Jurys

[Paul1642]

Over the last month of so there have been 2 decisions made by jury’s which have made the headlines and really got me thinking about if it’s a system that still works.

The 1st incident was the acquittal of 4 people charged with criminal damage by toppling a controversial statue in Bristol. The second one was the acquittal of persons who held up a rush hour train in a climate protest.

As far as I can tell in both cases the evidence has been more than sufficient for the accused to be found guilty, and the jury’s decision has instead been made due to an agreement that the accused’s actions were morally justified.

My point here is not about the rights and wrongs of these individual incidents, but instead about the role of a jury. Surely they should be completely impartial and leaving any personal opinions at home and deciding purely if guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Is there a danger that this could set a president where crimes are committed but if the public perception is that they were morally okay then justice is not served? Hypothetically a child killer gets assaulted and the jury find the attacker not guilty out of a moral opinion that he deserved it? The law Is black and white and when personal bias comes into it then it instead becomes a trial of public perception.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59996870

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/colston-four-trial-shines-light-on-jury-verdicts-c6wn65pqj

[lapsedhibee]

Over the last month of so there have been 2 decisions made by jury’s which have made the headlines and really got me thinking about if it’s a system that still works.

The 1st incident was the acquittal of 4 people charged with criminal damage by toppling a controversial statue in Bristol. The second one was the acquittal of persons who held up a rush hour train in a climate protest.

As far as I can tell in both cases the evidence has been more than sufficient for the accused to be found guilty, and the jury’s decision has instead been made due to an agreement that the accused’s actions were morally justified.

My point here is not about the rights and wrongs of these individual incidents, but instead about the role of a jury. Surely they should be completely impartial and leaving any personal opinions at home and deciding purely if guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Is there a danger that this could set a president where crimes are committed but if the public perception is that they were morally okay then justice is not served? Hypothetically a child killer gets assaulted and the jury find the attacker not guilty out of a moral opinion that he deserved it? The law Is black and white and when personal bias comes into it then it instead becomes a trial of public perception.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59996870

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/colston-four-trial-shines-light-on-jury-verdicts-c6wn65pqj

I think it might be the case that sheep-stealing ceased to be a hanging offence because juries refused to convict people who stole sheep, knowing that they would be killed for it.

[JeMeSouviens]

1. the plural is "juries"
2. no precedents are set by jury decisions

Right, pedantry over. :rolleyes:

I'm not familiar with the climate thing, but have read a bit about the Colston 4 case. Good explainer on the legal aspects here: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/

There is nothing to suggest the jury didn't carry out its duty consistent with the judge's direction. It is open to the crown to appeal and an appeal court judgement *would* set a precedent. The fact that the rabid culture war loving Suella Braverman has not done so may be a pointer to the weight of legal thinking.

[Paul1642]

I think it might be the case that sheep-stealing ceased to be a hanging offence because juries refused to convict people who stole sheep, knowing that they would be killed for it.

True as that may be, criminal damage and stopping trains probably should remain offences.

[Northernhibee]

I don't have a problem with either verdict because both juries sat through far more evidence, detail and explanation of the law than any of the rest of us.

There needs to be an element of the law that allows 'special defences'. If I see someone mugging an elderly woman and putting them under threat and wade in, punch the mugger and they lose a tooth then I can be put up in front of a jury who will then decide if my actions were reasonable and unavoidable. To be prosecuted for something in those circumstances would be unjust IMHO.

The first case came down to more a failure of the inability to correct a massive wrong and ended up celebrating a murderer and enslaver of human beings. If future generations of those killed or enslaved by Coulson were to see that and ask why there was a statue up to celebrate one of the people responsible, it's a very difficult question to answer even though he may have built a few schools and the like. It's for the very same reason that Jimmy Saville's charity work in no way takes away from the fact he was also an absolute monster. I'm guessing nobody else would support a statue of Jimmy Saville outwith a childrens' hospital that he helped fund.

Having heard all the evidence, the law and the extenuating circumstances an independent jury accepted the arguments put forward by the defence and did not feel that the crown prosecutor had argued well enough that the means did not justify the end.

The only other options that would be here would be to change the law to a point where there is less scope for considering special defences of where the means justify the ends (which in the case of the granny mugging would potentially see the person who thwarted the mugger be charged with ABH), a ruling made by a judge alone without a jury or a ruling made by politicians.

I'm not comfortable with any of those three options and feel that the situation we have just now is the fairest.

[AltheHibby]

If I was on a jury my personal biases would be on the jury with me. Is that fair on the defendant and/or prosecution? No; but only if I allow them to overrule the legal position.

I saw an interesting example on traffic cops last night. The guy blew 36 at the roadside and 35 or lower on a partial blow in the station. Because he was too nervous to provide a proper sample he was told he would be sent to court for failure to provide. My bias says he should be given another opportunity to provide, but the law says he had plenty opportunity.

