Trial by jury

A nineteen year old student has been sent to jail for two weeks for non attendence in court. On the fifth day of a trial he went to London with his mother to watch a show. Not only did he hold up a trial thereby increasing the expense of administering the law, but also the other eleven jurors who have lost a day out of their lives.
It's about time the expensive anachronism of trial by jury was consigned to history. There is no need for this extra degree of supervision in administering what passes for justice. The prosecution service vet all cases to the extent that only those with a good chance of success go through to trial so that in the majority of cases, those before the judge are guilty as charged. Why waste time and money on twenty or more people who have better things to do with their time such as working to put bread on the table. (They start with twenty to reach a final twelve) A recent trial was ended and the jury retired to consider their verdict. It took one minute for them all to decide on a guilty verdict but not wishing to look too precipitate in their decision, played cards for an hour before the foreman called a court official to say that they were ready.
For too long British justice has  erred on the safe side, the British taxpayer bearing the cost of 'justice'. Now the costs are too high, barristers and solicitors eager to get ther hands on the public purse. The Minister of Justice should put an end to this practice of trial by jury-most of the jurors cannot understand some of the cases in any case- and leave the judgement to trained arbiters either singly or, for more important and complicated cases, in twos or threes.