Back in simpler days, a trial by jury was better than a trial by judge alone. There's a lot of evidence which indicates a trial by jury isn't exactly accurate, particularly as the best jurors are usually dismissed by one side or another. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense wants thinking people on the jury. They want people on the jury whom they can manipulate.
So, is getting rid of the jury system altogether the answer? Not at all! Your Lord Hoo-Hoo McClellan wants to wrestle yet even more power from your people by putting the decisions in the hands of judges alone, either in a panel, or with one or two "assessors," apparently experts who're familiar with the evidence.
The problem I have with the idea of one or two "assessors" is that my only interaction with such court "experts" (three of them) clearly demonstrated that the first was a blithering idiot, and the second and third would not overturn his findings if their lives depended on it, ostensibly out of "professional courtesy."
I'd much rather see the jury system remaining, but with the vetting process reversed so as to ensure jurors are intelligent, objective thinkers, rather than ignorant and compliant. Most of the legal system, both down under as well as here in the U.S. are against it, however, as it would wrest power away from them and give it back to the people.
Fancy that notion, though...