Sunday Express Skeleton 19Th May
Crosswords0 min ago
Has The Jury System Had Its Day?
The Judge seemed none too impressed with some of the questions put to him by what does seem to have been a very confused jury in the Vicky Price case.
http://
The Jury in this case seemed to be struggling with basic english and the fundamentals of what might constitute evidence. Should this be considered a one-off failure, or should we give some serious thought to dropping juries altogether?
Herbert Spencer, an english philosopher, once described juries as " a group of 12 people of average ignorance" - In this case at least, the ignorance quotient seems to have been higher than average......
http://
The Jury in this case seemed to be struggling with basic english and the fundamentals of what might constitute evidence. Should this be considered a one-off failure, or should we give some serious thought to dropping juries altogether?
Herbert Spencer, an english philosopher, once described juries as " a group of 12 people of average ignorance" - In this case at least, the ignorance quotient seems to have been higher than average......
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I was called for jury service once and had to sit on three cases. To me it was a complete waste of time. On the first one in particular I could not understand why the case had been brought. The chap being judged had been caught red-handed having broken into premises and was stealing stuff and yet he was pleading not guilty. And the jury were a right load of idiots, me included. One woman wanted to set him free because she felt sorry for him! Honestly!! We managed to reach a decision in the end - the judge had directed that it had to be unanimous - and we found him guilty. It turned out that he had a long list of previous convictions and was a habitual offender which of course was why he had pleaded not guilty. He was hoping to get away with it. There must be a better way, but unfortunately, I don't know it.
Here’s a bit of info, OL:
http://
But of course trials without a jury long pre-date that. Some 95% of all criminal cases are seen to a conclusion in Magistrates’ courts. No juries are involved in the Magistrates’ courts and trials are held usually before a bench of three lay magistrates. However a sizeable number (particularly in London and other large cities) are heard before District Judges sitting alone. District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts) have the same sentencing powers as a bench of three lay magistrates and, when presiding over a trial, decide on matters of law and matters of fact. In the event of conviction they also pass sentence. They act, in fact, as judge and jury (as do a bench of lay magistrates).
I came to no such conclusion about this particular jury, jake. I have no information regarding the ethnic origin of the members. I was making a general comment on the point raised by pdq1. In Inner London (where this case was heard)) there are huge numbers of people for whom English is not their first language and who struggle with anything other than very basic English. Indeed there are quite a few for whom English is their first - often only - language who demonstrate similar weaknesses. There is a very strong likelihood, therefore that people with weak English (not of any particular ethnic origin, incidentally) will find their way on to a jury hearing a serious criminal case. I have a very small grasp of Spanish, but would struggle badly to follow a criminal trial in Spain.
It may well have been that language was a problem in this particular instance, I could not possibly say. One thing is for certain, though, and that is that no member of the court staff would dare to suggest that they had suspected language difficulties among any jury members. It could well be that to overcome this problem a simple solution would be for jurors to take a language test before being sworn. But I doubt that such an outrageous assault on “political correctness” would be allowed to succeed just to satisfy such a trivial matter as the interests of justice and a fair trial.
http://
But of course trials without a jury long pre-date that. Some 95% of all criminal cases are seen to a conclusion in Magistrates’ courts. No juries are involved in the Magistrates’ courts and trials are held usually before a bench of three lay magistrates. However a sizeable number (particularly in London and other large cities) are heard before District Judges sitting alone. District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts) have the same sentencing powers as a bench of three lay magistrates and, when presiding over a trial, decide on matters of law and matters of fact. In the event of conviction they also pass sentence. They act, in fact, as judge and jury (as do a bench of lay magistrates).
I came to no such conclusion about this particular jury, jake. I have no information regarding the ethnic origin of the members. I was making a general comment on the point raised by pdq1. In Inner London (where this case was heard)) there are huge numbers of people for whom English is not their first language and who struggle with anything other than very basic English. Indeed there are quite a few for whom English is their first - often only - language who demonstrate similar weaknesses. There is a very strong likelihood, therefore that people with weak English (not of any particular ethnic origin, incidentally) will find their way on to a jury hearing a serious criminal case. I have a very small grasp of Spanish, but would struggle badly to follow a criminal trial in Spain.
