Feb 18 2010
Are Juries Fair?
The title of the Minstry of Justice report about Juries may have been an unintentional reminder of the agenda of at least some in Government. “Are Juries Fair?” was a question that I did not think needed asking, but in attempting to answer the question, the report has thrown a large dose of cold water over some of the assumptions people made about Juries. Firstly, there is no evidence of racism when it comes to Jury decisions. The assertion that rape cases mainly end up in aquittals was also challenged. 55% of rape trials end up with a conviction. Finally, it revealed a system where Jurors strove to be fair in their deliberations, even if there is a significant number who do not fully understand judicial directions of law.
The last finding came as no surprise to me whatsoever – getting anyone to understand the standard direction about a Defendant’s failure to give an account in police interview is a task beyond Hercules himself, I have always thought. The use of written directions, already widespread in serious cases, can and should be extended to all but the most straightforward case.
There was much discussion in the report about the influence of the internet. Already, Judges are told to direct Juries not to conduct any internet research about the case or as part of their deliberations. It has been suggested that at the beginning of trials, a “jurors guide” could be handed to each member of the Jury. Not a bad idea, but it would be wrong to think that Jurors appear to be sworn in Court without having had any information about the process. Each of them will have been taken into a court by a member of staff and shown a short film on video which gives them a helpful overview of the task ahead.
My experience of Juries is that, very often, a point will have to be repeated before it is fully absorbed. When you think about it, this is only to be expected, bearing in mind the fact that Jurors have been placed in an environment that to the vast majority of them will be wholly alien. It sometimes happens that a Juror, despite the fact that he or she was told the name of a witness at the beginning of the case so that anyone with direct personal knowledge of the people in the case could be excused from serving on that Jury, only realises that they know a witness or other connected person after the trial has begun. I put this down to the “sensory overload” that can affect some Jurors at the beginning of cases. They are asked to swear a Juror’s Oath, which for those who have forgotten their reading glasses or who have other difficulties, can be a nerve-wracking and embarrassing experience.
Modern Courts and Judges are trained to do their very best to make Jurors feel comfortable, informed and valued. I welcome the Report’s findings and believe that they go a long way to re-inforce the vitally important principle of Trial by Jury.
For the report, which is written by Professor Cheryl Thomas of University College London, go to http://www.justice.gov.uk/latest-updates/are-juries-fair.htm
One response so far
I have always supported the principle of English Law that everyone has the right to trial by his peers.
I certainly don’t want our Judiciary making arbitory judgment on anyone and couldn’t support any change to this foundation principle of our laws.
If you want to change what has been and (should) always will be our standards then you cannot be against the second principle that everyone has the right to remain silent.
Changes as great as that proposed should only be after a referendum. We the people should say what we want.
In fact interestingly, I have failed to see any mention, which may be my fault, on your views to what seems to be gathering momentum as to whether you support a referendum on the EU.
Or whether you feel you would support the UK staying in or leaving the UK altogether.
I personally have asked literally hundreds of people in Swindon during the course of my work what they think and the general feeling is to leave completely. But when you ask why they can’t really give an answer.
This leave’s me thinking that it is simply that we the general public simply don’t know, haven’t been given enough information, or are stalled up with Politian speak. After all we are only told that which we need to know to operate our daily lives. That’s the reason education is/was dumbed down.
There isn’t a person under 40 who could pass an A level exam from the 50s or early sixties. Dickslesia (sic)was an invented word for educationalist to cover up their inadequate teaching methods for over sized classes.
Twaddle and rubbish others might think. But I educated my kids at home and they have all been better achievers than the kids in the street. One recently getting a triple distinction on a law paper for corporate manslaughter. (with a little help from matter and patter.) And I think it was an ashtray but it’s some kind of a glass thing with inscription. And the inevitable piece of award paper for best student.
The other starting his own business and pays more in tax than I earn. So defiantly a supporter of all civil servants as he pays for all the mistakes.
I also hear that you are here to help others.
I actively slated as often as possible Julia Drown and a certain A Snellgrove, even giving her husband a few choice words when they knocked on my door.
Newspapers’ carried my comments for weeks. Same question directed to both.
WHAT HAVE THEY EVER DONE FOR SWINDON?
Their tirade was the same, I have done this for this group somewhere else and I’m on this, that and some other committee for something unpronounceable and about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. But it allows me to draw fantastic allowances to be wasted ffor little or NO return and I don’t have to account to anyone for anything.
But never ever could one of them say something like. I campaigned and got this built, done, or anything for these the people of Swindon.
They both got exposed as the money grabbing fraudsters that they turned out to be. In the end we all get found out for whatever misdeeds we do. And theirs didn’t come soon enough.
Good luck with whatever it is that you’re supposed or say you intend to do, but remember this, Swindon is the reason you know get more than a Judges wage so do something for Swindon.
Roads, education, relief for our elderly from gangs of harpies that plague them, MAKE the police do something, anything, but they have to be seen to be doing something they are a disgrace, stop plaguing motorists, a start already from Roderick Bluh, Keep it up, full support from the country I think never mind just the borough.
As all the manifesto rubbish is now gone with the alliance, what counts for us it what are you going to try to do for us.
And can we have a vote on the EU.