The family shouted at the jury : “Were you not listening?”

[benb]

This, and the Mason case, are just so depressing.

I am completely bemused how the jury returned not guilty. I don't understand how it's possible.

 

[Mugshot]

Isn't that a bit extreme?

Unfortunately it doesn't seem so. I happened across a Facebook page this morning, Idiots on Uk Roads or something like that, which has numerous videos of atrocious driving posted. Some appeared to involve cyclists, it appeared though that the majority did not. I watched 6 or 7 videos and what I found interesting was that in the comments section of the videos where there was no cyclist involved there was always the comment "It was the cyclists fault". Now I'm quite sure that this was intended as a humorous remark and maybe I'm being a little precious about things, but it suggested to me that when @McWobble says this;

But I lack any faith in that, as the widely held prejudicial beliefs that all cyclists are habitual law breakers, so it must have been his fault, despite the evidence will certainly be in play, even if only subconsciously.

He's spot on.

 

[Drago]

If the Judge gave a direction then why did the jury deliberate for so long?

 

[adscrim]

Or that three of the jurors held out and when it was obvious none of the other nine were going to change one of them decided they wanted to go home for their tea and agreed guilty.

I've not served on a jury, I've a friend who has done it twice, the experience convinced him that (in Medway anyway) he'd never want to be tried by a jury as their overwhelming worries were 'did they look guilty' and 'how quick can we get this over with, we've stuff to do'. Fair to say, he wasn't sold on our justice system. I'd say maybe it's improved, but...

I did Jury service a couple of years ago in relation to a mugging. Two young men had thrown a middle aged woman to the ground after she'd used a cash machine - one sat on her while the other took her purse and handbag. The two were identified by the woman aswell as other eye witnesses. They were caught in possession of the stolen items and one of the accused plead guilty and appeared as a witness for the prosecution. I thought it seemed obvious that the chap on trial was guilty. The Judge commented that even if he wasn't the person who 'took' the items, he would still be guilty by association.

While in the deliberation room, there were a number of arguments against a guilty verdict put forward. These included 'it will ruin his life', 'what if we meet him in the street', 'maybe it was just a one off'.

My faith in the Jury system destroyed for ever.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If the Judge gave a direction then why did the jury deliberate for so long?

Because being a bunch of there-but-for-the-grace-of-God drivers enough of them wanted to acquit the driver that it dragged on a bit?

 

[Arrowfoot]

While in the deliberation room, there were a number of arguments against a guilty verdict put forward. These included 'it will ruin his life', 'what if we meet him in the street', 'maybe it was just a one off'.

My faith in the Jury system destroyed for ever.

Thanks for sharing. It tells you how flawed it is and why it has no place in society. Another one of the things that sounds good and noble but has fundamental issues.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Trained, qualified, professional jurors, with chaired supervised debates watched over by a judge who has not heard the evidence in the case, is the way forwards.

 

[Pale Rider]

What a horrible job to do day in day out.

And the system would allow daylight to intrude on magic, or in this case, black magic.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

What a horrible job to do day in day out.

Gong farming was a dirty job, but someone had to do it.

 

[slowmotion]

What a horrible job to do day in day out.

Not as horrible as being a juror under the current system. Out of the two weeks I was on jury service, I spent less than two days in court or in the jury room. The rest of it was spent twiddling our thumbs in a waiting room waiting for a case. It's a hugely wasteful process. The two cases I saw didn't disillusion me too much with British justice. Both juries grasped the idea of reasonable doubt, debated the issues carefully, and acquited. BTW, it was in the days before the internet. Today I suspect that social media and endless easy communication may well make an unbiased jury a rare beast.

 

[Pale Rider]

Court staff do their best to send waiting jurors home early if there is no work for them.

The process defies organisation.

What happens many times is a case is listed for trial, but 'cracks' after an hour or two of negotiation between prosecuting and defence counsel.

Cynical defendants play a part.

They will commonly stick out for trial, but plead guilty on the morning of the trial when they are informed the prosecution witnesses have turned up and the case against them will proceed.

A cynical observer might say all the defendant is doing in some cases is waiting to see if his efforts at intimidating witnesses have succeeded or failed.

 

[slowmotion]

None of us was ever sent home before lunch. Maybe the system has changed.

 

[Pale Rider]

None of us was ever sent home before lunch. Maybe the system has changed.

I suspect the notion of 'customer service' for jurors is a relatively new one.

Trials do not routinely start on a Friday, so if you are not already hearing a case you should have been told there is no need to come in that day.

That at least limits your hanging around to four days in a week.

But if anyone asks me about jury service, I tell them to be prepared to do a lot of waiting.

 

[slowmotion]

I'm not whinging too much about it really. I think that jury service is one of the few times when people can perform a really important service as a citizen. It's a huge responsibility that is not often given to you. Quite humbling.

 

[benb]

I quite enjoyed jury service, and found it interesting.
But I did watch a lot of films on the laptop and read about 6 books!