** Moderators** IS there a way 'Team-By-stander' can put together a post on the "very basic concept of jury trial" ??-
\\
Andrew Edis QC, prosecuting, suggested to the judge that he should discharge the jury there and then, saying: “This is a jury which has not, it appears, understood its function.”
He added: “It is surprising they are still struggling with this very basic concept of jury trial...there is a substantial concern about whether the jury has sufficiently grasped its task to be permitted safely to continue it”.
He suggested that if the “eyes of the world” were not on the case the judge would already have discharged the jury.
The judge said: “Quite apart from my concern about the absolute fundamental deficits of understanding which the questions demonstrate I wonder [given that the answer] is all there and has been there the whole time the extent to which anything said by me is going to be capable of getting them back on track again.
“I am like Mr Edis in the position that after 30 years of criminal trials I have never come across this at this late stage. Never.”
\\
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/9883130/Jury-discharged-in-Vicky-Pryce-trial-after-failing-to-reach-verdict.html
\\
Andrew Edis QC, prosecuting, suggested to the judge that he should discharge the jury there and then, saying: “This is a jury which has not, it appears, understood its function.”
He added: “It is surprising they are still struggling with this very basic concept of jury trial...there is a substantial concern about whether the jury has sufficiently grasped its task to be permitted safely to continue it”.
He suggested that if the “eyes of the world” were not on the case the judge would already have discharged the jury.
The judge said: “Quite apart from my concern about the absolute fundamental deficits of understanding which the questions demonstrate I wonder [given that the answer] is all there and has been there the whole time the extent to which anything said by me is going to be capable of getting them back on track again.
“I am like Mr Edis in the position that after 30 years of criminal trials I have never come across this at this late stage. Never.”
\\
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/9883130/Jury-discharged-in-Vicky-Pryce-trial-after-failing-to-reach-verdict.html
Absolutely amazing - one has to hope this is untypical or the jury system is finished. They don't bother with a jury in South Africa I notice. I blame the state of our education system.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment regarding South Africa. It has emerged this morning that the officer in charge of the Oscar Pistorious case is facing seven charges of attempted murder.
DeleteWe will probably never know why this particular jury started framing all these questions. I would find it hard to believe that all 12 members either did not grasp what was required of them or understand the judge's directions on the law.
ReplyDeleteI think a retrial has been ordered to commence on Monday next. It will be interesting to see what happens. Further comment is, I think, inappropriate. Interesting though that the jury's questions were published prior to a retrial.
The question I have is: do other juries have similar questions but never ask them?
ReplyDeleteWe'll never know.
I would also ask how many juries ignore these 'technicalities' and what the law states (e.g. in cases of sexual offence where the law can be counter-intuitive for some) and instead convict on whether the defendant looks shifty.
Inconvenient but important questions.
Tom, in the UK, jury deliberations are secret, but in America (which the UK inevitably follows sooner or later both for good and ill), such the jury can describe publicly how they arrived at their verdict once the trial has ended. As such, Florida lawyer Berton van der Ploeg has described the following: A jury acquitting because the defendant's star sign was Taurus, a jury convicting because they randomly opened the Bible and it fell open at a passage about "convicting people of their sins", and, yes, a jury convicting because the defendant looked "shifty".
DeleteThis is I I favour juries comprising people trained in critical thinking. If you need to study medicine to be a doctor and engineering to be an engineer, you should have to demonstrate critical thinking skills to be a juror.
I can assure you, that of the 3 juries I've served on (in Australia), we take it very seriously, and weigh "shifty-looking" and sly, smirking witnesses, appropriately. I found myself in a difficult situation once, weighing a nurse's compassion against the law regarding dispensing of narcotic pain relief. We had to convict her, the evidence was clear, but I still had trouble sleeping for a few days. I think (from the limited amount of evidence I've been able to read), that this jury was struggling, realised it, and took the appropriate response - ask the judge for clarification. It's obvious they didn't understand their role - why even ask about evidence that hadn't been presented? - so I think the correct action was taken - to discharge and start over. So, who was responsible for the initial instructions to this jury, to ensure they understood their role/s and responsibilities? I think that's where the failure lies, although it's possible they could have been led astray by clever argument from counsel - but that's still the responsibility of the judge.
