harshly for the same behaviour.
Overall I'm not entirely persuaded by the idea juries have some amazing ability to spot lies, but this should be an important consideration. They aren't so susceptible to being normalised by constant exposure.
