Among the 10 questions asked were:
"Can you define what is reasonable doubt?"
and
"Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?"
and
"
Can we speculate about the events at the time that Vicky Pryce signed the form, or what was in her mind at that time?"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
I blame the edukatshun sistim.
Last edited by: madf on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 15:50
|
Jury has been discharged in the Vicky Pryce case after failing to reach a verdict.
I'm surprised Huhne wasn't asked to appear by either side, but then maybe that would risk other family members being looked at for perjury if his story differed.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 14:18
|
The questions asked by the jurors suggest a frighteninig failure to grasp their role:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/20/vicky-pryce-jury-can-reach-majority-verdict
|
>>The questions asked by the jurors suggest a frightening failure to grasp their role:
Doesn't it just. But they seem pretty similar to the questions asked by jury I was a member.
It was all pretty straightforward until the foreman wanted his fifteen minutes of fame and dragged the jury-room bit out for hours. Some of the jurors got themselves tied up in absolute knots, and we went back to the judge for explanations that explained nothing on a couple of occasions.
I think there's a good argument that a jury should be helped in its deliberations by somebody who understands the law being in the room at the time.
|
>> It was all pretty straightforward until the foreman wanted his fifteen minutes of fame and
>> dragged the jury-room bit out for hours. Some of the jurors got themselves tied up
>> in absolute knots, and we went back to the judge for explanations that explained nothing
>> on a couple of occasions.
I suspect something similar here. Either the foreman or one or two other members were headstrong and wanted their view in however long others said it was evident rubbish.
Never been on a jury but had same scenario doing syndicate work during professional development courses,
|
>> The questions asked by the jurors suggest a frighteninig failure to grasp their role:
>>
This is what can often happen when people of below average intelligence are asked to make judgments of this kind!
|
I know I'm in danger of harping on again...but this exposes the problems with our jury system.
If you get Miss Marple trying to be clever...or someone who likes the sound of their own voice...or someone with an agenda......or a bully..or someone exceedingly meek and mild...etc....it all goes to rat's excrement.
We should have professional juries.
|
>>clever...or someone who likes the sound of their own voice...or someone with an agenda......or a bully..or someone exceedingly meek and mild...etc....<<
For one fleeting moment, I thought you were describing a fellow forum member there WP;)
Pat
|
|
I think all the exceeding meek and mild are gone Pat ;-)
|
I should have deleted that bit CG:)
Pat
PS: No vine weevils this year.
|
|
Just found white fly on the geraniums in my greenhouse :-(
|
You're a bad influence CG, VX will have a blue fit when he sees this;)
Yellow sticky things hanging above the staging cure mine.
Pat
|
>>For one fleeting moment, I thought you were describing a fellow forum member there WP;)
I don;t understand your point?
Do you not like the sound of your own voice? Because you could have fooled me.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 19:53
|
Have you no sense of humour Mark?
Do you have to be continually rude?
The 'point' made was a general one but if the cap fits.......:)
Pat
|
>>someone who likes the sound of their own voice
Why would you post on a forum if you didn't...?
|
>>We should have professional juries
And you think that would weed out the 'hang-em-high' and 'the State needs taught a lesson' guys?
I think it would positively encourage them to apply!
Wouldn't be cheap either.
In Scotland the Sheriff can be judge and jury in summary cases, and I presume magistrates perform the same role in England?
|
"This is what can often happen when people of below average intelligence are asked to make judgments of this kind!"
Did you come to that conclusion based on a reason that has no facts or evidence to support it? :-)
There is of course no evidence that the jury in question were below average in intelligence.
There is also no reason to believe that juries composed of below average intelligence are worse at coming to a "fair' result than juries composed solely of people of above average intelligence. In practice most juries are comprised of a selection of people of varying intelligence, wisdom and experience of life.
As far as the judges answers to the questions posed I'm sure that they are all legally correct but at the end of the day the jury can come to its conclusions in any way the like speculation or not. They don't have to give any reason why they came to the result they did and they can't be questioned on it.
|
Professional juries are a terrible idea.
What about Magna Carta? Did she die in vain?
|
To be fair, the judge apparently couldn't define reasonable doubt either.
There were probably three very stupid people on the jury in respect of whom the other nine were beating their heads against a brick wall.
|
>> To be fair, the judge apparently couldn't define reasonable doubt either.
I think he refused to try.
They're common words with a simple meaning and absolutely critical to the jury's verdict.
To explain or expand on them is both unhelpful and carries a high risk of shaming by the court of appeal.
|
Twelve good men and true, even if eight of them are women, don't have to be rocket scientists or, er, high-flying statisticians to reach a sound verdict.
The problem these days is that everyone is so conceited and self-important. Because they watch Newsnight sometimes they think they are all intellectual pundits and their opinions have a 'right' to prevail. Especially if they are of 'below average intelligence'.
A sensible no-nonsense jury foreman is a lot better than some pushy little would-be executive git.
|
>> Twelve good men and true, even if eight of them are women, don't have to
>> be rocket scientists or, er, high-flying statisticians to reach a sound verdict.
The problem nowadays is no one is willing to do as they are told. Everyone 'has rights', everyone wants their say, whether they know what they are talking about or not.