He stood to lose his licence through nerves, rather than being over the limit. Fair? Morally, I struggle, legally he's guilty.

For the record, and with 2 convicted drunk drivers in my family, I am happy for them to be hammered by the courts.

Final point for anyone who survived the ramble above, I have a personal view that due to lack of time and funds the prosecution only proceed when they are fully convinced of the defendant's guilt. My biases would therefore suggest guilty until proven innocent, making me a bad juror to have.

[Berwickhibby]

If I was on a jury my personal biases would be on the jury with me. Is that fair on the defendant and/or prosecution? No; but only if I allow them to overrule the legal position.

I saw an interesting example on traffic cops last night. The guy blew 36 at the roadside and 35 or lower on a partial blow in the station. Because he was too nervous to provide a proper sample he was told he would be sent to court for failure to provide. My bias says he should be given another opportunity to provide, but the law says he had plenty opportunity.

He stood to lose his licence through nerves, rather than being over the limit. Fair? Morally, I struggle, legally he's guilty.

For the record, and with 2 convicted drunk drivers in my family, I am happy for them to be hammered by the courts.

Final point for anyone who survived the ramble above, I have a personal view that due to lack of time and funds the prosecution only proceed when they are fully convinced of the defendant's guilt. My biases would therefore suggest guilty until proven innocent, making me a bad juror to have.

System must have changed…if you failed to provide a breath test at the police station you were offered the opportunity to provide a blood sample for analysis (taken by a Dr)

[Paul1642]

If I was on a jury my personal biases would be on the jury with me. Is that fair on the defendant and/or prosecution? No; but only if I allow them to overrule the legal position.

I saw an interesting example on traffic cops last night. The guy blew 36 at the roadside and 35 or lower on a partial blow in the station. Because he was too nervous to provide a proper sample he was told he would be sent to court for failure to provide. My bias says he should be given another opportunity to provide, but the law says he had plenty opportunity.

He stood to lose his licence through nerves, rather than being over the limit. Fair? Morally, I struggle, legally he's guilty.

For the record, and with 2 convicted drunk drivers in my family, I am happy for them to be hammered by the courts.

Final point for anyone who survived the ramble above, I have a personal view that due to lack of time and funds the prosecution only proceed when they are fully convinced of the defendant's guilt. My biases would therefore suggest guilty until proven innocent, making me a bad juror to have.

The issue with that is depending when he consumed the alcohol that 36 could be on the way up rather than the way down.

[Paul1642]

System must have changed…if you failed to provide a breath test at the police station you were offered the opportunity to provide a blood sample for analysis (taken by a Dr)

That only applies if there is a reasonable excuse like a medical issue (Asthma). Failing to blow wont cut it.

[Moulin Yarns]

True as that may be, criminal damage and stopping trains probably should remain offences.

Where would you draw the line though? Insulate Britain campaigners sit down protests on a road, legal or not? The train incident was only a few of the protesters, others were not even spoken to. I think the same is true about the Colston 4. Far more protesters were there than the 4.

[Moulin Yarns]

It would be interesting to hear from people who have been on jury duty for serious cases. My wife was on one for a sex offender who was accused of following a girl into a shop and putting her into a state of danger.


Only afterwards was his previous offences mentioned by the judge. Therefore the jury were dealing only with the current alleged offence and were not swayed by previous offences.

[AltheHibby]

The issue with that is depending when he consumed the alcohol that 36 could be on the way up rather than the way down.

They seemed to think it was at the top and gave him at least 5 chances to blow.

[Lendo]

It would be interesting to hear from people who have been on jury duty for serious cases. My wife was on one for a sex offender who was accused of following a girl into a shop and putting her into a state of danger.


Only afterwards was his previous offences mentioned by the judge. Therefore the jury were dealing only with the current alleged offence and were not swayed by previous offences.

I was on the jury for an armed robbery case that happened in Sighthill back in 2000/2001. (Armed robbery makes it sounds more exciting than it was. It was a jake with a hatchet).

Turned out after the case he had a whole tonne of over charges pending. We were obviously kept in the dark over them but it helped validate to myself my guilty decision.

[Newhaven]

Was on a jury for a murder in Hunter square about 10 years ago or so.

Wrapped up in a week but from a personal view I had made my mind up within a day which way I was going. Interesting to know the overall cost of the affair to the taxpayer given that we were there for 5 days off work etc.

As I suspected once the guilt verdict was given the defence lawyer revealed a list of offences going back about 20 years…

[He's here!]

Haven't read anything about the train incident but from what I read of the Colston statue case it strikes me as a nonsense verdict. Those in the dock were clearly guilty of criminal damage, irrespective of the fact there have long been reasonable arguments for the removal of the statue. The decision was based not on law, but emotion and sends a message that anyone can take it upon themselves to haul down anything they disapprove of as long - as you can claim you were acting from fashionable political motives and putting yourself 'on the right side of history' (a phrase which actually makes no sense but is increasingly used to denounce any historical figure who fails to meet the moral standards of today).