DeleteBehind this particular subject of concern is the general one that a substantial number of our fellow citizens simply do not understand what *citizenship* is and what being a *citizen* entails, not least acting collectively and responsibly for the common good - which includes understanding what is required of them when called to jury service - and not just for themselves and their immediate family and friends.
ReplyDeleteCitizenship has to be learned, both by experience of living and by education in and out of school, as early as possible. Sixty to seventy years ago, due to the times, efforts were made to establish education for citizenship in this country but as with so much from then, it was mostly built on sand and when the tide started to come in forty years ago, things began to crumble...
Try engaging a number of "reasonable" people you know about in conversation about "the Law". "the Courts", "the Magistracy" "Probation" etc. and see what the general knowledge of them is - I should warn you that this could be both depressing and frustrating.
What "tide" is that, then, WE? Your viewpoint sounds distinctly dodgy.
DeleteFrom Me 2 EU
Given the lack of understanding I've seen amongst well informed / educated people about how our court systems work it is perhaps no surprise that some Juries who get no training or induction struggle with some of the concepts. Many of my friends and colleagues expect JPs to be finding the truth rather than simply determining the "winner" in the adversarial system [described how they would see it]. I wonder who has failed when a jury reach such a lack of understanding on what they need to decide: the Judge? the Prosecution? even the Defence? its easy to blame the Jurors but they are just a random selection of society, and so should include smart people, stupid people; those who care, those who don't; Daily Mail readers and the rational.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with the Daily Mail, you Guardianisto !
DeleteFraser, any newspaper who employs irrational thinkers like Melanie Phillips (science denier) and Peter Hitchens (homophobe) is most definitely wrong.
DeleteCould someone explain to the majority of us (who have never had the call to jury service) how a chosen twelve are prepared for their task? It's unbelievable that so many members of this jury didn't have a clue what was expected of them.
ReplyDeleteMy experience was that I had no preparation at all for jury service. There was some printed information on the letter that was sent to ask me to attend on a given date, but this was fairly general. We had to rely on the direction from the judge, which in my case was very clear.
DeleteAs mentioned in another comment above, I found that some of my fellow jurors were inclined to form judgements based on things that hadn't been presented as evidence. The physical appearance, racial background and dress sense of witnesses, for example, seemed enough to cause several jurors to wish to disregard some important evidence.
The system relies on the jury as a whole focussing on just the evidence they have heard in court and my experience was that this needed the influence of one or two jurors who understood this to get those inclined to form judgements for other reasons to see how they should really undertake the task.
I have no doubt that if you had a jury that lacked any members who understood the role, then you could very easily end up with a situation as in the Pryce case. I've no doubt this happens from time to time, most probably without anyone being aware of it.
My gut feeling is that there may be fewer people today who understand what they must do as jurors than may have been the case a few years ago, so this problem may well get more serious. In part this may be due to the way that the media has become more pervasive in our lives, and less honest about factual reporting, such that many have an entirely erroneous view of how our criminal justice system should work.
My experience of jury service, having been called twice, is rather different to VP959's. On both occasions (Inner London in the early 1980s and Bradford about six years ago) the first half-an-hour of the first day was given over to briefing the new intake of jurors. One of the Crown Court Judges (in robes in London, in civvies in Bradford but still with a commanding presence) explained the difference between the duties of the Judge and those of the jury and explained the law on jury interference.
DeleteWe were then taken in detail through the meaning of the juror's oath, with particular emphasis on what "faithfully try" and "return a true verdict according to the evidence" means. We were also told that the trial Judge would explain to us what "reasonable doubt" meant in the context of the particular case (as, indeed, they duly did).