When a judge tells you what is expected of you...why not crack on and do it to the best of your ability. Why would you want to be a clever dick and try to second guess the system?
Freedom comes with responsibilities that some do not think about.
|
>> The problem nowadays is no one is willing to do as they are told
Shame on the Whistleblowers - was better 70 years ago when folks did what they were told.
Especially in Germany.
"fundamental deficits in understanding" is, however, one of the best insults I've read from a judge about a jury.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 17:01
|
Reading between the lines they had the following on the jury:
a conspiracy theorist
a religious nutter (wives obey your husbands)
and at least one person who was illiterate..
Sounds just like MPs then.
|
>> >> The problem nowadays is no one is willing to do as they are told
>>
>> Shame on the Whistleblowers - was better 70 years ago when folks did what they
>> were told.
>>
>> Especially in Germany.
You know what I mean. There's a balance to be had.
|
|
Lucky this man wasn't on the jury then! "The unnamed 28-year-old, from London, has flunked the car theory test 107 times and is still yet to pass"
|
Hauling 12 random people in to serve on a jury is the corner stone of our justice system
On the whole I can think of nothing more fair, and if ending up 12 Richards who can't decide which end a dog craps from results in a retrial, then that's a small price worth paying
|
>> Hauling 12 random people in to serve on a jury is the corner stone of
>> our justice system
>>
>> On the whole I can think of nothing more fair, and if ending up 12
>> Richards who can't decide which end a dog craps from results in a retrial, then
>> that's a small price worth paying
>>
I don't think so. I'm not at all comfortable with the following on juries:
- he/she who thinks the (insert race) must be guilty
- he/she who thinks they cannot possibly find anyone guilty, regardless of the evidence
- he/she who has incredibly low intellect
- he/she whose regard for someone from their own background outweighs any other consideration
- he/she who belongs to some sort of club/old school etc who would back someone of a similar background regardless
They are all out there.....and more.
......and it's not the re-trial that's the problem. It's the Not Guilty where there is no re-trial.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 18:51
|
>>
>> They are all out there.....and more.
Of course they are, but the point is you rarely get them all on the same jury at the same time
The majority of people in this country have sound morals and it follows that this must be reflected in the make up of most juries
If people get off when they are guilty than don't blame the jury system, blame those who didn't investigate and prosecute properly
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 19:40
|
>> The majority of people in this country have sound morals and it follows that this must be reflected in the make up of most juries
Yes.
The jury system isn't perfect by a long way but it embodies a democratic form of justice. That is a precious thing in itself. The police meet a disproportionate number of toerags and it makes them over-sceptical.
|
"The majority of people in this country have sound morals"
My wife must have sound morals - she's been called on to a jury three times whereas I've been totally ignored.
|
>> If people get off when they are guilty than don't blame the jury system, blame
>> those who didn't investigate and prosecute properly
>>
Yes, very good. You'll have to do better than that.
Perverse jury decisions affect all of us.
Look at the difference in conviction rates between the various Crown Courts. Compare somewhere like Snaresbrook with say my home city of Plymouth. Huge variations...because of the standard of juror.
Are the cops and CPS lawyers that service Snaresbrook really that poor compared to Plymouth?
Then you have the problem of some professional people successfully wriggling off juror duty, when the rest of us would really rather they stayed.
|
WP
Are the Snaresbrook v Plymouth conviction rates available as published stats? (ie do you have a link?)
Appreciate I could probably find them on Ministry of Justice website but every time I try to navigate it I lose the will to live.
|
>> Are the Snaresbrook v Plymouth conviction rates available as published stats? (ie do you have
>> a link?)
This suggests it may be somewhat anecdotal nowadays and times have changed
tinyurl.com/bcp9t7u
|
>> Appreciate I could probably find them on Ministry of Justice website but every time I
>> try to navigate it I lose the will to live.
>>
Try this
tinyurl.com/aokgk2v
|
>> Perverse jury decisions affect all of us.
Granted perverse decisions occur Westpig, but are they as numerous as all that? And is it really your impression that some courts get a disproportionate number of them?
The law is usually a blunt instrument really and there is the possibility of malpractice, error or slippage at every stage...
|
>
>> Yes, very good. You'll have to do better than that.
sigh
>>
>> Perverse jury decisions affect all of us.
>>
>> Look at the difference in conviction rates between the various Crown Courts. Compare somewhere like
>> Snaresbrook with say my home city of Plymouth. Huge variations...because of the standard of juror.
Oh dear. I see - its all the fault of juries.
You frequently seem to suggest on here that most of the population of the UK is a waste of space, waster, shirkers and villains. It also seems to me that you expect every case that goes to court to come out with a guilty verdict.
>> Are the cops and CPS lawyers that service Snaresbrook really that poor compared to Plymouth?
And who is to say its not a factor? caused by being overworked, understaffed, poor morale, poor leadership and a higher case load?
I have done jury service BTW. A long three week sexual assault case with mental health complications. We came up with a not guilty on one charge and a unable to reach a verdict on another - wasn't in a London court either. See, even us middle class professionals who didn't wriggle out of jury service let you down. Sorry about that.
If you are even interested in a jurors opinion, the prosecution case was poor, really poor.
|
>>If you are even interested in a jurors opinion, the prosecution case was poor, really poor.
