Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[albitz]

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_Zoom]

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.

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.

[Entwood]

......

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 !!