Unless Southwark in 2013 is much slacker than either Court I've mentioned, I struggle to understand how sufficient jurors can have, apparently, so spectacularly failed to grasp their role and how to set about it; and I look round for some other reason for what we are told happened.
One possible one, which I've not seen mentioned, but apologies if I'm wrong, was that at least 3 jurors thought that the wrong person was in the dock, and were determined to emulate the example of their peers in R v Ponting (1985).
Just read question 4: 'Can you define what is reasonable doubt?'
ReplyDeleteIt's a sad quirk of fate that 12 could be assembled and none know the meaning of 'reasonable doubt'.
To support this, questions 5, 7, and 8 can also be answered by applying basic common sense.
I doubt education is the problem here. The problem seems to be that the jury would not convict on what seems a pretty obvious case because they did not want to see VP go down. Had the judge given a steer that on conviction she would not get much more than a wrist-slap then the judge might not have been disappointed. A little more communication might have helped, juries not being as respectful of 'authority' as once upon a time and not being prepared to trust the judge to do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteUnder the principle of "There are no bad soldiers, only bad officers" could the judge's original briefing have been inadequate? His answer to the Reasonable Doubt question didn't bode well.
ReplyDeleteRadio 4 this morning seemed to be skirting around the issue that Southwark Crown Court is located in a very immigrant rich area and the jury may have been populated with people with limited English, not educated in the UK, not exactly steeped in our culture and traditions.
ReplyDeleteApparently the only language test jurors take is reading the oath!
People often suggest jurors should take a language/IQ/comprehension test before serving, but it seems most people don't want to do jury service so would deliberately fail it.
The future is perhaps a combination of monetary payments over and above loss of earnings to encourage participation with a test to be taken to ensure an understanding of the proceedings.
Don't be too quick to knock the jury system. Sweeney J, when plain Nigel Sweeney, was a criminal barrister for 32 years. This incident, he notes, is exceptional. I think most practising criminal barristers (like me) would tell you that it is rare that a jury returns a verdict that does not make sense. This applies especially to verdicts in complex cases with long indictments, where mixed verdicts will often show that the jury has understood and taken into account quite subtle nuances in the evidence. The most common failing is a failing which, in my experience and with respect, is even more common amongst the magistracy, including DJ(MC)s. It is a tendency to split the difference, and in a difficult case acquit on the more serious offence, and convict on a count charging something less serious. Personally, I'm not too bothered by this - whilst it is not justice according to law, it is sometimes effective in doing justice more broadly defined.
ReplyDeleteI think your point on not convicting on the serious charge on the indictment but to convict on the lesser charge happens all too often in my opinion when the jury are undecided but have a "Well I dont think they done it in that context but they are guilty of something so that will do" element
DeleteIn almost fifteen years as a magistrate I can think of only a few trials where there was more than one issue to adjudicate on. The vast majority have been single issue trials.
DeleteI can think of zero trials where there was a compromise to convict on a lesser charge because we were worried about convicting on the more serious.
Perhaps my own experience is not typical. I would say that the quality of critical thinking by individual magistrates varies a lot.
There are good reasons why lawyers are not permitted to be jurors. Ordinary folk find it incredibly difficult to compartmentalise information in their mind between that which is admissible and that which is inadmissible.
ReplyDeleteCourts are not about truth, but Law: we all know that the two can vary and often it is a question of the charge being flawed because the circumstances of every case are unique. This particular charge is a wide catch-all and one wonders whether there might have been an option of some element of assisting or abetting which might have made the whoe thing easier to grasp.
I must admit that the direction seems rather old fashioned. Some yeas ago I recall seeing direction and summing up which used the phrase "so that you are sure" which seemed much more helpful.
The strength of the Jury system is that it provides an independent (not impartial) element which ensures that an oppressive state cannot simply convict people at will. Its weakness is that people are necessarily prejudiced and mostly less bright and well educated than my learned friends. The Scottish system of a third verdict would surely have helped here.
