Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Rog on 20 February 2013, 18:21:43
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21516473
Seems that the jury in the trial of the wife of Chris Huhne has been dismissed and there is to be a retrial. The judge came to the conclusion that the jury just didn’t understand much about the whole thing, including what they were actually there for. In essence they were pretty thick. :o
This is kind of scary. This trial is about perverting the course of justice, but supposing it had been murder, and that they did come to a verdict without understanding everything. An innocent person could end up banged up for life or a killer could be set free. I know that the job of the Judge is to oversee these things, but there are sometimes thick judges ! ::)
So who sits on Jurys ? Anyone with a responsible job, or maybe self employed etc would not want to, they would somehow excuse themselves. That limits the potential pool of jurors. There are many other factors that can make people want to avoid jury service, but if you whittle everything down, the big available jury pool will consist of the long term unemployed and retirees. No disrespect to our Senior Citizens and victims of the recession (NOT to the spongers however >:( ) but if I was on trial I would want a jury of highly intelligent, educated and perceptive people who were unbiased and open minded. And most such people would not want to be there.
I really hope that there are some kind of procedures in place to deal with the above.
EDIT
Not that I am anticipating being at the mercy of a jury ! ;D
-
They dont mainly consist of long term unemployed and retirees.People are chosen at random from the electoral role and informed that they have been called to do their civic duty.I have been called twice.
Its possible to be excused if your employer provides evidence that they really need you at work an the particular days you have been called for,but this usually only works once.Your name will rpobably come up again (mine did) and you have to go.
According to the report I heard about this case today it wasnt that they were too thick,but that they were not going to be able to reach a majority verdict.
At face value the case seems a simple one for jurors - "do you believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant willingly took points for her husband or has the evidence for the defence convinced you that he coerced her into doing so ?".
Personally,my impression is that her and Huhne are as bad as each other.Consider themselves part of the elite intelligentsia and therefore the rules and norms are for the little people and dont apply to the likes of them.They both have that written all over them imo.
-
Along with quite a few other issues, the Judge said . . .
it was a "fairly unique situation" in which the jury had sent a note containing 10 questions aimed at attempting to understand the fundamental purpose of their presence, he said.
"in another question, the jury asked if one of them could come to a verdict based on reasons that were not presented in court or supported by the evidence. A third question asked about Ms Pryce's religious convictions, "
Sounds pretty thick to me.
-
Along with quite a few other issues, the Judge said . . .
it was a "fairly unique situation" in which the jury had sent a note containing 10 questions aimed at attempting to understand the fundamental purpose of their presence, he said.
"in another question, the jury asked if one of them could come to a verdict based on reasons that were not presented in court or supported by the evidence. A third question asked about Ms Pryce's religious convictions, "
Sounds pretty thick to me.
I must admit,that does sound a bit dim. ::)
Ime though,lawyers use every trick in the book to try to muddy the waters,divert attention from hard evidence etc.Its not purely about defining guilt,but about them winning their case for the sake of it.A very imperfect system but finding a better one is no doubt easier said than done. :y
-
I have done jury duty once. It is a farce. In my two weeks I had 3 cases. Case one we walked in and the judge said to juror nearest to him please stand. I am directing to you find this person not guilty, please say not guilty. The juror said not guilty and we where led back out of the court room. Case two, the entire jury where dismissed on the grounds of one juror saying he would be prejudiced or something like that. Case three, 2 young men being done for supplying drugs, first male wore a suit and hung is in shame, so most of the jury found him not guilty. Second chap wore casual clothes and was always looking a bit up himself, so most jurors found him guilty. I kid you not, Most of the jury made up there minds like this. Both had to be majority decision and the not guilty one was 10-2 not guilty and the other guy guilty 9-3 one old dear was doing her knitting in the jurors room.
My 2 weeks really opened my eyes about that side of the legal process. I really believe we need profesional jurors IMHO.
-
I have done jury duty once. It is a farce. In my two weeks I had 3 cases. Case one we walked in and the judge said to juror nearest to him please stand. I am directing to you find this person not guilty, please say not guilty. The juror said not guilty and we where led back out of the court room. Case two, the entire jury where dismissed on the grounds of one juror saying he would be prejudiced or something like that. Case three, 2 young men being done for supplying drugs, first male wore a suit and hung is in shame, so most of the jury found him not guilty. Second chap wore casual clothes and was always looking a bit up himself, so most jurors found him guilty. I kid you not, Most of the jury made up there minds like this. Both had to be majority decision and the not guilty one was 10-2 not guilty and the other guy guilty 9-3 one old dear was doing her knitting in the jurors room.