In the trial I sat on a jury, counsel for the prosecution was amazing; like watching theatre. Defence was so dreadful (no doubt paid for by us too) that I still feel vaguely sorry for the bloke (for all he turned out to be a very nasty piece of work once we'd pronounced him guilty).
|
>> You frequently seem to suggest on here that most of the population of the UK
>> is a waste of space, waster, shirkers and villains
Now you presume too much. I happen to think that the vast majority of human beings, all over the world, all types, religions, everything...are all basically decent people.
The awful are very few in number.
My beef, is the rest of us are far too lax on the awful....and allow them to inflict themsleves on the weak, elderly, disabled etc....I think it is shameful the extent to which the few inflict misery on some.
. It also seems to me that
>> you expect every case that goes to court to come out with a guilty verdict.
Not every time....but it ought to be most.
For an officer to arrest someone they have to have a 'reasonable suspicion' to excercise their powers.
Once at a police station, the sergeant booking prisoners in has to overview the arrest powers just used and decide whether or not it was a properly conducted arrest and the powers used were correct. If not, they are immediately released.
An investigating officer would then need to convince an Inspector after the first 6 hours, then every 9 hours that the matter is being dealt with 'diligently' and 'expeditiously'..if not they are released.
If the investigating officer feels there is sufficent grounds to charge someone, they discuss it with the Custody Sergeant, who has to agree, taking in to account the Attorney General's Guidelines...(will a Caution suffice).
Then it goes to the CPS who apply a 'threshold test'. Roughly speaking a lawyer has to decide whether or not there is sufficient eveidence for there to be at least a 50% chance of a conviction at court.
Then it goes to court.
Conviction rates ought to be fairly high....and for some courts they are.
|
Interesting report here: tinyurl.com/azxtqtb by MoJ in 2010.
It states:
"While over half of the jurors perceived the judge’s directions as easy to
understand, only a minority (31%) actually understood the directions fully in the
legal terms used by the judge."
Sample size etc. : "The research used a multi-method approach to examine these issues:
case simulation with real juries at Crown Courts (involving 797 jurors on 68 juries);
large-scale analysis of all actual jury verdicts in 2006–08 (over 68,000 verdicts);
post-verdict survey of jurors (668 jurors in 62 cases)."
Written guidance to jurors is suggested: it seems that despite written guidance being given on interpretation in the case in point, some of the jury were uncomprehending or perhaps being obtuse...
|
>> The awful are very few in number.
So, by definition, should be the number of Jurors.
>> Conviction rates ought to be fairly high....and for some courts they are.
Dont heap all the blame on the jury, blame it on the way its prosecuted in court.
|
>> Dont heap all the blame on the jury, blame it on the way its prosecuted
>> in court.
I wish I could repeat the lengthy conversation I had with a mate who is a Magistrate..and his excessively negative feedback on just that subject.
Crown Courts must be different though, because Barristers are used from various different chambers.
|
>> I don't think so. I'm not at all comfortable with the following on juries:
That's why there are twelve isn't it? Unless the jury is predominantly like that, then the worst that should happen is a failure to agree.
|
|
Reasonable doubt means I'm pretty sure she's guilty - sure enough to not mind sending her to prison.
|
|
I suppose, maybe, that's the the point in a way of a jury. There are lots of people in a courtroom who understand and are beholden to to uphold the law. Surely though the point of a jury is to test the the law in the minds of those who it is meant to represent and to take a view as to whether it applies in a given case?
|
|
I think it possible that the CPS will decide not to proceed now, in view of the huge costs involved in a full retrial.
|
>> I think it possible that the CPS will decide not to proceed now, in view
>> of the huge costs involved in a full retrial.
There's also an interface with the Eastleigh by-election due next Thursday.
|
>> >> I think it possible that the CPS will decide not to proceed now, in
>> view
>> >> of the huge costs involved in a full retrial.
>>
>> There's also an interface with the Eastleigh by-election due next Thursday.
>>
On which result I have a modest flutter with William Hill!
|
Tenner each way on Labour I trust Rastaman? It's a bit open I agree, but I don't give much for your lot's chances.
Will la Pryce be retried or get off scot free? Soon the judge will be putting on the black cap for Hooner's sentence. Oo-er!
|
>> Tenner each way on Labour I trust Rastaman? It's a bit open I agree, but
>> I don't give much for your lot's chances.
Not saying! (But our candidate is a fine looking lady).
Last edited by: Roger on Wed 20 Feb 13 at 20:16
|
I was once on a jury panel - but not selected. Never did find out the result, but the case was of a small man accused of being an axe wielding maniac. Bit of drink I guess if it was true.
|
>> ....the case was of a small man accused of being an axe wielding maniac.
He wasn't called "Beeching" by any chance, was he?
|
On the whole, Dr Beeching performed essential amputations to save the life of the patient.
|
Just thought it was a topical semi-whimsical reference, that's all. :-)
It's the 50th anniversary of the famous report soon. "The Reshaping of British Railways" was published on 27th March 1963.
|
|
Including the humongous costs incurred by Ms Pryce on her own defence.
