Reply to: Trial by Jury

[NotAllThere]

I watched a lot of the Post Office enquiry and formed the opinion that juries including IT / tech professionals would not have provided convictions based on the available evidence.

For a start "There's nothing wrong with Horizon, it's working perfectly there are no bugs" would have been met with a huge amount of scepticism!

[Protagoras]

What I can say for sure is that trial by jury is the least worst option and it should be preserved, however, 12 is stupid number it should be 15 with a majority of 13 being good enough and a "not proven" verdict* should be available as it is in Scotland.

Scotland is abolishing the 'not proven' verdict; on balance I'd say that it would be better if it was retained.

I also have my doubts about the value of juries in specific highly technical cases such as complex financial crimes.

I've a friend who spent almost a year on a jury regarding financial crime. She was able to do this because her (large) employer continued to pay her and I'm certain that her knowledge and dedication would have secured the correct verdict.

I watched a lot of the Post Office enquiry and formed the opinion that juries including IT / tech professionals would not have provided convictions based on the available evidence.

Apart from employees of large companies, many have avoided jury duty since the cost was too high. There are plenty of people available with the necessary competence to serve on juries in complex cases, but there's a huge financial disincentive for people to serve - and freelance type workers are pretty-much unavailable.

[Chris Bryce]

Anyone remember the Diplock courts?

Having recently served on a jury and therefore spent several days listening to evidence and to the jurists' discussions, I am very much interested in this one.

Whilst I think the "12 Angry Men" tenet of UK jurisprudence is a sound one and one we should cherish, I have also come to the conclusion that with jury decisions:-

1. Emotions play a part
2. Age plays a part
3. Parenthood (or otherwise) plays a part
4. Gender plays a part
5. Socio-economic background plays a part
6. Education and experience plays a part
7. Overall intelligence plays a part

Now, all these things might often be for the overall good - but sometimes they will not.

What I can say for sure is that trial by jury is the least worst option and it should be preserved, however, 12 is stupid number it should be 15 with a majority of 13 being good enough and a "not proven" verdict* should be available as it is in Scotland. I also have my doubts about the value of juries in specific highly technical cases such as complex financial crimes.

I'd be prepared to listen to arguments that trivial and non-violent offences could be considered by a judge sitting with two magistrates, but there must also be an absolute limit of three years available to them for sentencing. A judge on his/her own and a "see how I feel" sentencing policy just isn't good enough.

Clearly an overall revamp and heavy investment in the whole MoJ apparatus is required - it's ludicrous that we have monumental backlogs when there are Courts which can't sit due to dilapidated buildings/lack of transport/lack of IT/whatever.


*i.e. We think the defendant is as guilty as sin, but the Crown demonstrably failed to prove its case.

[Protagoras]

Although not personally generally subject to English jurisdiction, I do think that these changes are not for the better. It would surely be easy to hold more trials - funding the service properly and paying jurors' actual loss of income would be a start.

I see juries as a line of defence against excesses of the state.

Suppose we see people prosecuted for supporting a 'proscribed' organisation where it is far from clear on the evidence available that the majority of the population support the 'proscription'?
One might ponder whether a jury would be prepared to convict people for simply holding placards in peaceful protest. A judge would simply apply the law; a juror would consider whether justice was being served. I for one would not be able to convict someone merely for having a dissenting opinion.

[NotAllThere]

When you are retired and decided to go on a protest where some in the group knock down a statue of a sex abuser/let down the tyres of a lorry carrying animals for slaughter abroad/whatever, you are arrested with them and charged, you will care.

No because a) you should be charged. The law is the law. And b) don't be an idiot. Other avenues of protest are available.

Funnily enough, over here we have plenty of free speech... but no juries. Wierd huh? Only the UK needs them, apparently.

[sadkingbilly]

When you are retired and decided to go on a protest where some in the group knock down a statue of a sex abuser/let down the tyres of a lorry carrying animals for slaughter abroad/whatever, you are arrested with them and charged, you will care.

and why would i want to do that??
I'm not a treehugging acitivist.
so,
IDGAFF!!

[SueEllen]

not being an habitual criminal.
IDGAFF.

When you are retired and decided to go on a protest where some in the group knock down a statue of a sex abuser/let down the tyres of a lorry carrying animals for slaughter abroad/whatever, you are arrested with them and charged, you will care.

A jury will decide you are all innocent as that's your right to protest, but a judge will decide you are guilty of criminal damage. The jury gives you justice but a judge applies the law.

[vwdan]

Well, if an unjust conviction occurs, there's always the European Convention on Human Rights

I think you mean the European Court of Human Rights, unless you think waving a piece of paper will help. Secondly, that's "not how it works" - the odds of a British criminal conviction meeting the threshold such that the conviction is unsafe under the ECHR is essentially nil - you're essentially asking the Court to find that either the entire process was so profoundly unfair as to be in breach, or that the law itself was in breach.

Finally, even if you do win - what is it you think happens? You realise it's non-binding, and doesn't quash your conviction, don't you?

[WTFH]

Well, if an unjust conviction occurs, there's always the European Convention on Human Rights

[FIERCE TANK BATTLE]

Famously, no innocent person has ever been taken to court.

And no judge ever has a personal agenda.

[vwdan]

All fine and well until you're falsely accused of something and need a jury to listen to your case.

Famously, no innocent person has ever been taken to court.

[Uncle Albert]

not being an habitual criminal.
IDGAFF.

All fine and well until you're falsely accused of something and need a jury to listen to your case.

[NotAllThere]

Other systems are available. There are countries in Europe that only have jury trial in specific circumstances. They're not particularly noted for their lack of freedom and justice.

However, they do have non-adversarial systems. Rather inquistorial, seeking the facts. So maybe change that as well.

[sadkingbilly]

not being an habitual criminal.
IDGAFF.

[vwdan]

Is it still the case in English law that a jury can find someone not guilty where they disagree with the law or its application even against the direction of a judge?
If so, I guess this will be lost for the cases in scope of the changes.

Not only the case, but hard fought over centuries and now enshrined in what is arguably constitutional law and we even have a plaque to it in the old Bailey.

Near this site WILLIAM PENN and WILLIAM MEAD were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Gracechurch Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the jury, Thomas Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others, who refused to give a verdict against them although locked up without food for two nights; and were fined for their final verdict of Not Guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a writ of habeas corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which established the right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions

Anybody who doesn't see these changes as a fundamental erosion of the rights of the public needs to give their head a wobble. Make no mistake, with this change we lose a substantial backstop against injustice and tyranny. The fundamental, and enshrined, right for a jury to acquit.