I think people - including students! - are generally surprised to learn that our appeal process is structured almost entirely around that first sort of error.

Fundamentally I think the problem with answering the question is that we know at least in principle how to identify input errors (jury got bad info). We are not so good at identifying reasoning errors (jury did their job badly), which is the issue here.

There may be structural reasons such as police and prosecution practices and forensic services why you would have a higher rate of miscarriages of justice in the US (although dangerous to make assumptions). I’m not sure there is much basis for readily drawing conclusions about juries there, though.

It looks like the book chapter is available via the Internet Archive: archive.org/details/wron...

Suspect the answer is that it’s the university that is the visa sponsor, not the college, so this One Neat Trick that Chancellors Hate! won’t work.

You could in theory apply that to comparing juries and professional decision-makers but I don’t think that’s been done, and it still wouldn’t get you all the way to an answer.

There is some interesting US research on the size of juries showing that smaller juries (eg 6 members) are less consistent in decision making than 12-person ones, and therefore more often “wrong” in the sense that the correct verdict is the one which is consistently reached.

The answer I think has to be no because the system is based around the assumption that jury verdicts are correct verdicts, and if we had a system for accurately determining the *real* correct verdict to test them against we should be using that.

It makes me wonder if there has always been a grumbling about the relief and now there’s a chance to “fix” it. But the £2k limit confuses me: either you think income tax relief is enough (in which case why any NI relief?) or you want to make sure people save enough (£2k is surely too low?)

I wonder if that intent was ever clear, unlike with income tax relief. When salary sacrifice came in for my pension it was presented not as government policy but as a loophole: “so we’ve realised this would save money and we’ve asked HMRC and they seem to be ok with it”. But the effect is the same.

(Caveat of course that the evidence of the problem we do have is incomplete and contested. But the consequence of making these decisions in response to resource pressures is that they're not about that anyway, they're primarily about trying to move cases through the system as fast as possible.)

And the result of this is keeping juries for the cases in which they are most problematic. (As a separate point, I do worry about the effect on judges and barristers of narrowing down their caseload to the most traumatic cases, although it may be specialisation has this effect for some already.)

Yes, I was wondering about this: the effect on me as someone who pays via salary sacrifice is presumably just 2% on what I contribute over the £2k (fine, my view is they should be raising my tax more than that) - but 15% for the employer, on top of already having increased employers’ NI last year?

They're not all inquisitorial, but even if they are they still have to make evaluative judgments in deciding on verdicts just as our juries do - I don't think the inquisitorial/adversarial distinction does much if any work here.

I was wondering about that but couldn’t remember the name offhand - and yep, same pattern in Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.

Gordon went Lib Dem-SNP (Salmond)-Con over 2010-2017.

I suspect on reflection that some of my reviews - depending on the paper - end up doing it, just not in the form of an explicit section with that purpose. From other replies I think it may be either AI and/or ensuring that the paper has been understood...

Thanks both - useful to know this is not some complete outlier of a request.

For all I know there is a long backstory!