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Zander
This guy talked a lot of sense on the PM programme tonight. Worth a listen puts a lot of the crap said and written about this turn of events into perspective. I knew of him through his seminal work on PACE.
|
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Zander
>>
>> This guy talked a lot of sense on the PM programme tonight. Worth a listen
>> puts a lot of the crap said and written about this turn of events into
>> perspective. I knew of him through his seminal work on PACE.
A well respected lawyer. Is that an Oxymoron?
|
Interesting point made elsewhere
In response to jurors questions 4 & 5 which were about whether Miss Pryce could have called more evidence and her obligation to present a defence the Judge said:
There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence, on the contrary there is no burden on the defendant to prove anything at all
One of my learned friends begs to differ. Miss Pryce admits the facts but relies on the statutory defence of marital coercion. She does therefore have to prove that the criteria for that defence are met. If not then she's guilty. AFAIUI the standard she has to meet is balance of probability rather than reasonable doubt.
An analogy would be a motorist going through an amber traffic light. By doing so he commits an offence but has a statutory defence around it being impractical or dangerous to stop (no time to look up exact definition).
Perhaps that was what bamboozled the jury
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 21 Feb 13 at 11:04
|
>> Perhaps that was what bamboozled the jury
Maybe. On the face of it "Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?" almost sounds like a wind-up.
|
>> On the face of it "Can a juror come to a verdict based on
>> a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to
>> support it either from the prosecution or defence?" almost sounds like a wind-up.
It doesn't sound like that to me at all.
Rather, it suggests that "a juror" took a position based on reading between the lines and in an attempt to to move to a verdict the foreman sought to show clearly that it wasn't legitimate to make up one's own version of events.
|
>> >> On the face of it "Can a juror come to a verdict based on
>> >> a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence
>> to
>> >> support it either from the prosecution or defence?" almost sounds like a wind-up.
>>
>> It doesn't sound like that to me at all.
>>
>> Rather, it suggests that "a juror" took a position based on reading between the lines
>> and in an attempt to to move to a verdict the foreman sought to show
>> clearly that it wasn't legitimate to make up one's own version of events.
Absolutely agree Manatee. That was my thought on the tube this morning. Or if not the foreman, a frustrated jury member - for anybody can pass a note to the judge. The foreman could well have been the problem himself - his fifteen minutes of fame.
|
There's nothing to stop her running more than one defence even if they conflict - in theory. So she could still be "innocent" even if the marital coercion defence fails - in theory.
However in this case the admitted facts speak for themselves - she didn't commit the speeding offence, but she said she did. So the coercion is, in practice, the only credible defence and so she does in effect have to show her innocence.
I can well see why a jury might be taxed by that especially when the judge tells them in so many words that she does not have to prove anything.
I also think some of the questions were probably asked in order to try and resolve the deadlock in the jury, and some here have been unfairly hard on them.
|
Actually I don't think it's so very awful to come to a conclusion about something basing it on a bit more than the mere evidence.
It's what we all do all the time, and is called using one's intuition. It's supposed to be a peculiarly female trait/talent, but I use it a lot. I assemble the evidence, weigh it up carefully, and then use the weight of the evidence combined with a sixth sense to come to a conclusion.
If I can sense someone is a shifty character I am often happy to act on that assumption - I don't necessarily need hard evidence.
Of course you can't write it into the judge's rules, but it's common sense and a jury has every right to use it.
|
|
Has anyone considered, perish the thought, that this case should never have come to court, and this outcome could have been foreseen?
|
I can understand the juri's decicision.And what a waste of money for a retrial.
She wanted to keep him and took the points.Leave her be.
|
There is no evidence of marital coercion other than her statement, and the judge has said that she has no obligation to produce any more. The jury understandably asked how they were supposed to reach a verdict if they were not allowed to infer or speculate what the circumstances of signing might have been, and the judge unhelpfully told them they can only go by the evidence presented, of which there is none.
What did he expect would happen?
Asked what reasonable doubt meant, he said it was doubt that was reasonable.
But that's not what it means. It doesn't mean the doubt has to be reasonable, it means you have to make a reasonable assessment of the degree of doubt. The expression only means anything when the two words are considered as a whole.
|
|
Are the 20% (?) of the population who aren't clever enough to be on a jury, the same 20% who aren't clever enough to be out driving on our roads? At least there is a semblance of a screening process to hold a driving licence; is any screening done for jurors?
|
>> There is no evidence of marital coercion other than her statement
Her daughter took the stand in her defence.
|
>> Has anyone considered, perish the thought, that this case should never have come to court,
>> and this outcome could have been foreseen?
A hung jury is a fairly rare occurence. Less than 1% according to Professor Thomas's work kindly linked by WP above.
Assuming she'd give a statement admitting the facts then I don't think there was an option of not proceeding. To do so would, even if it were the usual response fr ordinarey Joe, look like a cover up for a Cabinet Minister. Neither could her role be overlooked but I suspect the prosecution would have recognised the high possibilty of an acquital.
His change of plea was a bombshell but once his legal submissions against proceeding had come to nowt he was stuffed.
|
|
She has admitted she took the points. The only step she can take is to offer mitigation. Any chance of a new trial in a different court, out of the Snaresbrook catchment area for jurors?
|
>> She has admitted she took the points. The only step she can take is to
>> offer mitigation. Any chance of a new trial in a different court, out of the
>> Snaresbrook catchment area for jurors?