It may well have been that language was a problem in this particular instance, I could not possibly say. One thing is for certain, though, and that is that no member of the court staff would dare to suggest that they had suspected language difficulties among any jury members. It could well be that to overcome this problem a simple solution would be for jurors to take a language test before being sworn. But I doubt that such an outrageous assault on “political correctness” would be allowed to succeed just to satisfy such a trivial matter as the interests of justice and a fair trial.
gven the occasional outrage on AB over comments and sentences that (allegedly) reveal judges to be "completely out of touch with public opinion", you have to wonder if having these cases decided by such out-of-touch judges alone would be any better?
TV voting would probably be the best way of dealing with them. It works on the X Factor, doesn't it?
TV voting would probably be the best way of dealing with them. It works on the X Factor, doesn't it?
We do not know how many of the jury were asking the questions. If there was one particular jury member a bit thick (and obstinate) who refused to believe other jury members explanation (and having done jury duty, I can quite believe it) the foreman would have no option but to return to the judge. So 11 people get condemned by the judge for just one idiot - yes, it's speculation, but certainly possible.
Doing away with juries and leaving it up to the judge (a la SA) is dangerous - it turned out that the judge on one of my jury cases was a paedophile.
Doing away with juries and leaving it up to the judge (a la SA) is dangerous - it turned out that the judge on one of my jury cases was a paedophile.
actually, I can't see anything very horrific about a jury asking for a definition of reasonable doubt; rather more worrying is the judge's complete inability to provide one beyond "doubt that is reasonable". I know there's no watertight definition, yet Googling provides many possible ways of expanding on it, which might have helped the jury understand the matter better. But the judge didn't even try. He won't be paying for the rehearing, of course.
canary, I think the jury had been told that a majority of 10-2 would do; so it must have been a least three. But it's possible they simply disagreed. The matter seemed to come down to a woman's word against her husband's, which is never going to be easy to sort out unless one or other is an obvious shyster.
I must admit to having little or no experience of the courts in the UK. I think I had rather naively thought that pretty much any court case would have a jury in attendance - that does not seem to be the case at all, so the precedent is there.
The principle of a fair trial by your peers is a powerful one, but if the jury have fundamental misconceptions about their role, and are wishing to bring in issues not raised in court, like religion, or even to introduce what appears to be gossip into their deliberations is extremely worrying, as was their lack of understanding of what seems to be pretty basic principles, like reasonable doubt.
The advantage of a judge only decision is that a judge should presumably have no problem in understanding the legal principles, and would have to explain their decisions, something we do not get from juries. The downside is simply that it places a lot of reliance in a few people, and comments here suggest that, at least for some of the public, our justiciary are not strict enough, or too liberal - not something I would think of them, but there you go.
Are those who might serve on a jury tested by the prosecution / defence in the UK? And I think that it is critical that a potential jurist have a reasonable or better grasp of the english language,although I do not suppose it is something there would be time to test for.
If you can decide that a case is too complex for a jury trial, or where there are fears that a jury might be corrupted by organised crime, then a case involving a high profile individual where there has been lots of gossip and rumour might be another candidate for a judge only or perhaps a small panel of judges.
The principle of a fair trial by your peers is a powerful one, but if the jury have fundamental misconceptions about their role, and are wishing to bring in issues not raised in court, like religion, or even to introduce what appears to be gossip into their deliberations is extremely worrying, as was their lack of understanding of what seems to be pretty basic principles, like reasonable doubt.
The advantage of a judge only decision is that a judge should presumably have no problem in understanding the legal principles, and would have to explain their decisions, something we do not get from juries. The downside is simply that it places a lot of reliance in a few people, and comments here suggest that, at least for some of the public, our justiciary are not strict enough, or too liberal - not something I would think of them, but there you go.
Are those who might serve on a jury tested by the prosecution / defence in the UK? And I think that it is critical that a potential jurist have a reasonable or better grasp of the english language,although I do not suppose it is something there would be time to test for.
If you can decide that a case is too complex for a jury trial, or where there are fears that a jury might be corrupted by organised crime, then a case involving a high profile individual where there has been lots of gossip and rumour might be another candidate for a judge only or perhaps a small panel of judges.
All right, what do you think a reasonable doubt is ? A doubt for which you could give reasons if asked? The sort of doubt that might affect you in your everyday affairs? No to both. Both directions have been disapproved by the Court of Appeal [R v Stafford and Lavaglio 53 Cr. App. R. 1 and R v Gray 58 Cr. App. R. 177, respectively, if you're interested !]