My 2 weeks really opened my eyes about that side of the legal process. I really believe we need profesional jurors IMHO.
A good reason for not reinstating capital punishment IMO. :)
-
one old dear was doing her knitting in the jurors room.
My 2 weeks really opened my eyes about that side of the legal process. I really believe we need profesional jurors IMHO.
A good reason for not reinstating capital punishment IMO. :)
Quite. Miscarriage of justice caused by old lady knitting ? ;D
-
I guess Entwoods point is that they wherent all as thick as the two questions imply. Just unlucky with that particular group of 12 perhaps, or a couple of jurers didn't get it or had a different agender.
Having done Jury service myself I found it fascinating to see behind the scenes. The entire system and everyone in it revolves around what the judge says and does. On the face of it, it can appear to be an extremely wasteful process a lot sitting around and waiting.
But remember, your not there to be efficient with your own time and with those around you. Your there to assist the judge and his time is all that matters. Everything else has to fall in around him and his court.
With such a logistical nightmare of everything falling into place, there's bound to be cock ups along the way.
-
I guess Entwoods point is that they wherent all as thick as the two questions imply. Just unlucky with that particular group of 12 perhaps, or a couple of jurers didn't get it or had a different agender.
Having done Jury service myself I found it fascinating to see behind the scenes. The entire system and everyone in it revolves around what the judge says and does. On the face of it, it can appear to be an extremely wasteful process a lot sitting around and waiting.
But remember, your not there to be efficient with your own time and with those around you. Your there to assist the judge and his time is all that matters. Everything else has to fall in around him and his court.
With such a logistical nightmare of everything falling into place, there's bound to be cock ups along the way.
What point ??? ... I've not posted in this thread !!!! :)
-
What point ??? ... I've not posted in this thread !!!! :)
;D ;D ;D
-
Oh Bugger, rumbled.
...ffs dont tell anyone, but it looks like I was agreeing with Albs again. :-[ ;D
Sorry everyone. :)
;D
-
On further investigation it looks like there may be more to this than a simple matter of uneducated jurors.
They made at least 10 requests for guidance from the judge up to and including the meaning of reasonable doubt.The judge (apparently exasperated) told them that reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable,and not something he could give any further legal guidance on. He dismissed the jury because they had"demonstrated absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding a reasonably simple case.Failed to grasp the concept of coercion,and even seemed incapable of understanding the very principle of trial by jury".He said he had never seen anything like it in his thirty years experience.
Only two of the twelve fell into the ethnic category which the census would describe as white British.
Those called for jury service nowadays apparently recieve the letter in eight different languages in order to encourage non English speakers.
You really couldnt make it up.
-
On further investigation it looks like there may be more to this than a simple matter of uneducated jurors.
They made at least 10 requests for guidance from the judge up to and including the meaning of reasonable doubt.The judge (apparently exasperated) told them that reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable,and not something he could give any further legal guidance on. He dismissed the jury because they had"demonstrated absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding a reasonably simple case.Failed to grasp the concept of coercion,and even seemed incapable of understanding the very principle of trial by jury".He said he had never seen anything like it in his thirty years experience.
Only two of the twelve fell into the ethnic category which the census would describe as white British.
Those called for jury service nowadays apparently recieve the letter in eight different languages in order to encourage non English speakers.
You really couldnt make it up.
No doubt some, and I, will draw conclusions from that fact. Yes, I know we can!! FACT!! . ::) ::) ::) ::)
All too easy really and I find that sad and disturbing on many levels. :( :( :( :( :(
-
Abs .. again .. not quite as simple as you try to portray.
Anyone who is on the electoral register can be called on for Jury Service. If you have the right to vote the state has the right to call you.
The "calling list" is produced electronically, at random, from the electoral register, based on geographical area - you don't get called to do jury service in Liverpool if you are registered to vote in Exeter !!
It therefore follows, quite simply, that if an area has a high proportion of non-ethnic whites, then the jury list for that area will, most likely, have the same proportions.
The printing of the calling notice in non-english languages is NOT to "encourage" non-english speakers at all ... it is to ensure the selected person turns up .. there is no "volunteer" aspect to jury service whatsoever. Many people understand the spoken language far better than they can read it.
If on arrival for jury service the jury officer, or the person themselves, feel they do not have sufficient grasp of the english language, this is bought to the attention of the Judge and it is he, and he alone, who decides if the person serves. He may take advice, he may ask questions of the prospective juror, but it is his decision.
Are you suggesting that only white, english speaking citizens should be allowed to complete jury service, vote and pay taxes ???