>>
She admits she took the points but relies on a statutory defence (marital coercion). That's not the same thing as mitigation which is about why, after a guilty plea or verdict, sentence should be reduced.
The original trial was at Southwark not Snaresbrook. The re-trial is likley to be there too.
|
|
No good the judge blaming the jury.It's up to the judge to direct the jury.In this case more than likely some of the jury members felt sorry for her and wanted a suspendend sentence.Guessing here but just a gut feeling.
|
>> more than likely some of the jury members felt sorry for her and wanted a suspendend sentence.
That wouldn't make any difference to the verdict though Dutchie. Juries can recommend a light sentence if they want or add 'a strong recommendation for mercy'. It really does seem that this jury has more than the normal percentage of genuine half-wits.
|
>> Juries can recommend a light sentence if they want or add 'a strong recommendation for mercy'.
Under English law, can they?
>>It really does seem that this jury has more than the normal percentage of genuine half-wits.
They only need three of them, and then they can never get ten in agreement for a 'majority' verdict.
|
>> It really does seem
>> that this jury has more than the normal percentage of genuine half-wits.
>>
I'm inclined to think the opposite. They appear to have asked some basic questions which the judge has found difficulty in answering. Faced with his response they have simply thrown it back at him and said that they can't agree.
They begin to sound like worthy descendants of the 19th century jurors who often found starving thieves innocent because they disagreed with the harsh sentence that a conviction would bring.
An English jury has a right to be perverse and cussed occasionally.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Thu 21 Feb 13 at 15:29
|
|
On the whole, people have a good sense of whats fair and whats not. If its a thug beating some woman over the head i would push for hanging his balls on a pike staff outside the tower of london, were it in the juries remit, but had I been on the jury for the Pryce trial I would have been pushing for acquittal, knowing its an "establishment" trial for a crappy unpopular piece of legislation unfairly administered and unjustly brought.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 21 Feb 13 at 15:02
|
>>knowing its an "establishment" trial for a crappy unpopular piece of legislation unfairly administered and unjustly brought.
Perjury? I bet you were delighted when Archer bought it!
|
Archer was greedy and corrupt, Yes I was pleased he went down, and I had I been on that jury his balls would have been on a pike outside the tower as well. Pryce was none of those things, just very stupid.
Thats a sense of justice and fairness is it not?
|
In the Toadygraph report it was stated that the prosecution moved for a mistrial while the defence argued that the jury should be allowed to continue their deliberations.
This backs up something once told to me by a friend who is a solicitor. He handled criminal defence cases and freely admitted that most of his clients were as guilty as sin.
He said that, given some of the verdicts he and his colleagues had seen, what went on in a jury room was utterly unfathomable. However, as a general rule of thumb when defending the indefensible, a quick decision means you've probably lost, while the longer the deliberations continue the happier you are.
He also suspected that the root cause was long deliberation over what "reasonable" meant and what comprised a valid "doubt", which appears to be what those questions are about.
|
For all the faults of the current jury system it is probably as good as we can get it. Professional juries could bring awful problems, one they would be targets for corruption as are CID officers and two, they could be subject to political pressure to reach the "Right" verdict.
Conviction rates for rape too low and the government coming under pressure from voiciferous women's groups? Send the jurors back for "Retraining" on how they evaluate evidence, for example. The same could apply on many sensitive issues.
|
There is a long history of legal debate as to what "reasonable doubt" means, and whether it is the appropriate standard to apply.
See this appeal:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2563.html
Although the appeal was disallowed, the judge was however criticised for using the words "reasonable doubt" rather than simply saying that the jury must be sure the man was guilty.
That case similarly involved puzzled jurors asking the judge to explain what he meant, and he likewise failed to sound convincing.
So I think criticism of the jury in this case is misplaced - they are in fact revealing a very real weakness in the form of words used by judges. Jurers are supposed to be ordinary people, and they want ordinary answers.
|
Cliff, that's a very interesting decision.
The Telegraph today says that jurors should merely be told they have to be 'sure' and I thought at the time, that surely 'sure' implies a confidence that BRD does not.
If you look at online dictionaries, definitions of sure are:
Google: Confident in what one thinks or knows; having no doubt that one is right: "I'm sure I've seen that dress before".
The Freedicitonary Impossible to doubt or dispute; certain.
2. Not hesitating or wavering; firm: sure convictions.
3. Confident, as of something awaited or expected: sure of ultimate victory.
4.
a. Bound to come about or happen; inevitable: sure defeat.
b. Having one's course directed; destined or bound: sure to succeed.
5. Certain not to miss or err; steady: a sure hand on the throttle.
The judge says The prosecution do not have to prove the case so that you are certain of guilt and the reason I do not usually at all direct juries that they have to be sure of guilt is because, to my mind, juries can then become confused and think that 'sure' is the same as 'certain'.
From these dictionary definitions, I think that it is the judge who fails to realise that 'sure' and 'certain' are generally used to mean the same thing. I do agree there can be a slight nuance in 'sure' suggesting a level of uncertainty, but I suggest generally the man on the Clapham omnibus does not apply that uncertainty if he is 'sure'.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 22 Feb 13 at 14:16
|
>> Cliff, that's a very interesting decision.