I doubt that this woman can now have a fair trial unless the jurors had been living under a rock or deployed in a submarine.
Actually, lawyers (including Judges) are now permitted to be jurors.
Delete"I doubt that this woman can now have a fair trial unless the jurors had been living under a rock or deployed in a submarine."
DeleteI could probably give her a fair trial, I've heard very little of the evidence or case or the commentary surrounding it. Not everyone really cares that much about the finite detail.
"Daily Mail readers and the rational"
ReplyDeleteSome of us live in the real world, not in an incapable, decrepit moral vacuum inhabited by the valuelessness, super hypocritical, disordered and deficient world of the left leaning guardianista.
Trying one's peers, is an ordeal but it is a duty, a duty most of my peers seem capable of but nowadays - one which the least experienced in society are becoming less and less capable thereof. No one to blame but ourselves - we voted for it, or did nothing.
Nice ad hominem, although you're the one who won't sign their name to the posts. We liberals have plenty of values, most of them to do with grave injustices being committed. As FACT, Melanie Phillips thinks that vaccines cause autism, and Peter Hitchens is a homophobe. This is not exactly the calibre of people one can have on a jury, now, is it?
DeleteIt was my original Daily Mail comment you were replying to... ...I don't think I've ever bought a copy of the Guardian. Its rare I read any newspaper without finding something in it that winds me up ("The i" is possibly the exception - but its been designed largely to communicate news (and ads) rather than serve whatever bizzare political agenda other newspapers are targeting).
DeleteKimpatsu - I'm not suggesting a "calibre" of people for juries. Now Melanie or Peter as magistrates - that might be a different question.
It need only be down to three jurors, and that the forewoman asked the questions in the hope that the judge could convince them when she couldn't.. Underlining "highly unlikely" twice suggests frustration.
ReplyDeleteIt need only be down to three jurors, and that the forewoman asked the questions in the hope that the judge could convince them when she couldn't.. Underlining "highly unlikely" twice suggests frustration.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 21/2 18:05 said "I can think of zero trials where there was a compromise to convict on a lesser charge because we were worried about convicting on the more serious." Have you never had a trial with charges put in the alternative. Locally we have a number of dangerous/careless driving charges and have recently had an ABH/Common Assault trial as alternatives.
ReplyDeleteHi Rex
DeleteI can't think of a single instance, no. I am not suggesting my experience is necessarily typical.
At the risk of being accused of 'elitism' (or worse), I wonder whether we ought to return to the rule that applied some 50 or more years ago, when jurors had to be householders resident in a property of not less than a stated rateable value. The obvious criticism of such a rule would be that white, middle class people would be adjudicating in many cases on the alleged crimes of people whom such jurors might regard as the dregs of society, but they would at least understand the evidence and understand the burden of proof and the duty they had to perform in reaching a verdict. (P.S. I am a Guardian reader. I never read the Mail.)
ReplyDeleteWhy would home ownership (or occupancy?) suggest any real ability to understand the evidence or burden of proof? I can think of plenty of home owners, some of them even "professionals" who seem to be incapable of fair and rational debate.
DeletePerhaps the jury system would be better if they were unable to see the accused, therefore avoiding preconceptions based on race, countenance or dress sense.
ReplyDeleteMog
There is nothing wrong with the jury system. Juries are a fundamental assurance of the integrity of the law and the equality of all before it. These are principles of vital importance. The fact that one jury has stumbled is not proof that all are deficient. It is generally held that the exception proves the rule.
ReplyDeleteIt is generally held that the exception TESTS the rule. That is the sense of "prove" in that old, usually-misunderstood phrase.
DeleteBriar - the concern really should be not that the Pryce jury were found wanting, but that other juries may be little or no better but perhaps not have a foreman willing to ask the questions to the Judge to make a point.
Delete