According to BBC news the first ever trial will go ahead in England & Wales without a jury and with the Judge deciding on the verdict of the defendants.
Apparently the previous trials have collapsed with members of the jury being attacked or intimidated so according to the powers that be this is the best way of proceeding with the prosecution as providing police protection for the jurors and their families would prove to be far too expensive.
I do wonder if this case will set a dangerous precedent for future trials as it seems to make a mockery of the basic principals of British justice which is trial by jury.

Not only does it set a dangerous precedent,but I'm worried the publicity will affect the chances of a fair trial,even with annonimity.

it is a worrying precedent and why wasn't the obvious done-locating the trial to a different city ?

That said-a jury isn't always ideal if the judge doesn't correctly give them guidance. I've sat on one jury about 15 years ago involving a theft case and I was quite shocked at the prejudices expressed. The defendant was black and the evidence very circumstantial and the judge said as much-basically that if we had doubt on the evidence we must find innocence.

But at least 2 people on the jury were adamant that "he looked guilty"and then only changed their mind as the day wore on and looked like they were bored stiff (as we all were).

A lot of jury trials do get overturned on appeal so basically there are the checks and balances.

Be wary of any government that wants to "steamline" trials in order to save money.