Also includes a side issue touching on point (made here by Westpig) as to Moslems affirming rather than taking a oath on the Koran. Judge was criticised for following this point up.
|
>> Also includes a side issue touching on point (made here by Westpig) as to Moslems
>> affirming rather than taking a oath on the Koran. Judge was criticised for following this
>> point up.
>>
Judge wasn't wrong though was he?...the defendant was telling a pack of lies, originally 'affirmed' only, then when it was highlighted, he took the oath on the Koran, continued to lie and then was found Guilty.
....and at Appeal, the Appeal court still felt the conviction was safe.
|
>> telling a pack of lies, originally 'affirmed' only, then when it was highlighted, he took the oath on the Koran, continued to lie and then was found Guilty.
Some people are almost literally incapable of telling the truth. When pushed, they would rather say they don't know or have forgotten than admit something, even the time of day. The mind boggles at the sort of consciousness such people must have. It would be funny if it wasn't so sinister and potentially harmful.
|
|
Most of us use a white lie once in a while.I know some compulsive liars it's in their make up and very frustating if you know them from being a child.
|
>> Judge wasn't wrong though was he?...the defendant was telling a pack of lies, originally 'affirmed'
>> only, then when it was highlighted, he took the oath on the Koran, continued to
>> lie and then was found Guilty.
Of course the judge was wrong. There is a legal right to affirm, and making someone explain why they asserted it makes them look evasive. And in any case you say he continued to lie after swearing an oath.
I can assure you I won't be swearing any oaths. Let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay.
|
The judges are tying themselves up in their own legal knots.
On the one hand jurors are reprimanded for not knowing what "reasonable" and "doubt" mean in ordinary English, then are told that there is a difference in meaning between "sure" and "certain" which apparently should not be taken to have their ordinary meanings, which are virtually identical.
Confused?
I still think my criterion is best - are you certain enough of this person's guilt to not mind sending him to prison?
If you think he deserves it - convict. If you are a bit doubtful, acquit.
|
|
Or if you think the police probably fitted him up, but he's obviously a nasty lot who has done lots of similar things and got away with it, send him anyway.
|
>> Of course the judge was wrong. There is a legal right to affirm, and making
>> someone explain why they asserted it makes them look evasive. And in any case you
>> say he continued to lie after swearing an oath.
Of course the Judge was right.
What's the bigger picture?... A judicial system that tries to establish right from wrong. It encourages witnesses to tell the truth by getting them to swear on their holy book..a system left over from the days when religion and the holy book meant something significant to most people.
The person who presides over this..and is paid to ensure it runs properly, notices an anomaly..and speaks out.
That's 'right' to me...or do you advocate 'rules are rules' and the rigid bureaucratic sticking to them..even if they are wrong?
|
>> What's the bigger picture?... A judicial system that tries to establish right from wrong. It
>> encourages witnesses to tell the truth by getting them to swear on their holy book..a
>> system left over from the days when religion and the holy book meant something significant
>> to most people.
And now it means absolutely nothing to most people. The swearing in should be dumped ASAP, and anyone on oath (not sure what you would call it now) should be reminded of the penalties of lying (ie perjury, jail, fines etc etc)
|
>> And now it means absolutely nothing to most people. The swearing in should be dumped
>> ASAP, and anyone on oath (not sure what you would call it now) should be
>> reminded of the penalties of lying (ie perjury, jail, fines etc etc)
>>
Quite agree.
It's one of my main difficulties with juries made up of ordinary people. They don't know what awful people do, they cannot comprehend that some human beings would be like that...so can easily believe what the defence comes up with.
Meanwhile, people in the know think 'yeah right'...and another gets off.
|
>> They don't know what awful people do, they cannot comprehend that some human beings would be like that...so can easily believe what the defence comes up with.
Are you saying their naivety makes them doubt the evidence for people's misdeeds Westpig? That's what they are supposed to judge by after all.
Don't forget judges and magistrates have to let bad guys off sometimes for one reason or another. The law is a blunt instrument, not a set of sharp scalpels, dilators, surgical saws and the like...
|
>> Are you saying their naivety makes them doubt the evidence for people's misdeeds Westpig? That's
>> what they are supposed to judge by after all.
Basically, 'yes' I am saying that. The average person, even those of intellect or common sense or God Forbid, both.... will simply not know what the underclass are like or are capable of... so will find it hard to comprehend when spelt out in a court room. Bear in mind the prosecution has to prove it 'beyond reasonable doubt'..and any doubt whatsoever can lead to an acquittal.
So we have a system whereby ordinary people judge their peers...only they are not their peers...not by a long shot. How would any ordinary person possibly know what goes on at the truly squalid/criminal/desperate ends of society?...and a juror pops out of the woodwork for once or twice in their lives (three if they're unlucky)..and that's it, it's not as if they can gain experience in the role...and it's an important role.
Even being in the Old Bill for 30 years, in our capital city, it would sometimes happen that a detective would run something past me for someone in custody that I was 'Reviewing'..and I'd have to say 'he did WHAT'?...and we'd both discuss the awfulness of some people...and I'd go away thinking 'Christ I thought I'd heard it all, but I obviously haven't yet'.