The alternative permitted is to say that the jury must be "satisfied so that they are sure" that guilt is established, which phrase has been used without objection for a long time. The reason for it being used rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" was that it was thought by some (Lord Chief Justice Goddard, who coined it, among them) that that phrase was not readily understood by juries. Incidentally, Lord Goddard was sitting in the 50s when jurors would have been white British .
The current trend, now recommended in Archbold, Criminal Pleading, is to use "reasonable doubt", as before, and expect juries to understand that as plain English and not to attempt any rendering of it into other words. The objection to "sure" is that it may be taken as the same as "certain", and certainty, in the strictest sense, is not required.
Easy isn't it ? In practice, juries don't have trouble with it. This one had far more worrying questions, though like Canary and retired Lord Justice Woolf on the radio yesterday), I suspect that these were the product of one peculiarly stubborn and ignorant juror.
The alternative permitted is to say that the jury must be "satisfied so that they are sure" that guilt is established, which phrase has been used without objection for a long time. The reason for it being used rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" was that it was thought by some (Lord Chief Justice Goddard, who coined it, among them) that that phrase was not readily understood by juries. Incidentally, Lord Goddard was sitting in the 50s when jurors would have been white British .
The current trend, now recommended in Archbold, Criminal Pleading, is to use "reasonable doubt", as before, and expect juries to understand that as plain English and not to attempt any rendering of it into other words. The objection to "sure" is that it may be taken as the same as "certain", and certainty, in the strictest sense, is not required.
Easy isn't it ? In practice, juries don't have trouble with it. This one had far more worrying questions, though like Canary and retired Lord Justice Woolf on the radio yesterday), I suspect that these were the product of one peculiarly stubborn and ignorant juror.
And the jury in the Pryce case , we were told by the Daily Mail, included 10 who "appeared to be of Afro-Caribbean origin" However, the paper said, they appeared to have no difficulty in reading the oath.. (That's no mean feat. It's quite a mouthful and not in the simplest English and many a white British juror stumbles over the words or has to repeat the oath after a court official). The paper also noted that none of the men wore shirt and tie. The relevance of that observation is not clear.
In the good old days, when defence counsel could challenge jurors by simply saying " Challenge, my Lord/ your Honour" before the juror had been sworn, and prosecution counsel could "stand them by" by saying "Stand by for the Crown...", counsel could stop any who had difficulty in reading the oath or who could not read, from being jurors in the trial. This was obviously desirable in cases where documents featured.
In the good old days, when defence counsel could challenge jurors by simply saying " Challenge, my Lord/ your Honour" before the juror had been sworn, and prosecution counsel could "stand them by" by saying "Stand by for the Crown...", counsel could stop any who had difficulty in reading the oath or who could not read, from being jurors in the trial. This was obviously desirable in cases where documents featured.
I still feel that the only thing this jury did differently to any other was that they took the trouble to ask for clarification on things they didn't understand - most things as it turned out.
Every other one just muddles through to a verdict without bothering the judge. That's really why he dismissed them, because they asked questions. they'll be replaced by another one which doesn't, and everyone will be happy.
Every other one just muddles through to a verdict without bothering the judge. That's really why he dismissed them, because they asked questions. they'll be replaced by another one which doesn't, and everyone will be happy.
NJ, Juries Act 1974, s10 " Where it appears to the appropriate officer that [a person summoned for jury service] on account of insufficient understanding of English , there is doubt as to his capacity to act effectively as a juror, that person may be brought before the judge who shall determine whether or not he should act as a juror and, if not, shall discharge the summons "
Now, NJ , what do you say? Is your belief on race and comprehension in conflict with that law or do you say that officers of the court act in complete disregard for its principles ? If the latter, what evidence do you have ?
Now, NJ , what do you say? Is your belief on race and comprehension in conflict with that law or do you say that officers of the court act in complete disregard for its principles ? If the latter, what evidence do you have ?
The latter, Fred, but no evidence other than anecdotal. Of course there is always the possibility that the relevant section of the Juries Act being challenged on the basis that it is incompatible with HR legislation. It would also be interesting to learn how many jurors have been challenged under that section of the Act, but I doubt figures are available.