While the jury were apparently swayed by an argument that the statue constituted some sort of 'hate crime', the statue (which some seemed to see as Colston himself) was not in the dock. Sure, Bristol City Council had dragged their heels over the issue, but any decision on the statue's fate should have come from them.

[Paul1642]

Haven't read anything about the train incident but from what I read of the Colston statue case it strikes me as a nonsense verdict. Those in the dock were clearly guilty of criminal damage, irrespective of the fact there have long been reasonable arguments for the removal of the statue. The decision was based not on law, but emotion and sends a message that anyone can take it upon themselves to haul down anything they disapprove of as long - as you can claim you were acting from fashionable political motives and putting yourself 'on the right side of history' (a phrase which actually makes no sense but is increasingly used to denounce any historical figure who fails to meet the moral standards of today).

While the jury were apparently swayed by an argument that the statue constituted some sort of 'hate crime', the statue (which some seemed to see as Colston himself) was not in the dock. Sure, Bristol City Council had dragged their heels over the issue, but any decision on the statue's fate should have come from them.

My thoughts thought also. We are fortunate in this country to have the right to peaceful protest.

That does not mean that when peaceful protest fails to achieve our aims we can start committing offences.

[Just Alf]

My thoughts thought also. We are fortunate in this country to have the right to peaceful protest.

That does not mean that when peaceful protest fails to achieve our aims we can start committing offences.Did I not read that 'peaceful protest' is one of the things under threat in the new crime bill?

Not got any details mind, just sure I read that somewhere.

[Casey1875]

Having served on a jury during a murder trial, I would never want to be tried by jury. Of the people on it I would class about half as reasonable people and the rest were roasters who were too thick to understand what should be simple things, one was sleeping half the time and was repeatedly warned by the judge and another wanted to just return a guilty within 2 minutes as they were going to the bingo and didn't want to come back another day.

[Billy Whizz]

It would be interesting to hear from people who have been on jury duty for serious cases. My wife was on one for a sex offender who was accused of following a girl into a shop and putting her into a state of danger.


Only afterwards was his previous offences mentioned by the judge. Therefore the jury were dealing only with the current alleged offence and were not swayed by previous offences.

That’s the way it should be

[SideBurns]

Having served on a jury during a murder trial, I would never want to be tried by jury. Of the people on it I would class about half as reasonable people and the rest were roasters who were too thick to understand what should be simple things, one was sleeping half the time and was repeatedly warned by the judge and another wanted to just return a guilty within 2 minutes as they were going to the bingo and didn't want to come back another day.

It's an imperfect system but the best we have in a democracy.

You could be tried by a lone judge who is also sleeping half the time, decides the accused is guilty after 2 minutes, and wants to go the bingo. They're only human after all.

[He's here!]

My thoughts thought also. We are fortunate in this country to have the right to peaceful protest.

That does not mean that when peaceful protest fails to achieve our aims we can start committing offences.

Criminal damage is defined as follows:

“A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”

Based on that, it's hard to imagine that had the defendants not opted for a jury trial they would have been found not guilty.

While I'm sure there have been numerous controversial jury verdicts delivered down the years it's a dangerous development if we start basing verdicts on emotion rather than law. For example, in an unrelated case I personally believe Novak Djokovic would be justifiably deported from Australia simply for being one of the world's biggest bell ends, but even I grudgingly accept there are potential legal grounds upon which he hopes to overturn the cancellation of his visa.

[Berwickhibby]

That only applies if there is a reasonable excuse like a medical issue (Asthma). Failing to blow wont cut it.

Perhaps in Scotland….certainly was not the case in England

[Mon Dieu4]

Was on a jury for a murder in Hunter square about 10 years ago or so.

Wrapped up in a week but from a personal view I had made my mind up within a day which way I was going. Interesting to know the overall cost of the affair to the taxpayer given that we were there for 5 days off work etc.

As I suspected once the guilt verdict was given the defence lawyer revealed a list of offences going back about 20 years…

I was in the jury for a serious case too and also made up my mind day one, I thought the person accusing was talking total pish and their family had put them up to it

The evidence was pretty inconclusive either way to be honest but the majority of the jury all said they didn't believe the person one bit either

Would have been a pretty harrowing experience hearing all the ins and outs if I had believed them but because I thought they were at it I kinda switched off from it

This was when I was 21, I often wonder if I would still think the same or treat it any differently 21 years later

[easty]

I was on the jury for a rape case about 10 years ago, maybe longer actually. I made my mind up early on. The girl was petrified to be there, the guy was a cocky ********, smirking away.

I've no idea what happened in the end as we were sent out early on, and the case was suspended. The girl could not stop crying. I've never seen someone so scared/upset.

I really hope they found a way to get the trial to go ahead.