On the odd occasion, say at a dinner party or something I'd try to say to some folk what these people are like (usually to some indignant lefty who's ignorance and liberal attitude has rattled my cage)...i'd notice from their expression that they'd not believe me and think I was either lying or over egging the pudding....sadly I wasn't.
>>
>> Don't forget judges and magistrates have to let bad guys off sometimes for one reason
>> or another.
Yes..and rightly so...we should be proud of our checks and balance. My only beef is i'd actually like it to be, well you know balanced.
The law is a blunt instrument, not a set of sharp scalpels, dilators,
>> surgical saws and the like...
Yes, I accept that, you can only get it up to a certain standard.
|
I entirely understand that the police see stuff that the rest of us get nowhere near. Truly dperaved and corrupt behaviour.
But what was done is one thing. The jury's task is to decide if the persons in the dock actually did it. If they come to the wrong verdict then that's at least to some extent a failure of presentation by the CPS and its Counsel and witnesses.
It's not ideal but its as good as we'll get. Professional jurors would soon become hardened sceptics. There is also a massive difficulty in recruiting and selecting such people in a way that achieves balance in (a) the pool of jurors and (b) those selected and further in appraising their performance.
It would be mightily useful if the Professor whose work you linked up thread could do anonymised research into juries. Such work is however expressly prohibited by the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Which Lord Chancellor might have the courage to repeal it.
|
>> The average person, even those of intellect or common sense or God Forbid, both.... will simply not know what the underclass are like or are capable of... so will find it hard to comprehend when spelt out in a court room.
Granted Wp people unfamiliar with legal procedures will be unsure of themselves in court and easily confused by counsel whose job it often is to confuse them. But I wonder if you are really right about their inability to conceive of seriously bad comportments. They read the papers, they watch crime thrillers and dramas on TV and video which routinely portray phenomenal depravity and cruelty.
Indeed I have a sneaking feeling that some jurors are all too willing to believe the worst of their fellow-citizens and may, through untutored reading of tabloid news and fiction, have an exaggerated idea of the prevalence of extremely wicked behaviour. Remember the kerfuffle about non-existent 'satanic abuse', and the very recent explosion of noncing allegations, some of them false?
I posted something a few days ago about being accused of nonce tendencies for photographing an engaging street urchin. That was in central Africa 30 years ago. Doubtless there had been some poor behaviour by French or other coopérants leading to the (young, Muslim, not too bright) secret policeman's attitude.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 24 Feb 13 at 14:49
|
>> Indeed I have a sneaking feeling that some jurors are all too willing to believe
>> the worst of their fellow-citizens and may, through untutored reading of tabloid news and fiction,
>> have an exaggerated idea of the prevalence of extremely wicked behaviour.
There's merit in what you both say....my real problem is the lack of openness in a court...it's a big game played out....and truth, honesty, openness etc doesn't necessarily play a big part. Defendants regularly lie their heads off, quite blatantly.
If a barrister says 'my client apologises for the mistake he made and is ashamed of his court appearance'...whilst there ARE people that applies to, there are a considerable number that what that actually means is 'my client is a thieving, robbing sh£t and the minute he is out he will be planning his next crime'.
In those circs a fresh jury is just as likely to believe a defence barrister and will never be told his 15 previous convictions, his propensity to violence, etc. How many times does one person get the benefit of the doubt?..most times with a new jury, a good legal team and a new suit.
It doesn't really affect me, my victim status for crime has been absolutely minimal, i've always been able to live in the nice areas, particularly so now...Trouble is I haven't forgotten all the decent folk who are left behind...for the sh£ts to prey on...and then get no penalty if/when they are caught.
My vote would be a professional jury, so that a juror could not be easily hoodwinked.
|
>> My vote would be a professional jury, so that a juror could not be easily
>> hoodwinked.
In my opinion of course, completely the wrong thing to do. Alas too many professional law people have shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy and corrupt of late.
In short I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.
|
>> a professional jury, so that a juror could not be easily
>> hoodwinked.
Problem is, a professional jury would become a professional lawgiver like a judge or magistrate, and would acquire real or perceived group interests as well as that blasé offhand professionalism that so terrifies and confuses ordinary citizens up before the beak in whatever capacity. And it would also remove the democratic element, the jury of 'peers'.
Someone pointed out that good men and true aren't just any old rubbish, but people of established standing and probity. Personally I think jury selection could be improved by a stern weeding-out of toerags, frivolous elements, halfwits and bigots, before the prosecution and defence got a chance at them. Given the character of today's population that might mean culling as many as 50 per cent of the original intake, depending on area. But 'perverse verdicts' might become less frequent as a result.
|
>> Someone pointed out that good men and true aren't just any old rubbish, but people
>> of established standing and probity. Personally I think jury selection could be improved by a
>> stern weeding-out of toerags, frivolous elements, halfwits and bigots, before the prosecution and defence got
>> a chance at them. Given the character of today's population that might mean culling as
>> many as 50 per cent of the original intake, depending on area. But 'perverse verdicts'
>> might become less frequent as a result.
I'd go with that.
|
|
There could be a halfway house. Register an interest as a Juror (people do actually want to do it) - get some basic training with a tax credit or something as a sweetner, easily managed via on-line learning, and then go on a list.