But I’ll not dwell on the issue because, as I| emphasised, I (along with everybody else) have no idea what went on in the jury room, but some of the questions asked certainly seem very strange to say the least.
But I’ll not dwell on the issue because, as I| emphasised, I (along with everybody else) have no idea what went on in the jury room, but some of the questions asked certainly seem very strange to say the least.
As an update: FullFact did a review of the evidence. Seems that such an incident as this is extremely rare.
Generally, juries follow judges instructions ok, but would probably benefit from written directions.
And younger jurists seem to be able to follow directions etc better than older ones.
Interesting study..
http://
Generally, juries follow judges instructions ok, but would probably benefit from written directions.
And younger jurists seem to be able to follow directions etc better than older ones.
Interesting study..
http://
And contrary to what it says in the link, a judge can direct a jury to find a verdict of guilty. It's extremely rare and can only happen when the defendant is in charge of the jury and his defence depends on an interpretation of the law and not any question of fact.
George Brown, a politician as famous for his drinking as his politics, was tried for driving with excess alcohol ( in those days, drink-driving was triable by jury, at the defendant's election). His counsel raised a question of law; whether what was contended was a defence in law. The judge ruled it was not. Rather than have his client change his plea to guilty, counsel asked for a verdict (I've no idea why; possibly Mr Brown refused to plead guilty). The jury was directed that they were to find him guilty. They were so confused by this that the foreman answered "Not guilty" when the question was put. It took three attempts , including his own counsel agreeing before them that this was the course, before the foreman said "Guilty"
George Brown, a politician as famous for his drinking as his politics, was tried for driving with excess alcohol ( in those days, drink-driving was triable by jury, at the defendant's election). His counsel raised a question of law; whether what was contended was a defence in law. The judge ruled it was not. Rather than have his client change his plea to guilty, counsel asked for a verdict (I've no idea why; possibly Mr Brown refused to plead guilty). The jury was directed that they were to find him guilty. They were so confused by this that the foreman answered "Not guilty" when the question was put. It took three attempts , including his own counsel agreeing before them that this was the course, before the foreman said "Guilty"
Did you see this article in the Grauniad by Simon Jenkins, Fred?
He is obviously not a fan of jury trials :)
http://
He is obviously not a fan of jury trials :)
http://
Yes, LG. Jenkins asserts that juries reach verdicts on arguments and "facts", which have never been put in evidence before them, all the time. It's nonsense. The problem , if any, is that juries may have an eccentric view of the evidence, not that they invent evidence, but that view is their unanimous, or what in law is called 'a majority, prerogative; it's what they are there for.
What juries also indulge in is what counsel call 'jury equity' The jury might accept that the prosecution has proved its case but think that the case should never been brought. They cheerfully acquit. We cannot know for certain, but the cases in which such verdicts are returned are marked by an air of oppression, over enthusiasm by the prosecution, or abuse of statute. Another reason for thinking it happens is that counsel deliberately appeals to the jury on that basis; every barrister does it; whilst pretending that the tenuous defence is valid. This is not done in express terms of course, but by carefully worded 'dog-whistle' speeches.
And as for the writer's Nigerian woman who was convinced the defendant was guilty, the majority verdict would have the same result as a unanimous "Not guilty". If two others on the jury were true to their oath, and thought him guilty, and held out, the jury would be discharged and a retrial ordered. If nine were not being true to their oath in saying "Not guilty", the man would have been convicted. We can't legislate for jurors not doing what they swore to do.
What juries also indulge in is what counsel call 'jury equity' The jury might accept that the prosecution has proved its case but think that the case should never been brought. They cheerfully acquit. We cannot know for certain, but the cases in which such verdicts are returned are marked by an air of oppression, over enthusiasm by the prosecution, or abuse of statute. Another reason for thinking it happens is that counsel deliberately appeals to the jury on that basis; every barrister does it; whilst pretending that the tenuous defence is valid. This is not done in express terms of course, but by carefully worded 'dog-whistle' speeches.
And as for the writer's Nigerian woman who was convinced the defendant was guilty, the majority verdict would have the same result as a unanimous "Not guilty". If two others on the jury were true to their oath, and thought him guilty, and held out, the jury would be discharged and a retrial ordered. If nine were not being true to their oath in saying "Not guilty", the man would have been convicted. We can't legislate for jurors not doing what they swore to do.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.