-
Abs .. again .. not quite as simple as you try to portray.
Anyone who is on the electoral register can be called on for Jury Service. If you have the right to vote the state has the right to call you.
The "calling list" is produced electronically, at random, from the electoral register, based on geographical area - you don't get called to do jury service in Liverpool if you are registered to vote in Exeter !!
It therefore follows, quite simply, that if an area has a high proportion of non-ethnic whites, then the jury list for that area will, most likely, have the same proportions.
Indeed Nigel, and I know the area around Southwark Crown Court very well, and it is a very cosmopolitan part of South London indeed. I ran a superstore in that area and I always reckoned my staff and customers came from all parts of the World. You would find it very hard indeed to raise 12 'white British' jurors. ;)
-
Lizzie & Nige.I understand what you are both saying and was aware of most of the facts you posted.I am in no way suggesting that only white people are allowed to serve on juries.That would be racist,pure and simple and as I have already stated I am in no way a racist.You are both reading things into what I have said,that were not my intention at all.
It would indeed be unusual to have a jury of 12 "white british" jurors in that area.
However,there is now quite a large section of the more recent immigrant community who live culturally seperate lives in this country,and do not integrate into British life.
I am suggesting thats it may be the case that there could be a high level of people in the area who spend their lives within their ethnic culture and havent integrated into British culture,they can speak some English but its is far from their first or main language..Perhaps this is why the judge found himself with no choice but to discharge the jury,as there was obviously no hope of them having the basic abilty needed to fulfill their dutie even for e reasonably simple case.
If the judge was responsible for ensuring the prospective jurors had a good understanding of the English language,maybe these 12 were the best from the available pool at the time,but turned out to be not good enough at all.Perhaps he had concerns about coming under attack from the equality & diversity brigade if he excluded too many individuals who didnt have a goodgrasp of the language ?
We dont know all the facts,but we do know that he had to take the very unusual step of scrapping the whole trial and starting afresh on Monday,because they were absoltuely incapable of understanding even the most simple of issues involved.
-
Lizzie & Nige.I understand what you are both saying and was aware of most of the facts you posted.I am in no way suggesting that only white people are allowed to serve on juries.That would be racist,pure and simple and as I have already stated I am in no way a racist.You are both reading things into what I have said,that were not my intention at all.
English language,maybe these 12 were the best from the available pool at the time,but turned out to be not good enough at all.
No, Albitz that is not what I meant and sorry if you took my comments in that way. I for one was just stating the obvious; there will be many who will make something of those facts and they are the individuals that will need satisfying to ensure we do not drop into an abyss of accusation and unfavourable comment. :y :y :y
You have hit on one real problem though in that area of London; English is often not their first language, and that of course is what the Coalition are apparently going to work on. ;)
-
......
We dont know all the facts,but we do know that he had to take the very unusual step of scrapping the whole trial and starting afresh on Monday,because they were absoltuely incapable of understanding even the most simple of issues involved.
....
Again, I'm sorry to have to correct you here ... the press have, once again, blown this up into something it is not.
This jury, for whatever reasons, (disregarding their questions for one moment), failed to reach either a unanimous verdict, and then, after further direction, stated that there was no probability of reaching a majority verdict. In this case the judge has no option other than "discharge", and then the CPS have to decide whether to proceed with a retrial .. it is NOT the Judges prerogative. If the CPS decide to proceed a date is set for the retrial .. in this case ... Monday.
The Judge has only - as far as I am able to ascertain - expressed his frustrations at the scope and standard of the questions asked by the Jury.... and I can fully understand why.
ALL Judges commence their directions, in every trial, without exception, explaining several basic points ... it is something they are required to do.
Just to pick up on 2 of those points ..
Firstly .. The direction of "reasonableness" ... this is explained in detail, in a standard manner to every Jury and should not (and in fact cannot) be expanded on, as it could then be classed as "leading" the Jury
Secondly .. at the start of every trial the Judge tells the Jury that they will find PURELY ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN COURT, nothing else, they cannot go looking, searching. googling etc etc for "extra" evidence .. they must go by what they hear and see in Court.... end of story.
So for the Judge to then be asked what is reasonable, and if extra evidence not given in court (but who knows from where it came ??) can be considered means the Jury where simply either not listening to him, or choosing to ignore him.... and I think his frustration is probably understandable.
It has little to do with race, colour, intelligence, nationality, ability to understand English or any such matters ... but appears to be a simple lack of ability to listen to and follow instructions ?? which seems to be a common trait amongst most people under the age of 30 these days !!