Last edited by: R.P. on Mon 25 Feb 13 at 17:35
|
A professional jury employed by the state would find themselves corrupted by doing favours to state employees.
Eg NHS employees, BBC, etc...
After all, who is going to disrupt the coterie of well paid managers having no responsibility for anything? No state paid jury will.
|
|
There would be Human Rights' challenges to potential unfair trials by the dozen. The state needs to learn to keep it's nose out of things judicial. Slippery slope.
|
The state needs to learn to keep it's nose out of things judicial. Slippery slope.
>>
Good point.
|
>>Register an interest as a Juror (people do actually want to do it)
Wouldn't work. Nobody with a job would ever register. (Other than maybe state sector employees.)
"so you mean you've volunteered to do jury service and now want two weeks off work, extra free paid holiday???"
|
>> >>Register an interest as a Juror (people do actually want to do it)
>>
>> Wouldn't work. Nobody with a job would ever register. (Other than maybe state sector employees.)
>>
>>
>> "so you mean you've volunteered to do jury service and now want two weeks off
>> work, extra free paid holiday???"
Works with the territorial army.
However, I wouldn't want anyone who wants to be on a jury, on a jury so to speak.
|
>>
>> However, I wouldn't want anyone who wants to be on a jury, on a jury
>> so to speak.
>>
My thoughts too.
You'd attract the Hi Viz-clipboard types who get on everybody's nerves. Probably the ones who'd keep sending notes to the judge asking for clarification on obscure and irrelevant legal points.
|
>> Wouldn't work. Nobody with a job would ever register. (Other than maybe state sector employees.)
It could be made compulsory for everyone qualified. Voting could too as it is in Australia.
I was once called for jury duty. I went because I think of it as a civic duty, but there was some problem about being able to do it just at that moment, I forget what it was. To my surprise I was excused jury service for life.
Perhaps they don't want jurors who are fully compos mentis.
|
|
I had to get time off school to do my jury service!
|
>>Perhaps they don't want jurors who are fully compos mentis.
or me :-)
I have never had the call. SWMBO was invited but at several months pregnant was excused.
Nearest I have got was an open day at Kingston CC . and attended as a witness at a magistrates court but then was not required.
|
>> attended as a witness at a magistrates court but then was not required.
That happened to me. I was told the scrotes pleaded guilty knowing a witness turned up.
|
I was prime witness.
It was a RTC at a traffic light controlled crossroads.
I was waiting at the stop line with a biker on my right who was in a right turnonly lane.
As I expected ,on the green, he gunned it aiming to get in front of me.
In expectation I paused to let him get on with it.
I assumed he did not fully understand " proceed if all is clear" and did not check to his right.
The result was he gunned it into the side of a vehicle that had jumped the lights.
I was quite annoyed at the time as I had spent a lot of time prior to the case and half a day away from work.I have no idea what the oucome was as there was no feedback.
|
>> Perhaps they don't want jurors who are fully compos mentis.
>>
So, why then, did they exclude you?
:-)
|
>>
>> It's one of my main difficulties with juries made up of ordinary people. They don't
>> know what awful people do, they cannot comprehend that some human beings would be like
>>
In other words they are supposed to bring their knowledge of life and its ways into the courtroom, and base their verdict on things they have learned other than from the witnesses presented.
Wasn't that one of the jury's questions, firmly squashed by the judge?
|
>> The person who presides over this..and is paid to ensure it runs properly, notices an
>> anomaly..and speaks out.
>>
>> That's 'right' to me...or do you advocate 'rules are rules' and the rigid bureaucratic sticking
>> to them..even if they are wrong?
Left to his own devices the judge would almost certainly have not taken the point. It was raised, for whatever reason, by prosecuting counsel. Instead of stamping on the issue with a sharp reminder to the witness that in law affirmation and oath were equal he pursued the point.
All a bit odd because it's been established case law for many years that no inference can be drawn between affirmation and oaths on the bible.
|
I've never been called for Jury service either, sister and son have, makes you wonder of they know something that disqualifies me..)
|
>> I've never been called for Jury service either, sister and son have, makes you wonder
>> of they know something that disqualifies me..)
>>
>>
Posting on here: MI5 monitor us....
|
I did jury service once. There was a highly amusing motoring related tale from one of the witnesses.
The accused was on trial for allegedly performing an armed robbery at a branch of McDonald's. He and his accomplices had parked their getaway car outside the "restaurant" (for want of a better word), unattended, with the keys in the ignition and the engine running. The witness, a passerby, saw what was happening, dived in to the car (a Granada, late 80s hatch design, of course I'd remember a detail like that), removed the keys from the ignition and went to hide in a nearby bush to watch the perpetrators return to the car.
Of course, they emerged from the Macky's, jumped in to the car, shut the doors and all hell broke loose. Once they'd realised that none of them had the keys, they jumped out and scarpered, by which time the sound of plod sirens was approaching.
Sadly, the trial never reached a conclusion as the judge ruled that the prosecution case was insufficient to secure a conviction, and the case was dismissed before the case for the defence was presented. I'm sure to this day that the accused was guilty, given the reaction of the attending arresting hoccifer (and the accused himself) when the judge pulled the plug.
|
Chris Huhne pleads guilty - Lygonos
