It featured heavily when Judges and Juries came up in my studies and my study group nearly came to blows over interpretation of Intent versus Culpability or in legal language, Mens Rea v. Actus Reus.
 
As this is the academic thread and I've mentioned the Martin jury, I've often wondered if in some cases another jury might have come to the opposite verdict on the same evidence, ie convict when the actual jury had acquitted or vice versa.

One would hope an appeal court would right any perceived wrong, at least in the case of a seemingly wrongful conviction when the convicted person could appeal. Perhaps not so easy in the case of someone who appears guilty on the evidence but who is acquitted.

Isn't there a saying along the lines that it's better for 100 guilty people to be acquitted than for one innocent person to be convicted?

Our daughter who, before she emigrated to Australia 12 years ago, was a lay magistrate in Cheshire. Speaking in general terms she would say that it could sometimes be frustrating for her and her colleagues when they had to acquit someone they felt was guilty but the evidence wasn't quite there. This could be because of errors or omissions on the part of the police or the CPS, or purely on legal or procedural grounds.
 
The question of odd verdicts has been addressed by a law that permits the Attorney General to appeal for the Crown if a verdict results in percieved over leniency or excessive tariff imposed. Once aquitted, the double jeopardy rule applies. Fresh evidence is required by the Crown Prosecution Service before a new charge can be brought forward.

The Lord Chancellor deals with errant judges and the Attorney deals with any evidence supplied to her by agencies when questions of jury tampering arise whilst a suspect verdict can be set aside and a retrial ordered. In any case, what comes to court must be dealt with satisfactorily, in the interests of justice.
 
Thank you for setting out the law and procedures so concisely - most useful. I was thinking more of human nature on the part of jury members..

With the jury being the judge of fact, having been guided by the trial judge on the legal aspects and what the prosecution must prove, can we be sure that Jury A would come to the same conclusion as Jury B listening to the same evidence? I am assuming no misdirection by the judge or grossly perverse verdict.

It can never happen but it would be fascinating if a ghost jury sat alongside the actual jury but had no contact and deliberated separately, with the ghost jury's verdict obviously not made public.

Do juries always arrive at the verdict that the evidence indicates?

It would be improper to mention actual past cases but I can't help wondering whether a different 12 jury members would have reached an opposite verdict in some of them.

Trial by jury is not perfect, nothing ever is that involves human beings, but I suppose there is nothing else that could reasonably be put in its place as a general rule.

The Criminal Justice Act, 2003 contains several limitations on jury trial although some are not yet in force. One provision that is in force is the use of non-jury trials where jury tampering has occurred or is likely; another, not yet in force, involves serious and complicated fraud in my opinion cases.
 
There is a practice on Law courses of significance, of Mooting, the recreating of real trials with students acting as Counsel for the prosecution and defence, with a jury of students from other faculties unconnected with law. The same evidence presented but arguments formulated by the student barristers themselves and a faculty lecturer acting as judge or in this situation, moderater. The purpose to hone advocacy skills and cross examination tactics. Final verdicts are compared and contrasted with a suitably lengthy essay.

These events are taken seriously with results sent to the Bar Council and the Lord Chancellor as necessary.
 
Are we reaching the bottom of the political cycle in the UK? Could we be reaching Labour's time in Power soon?

What I mean by that is, Conservatives have been in charge for 11 years, and the country thanks to them, is in a state that is just becoming a joke. For a G7 country, a G20 member, a leading member of NATO and what was once a world power along with our friends in the USA, we are becoming more like a banana republic. Corruption is rife, economy is fragile, NHS is screwed beyond belief, crime is on the rise, services are stretched beyond breaking point, and we are heading to a winter of discontent with no really plan. To be expected from the buffoon without an ounce of political, economic or social intelligence plan or thinking. And the laziest of Prime Ministers this country has ever seen. Not fit to serve tea to anyone before him.

So my question, is it, time we will start to see Labour lead the polls? Or is Kier really unelectable. Or is it Labour themselves? Have they split to become a far left socialist party and a centrist left party? Trouble with also Labour is they far too Green, listen to the woke leftist far too politically correct brigade who scream and shout all over twitter and are, sadly at this moment, are the ones listened to.

What we really need is someone who is radical in thinking. Someone who will tell the truth say it as it is. A Donald Trump Character, intelligent but not afraid to call out what he sees. Or is it now time that this two party political outdated voting system was thrown out of the window, into the Thames and replaced with a more representative system.

So that then begs the question what would you do had you come to power at Number 10 for first 100 days? Or what would your visions be if you were to end up in Number 10 for First 100 days?

For me:

> Regulation of Social Media without a doubt. I'd have that written up, drafted and ready to go. Everyone would need to prove ID to have a social media account and this would need to be checked and authenticated. Every account at present would need to also go through the same process. If they failed accounts permanently deleted, emailed flagged and stored, and a more rigorous check/authentication process done if that email comes back. No one can not have a profile picture neither. Regulatory body installed for Social Media. Any fines could not be less than 20% of revenue.

> Regulation of the Media. Don't ask me how I would do it. But no less of 25% fines would certainly be brought about, removal of editors/journalist would also be brought about (journalistic licences anyone?), independent body to ensures these nasty ******** are regulated and fearful of stepping out of place like they do. It happens in the financial industry no reason this cannot be done for some of the scum bags that write the vile things we see daily. Law to ensure that the media is not concentrated into powers of a certain few billionaires. I'd certainly be bringing some to court to make an example of what they did to Caroline Flack.

> Fixed Term Parliament act superseded with new act. Within that I would install a independent body that would set the elections rather than the government of the day as that is more banana republic especially over the last few years where we've seen elections called just for the hell of it. The only caveat and exception to that would be if the Prime Minister and leader of the governing party stood down from position , that would automatically trigger an election, no less then 6 months after the new Prime Minister, and leader of the governing party, has taken office but no more then 12 months. The date of this would be set by the independent body.
>Proportional representation back firmly on the agenda. Can that just change? Could I just go "right this is done"? Without need for a referendum? If a referendum needed - get me ol' pal Farage out of retirement to reform this country.

> Massive financial audit on the NHS. Independent body, looking at every single aspect of costs. Aim - Save money, procure centrally, get less money going to waste and finally, hopefully, get this going towards bodies on the front line. Regulation of companies supplying the NHS - charge more because "it's the NHS" - fine fine fine. That is wrong. I'd get businesses folk negotiating NHS contracts for equipment etc.
> Remove social care from private companies and re-install it as a NCS - National Care Service. Ran by the local Trust. People pay for care, it baffles me, but if that's the case you basically pay the NCS. Not some private millionaire. Get that up and running or been looked at.

> If now. Immediately scrap vaccine passports, set a law that makes them illegal, stop the ridiculous testing regime and get on with life.

Some ideas banded about .... be interesting to see what other peoples views are.
 
To answer your question directly, yes. The possibility of an unexpected General Election has emerged solely because of the apparent misconduct of the current members of Government rather than ideology. The parliamentary mathematics suggest that the Conservative majority is uncertain but as there are byelections pending, I cannot elaborate because of restrictions under parliamentary law.

Regulating the Media is practically a non starter because a freedom given or claimed cannot reasonably be withdrawn without risk of Civil War.

The NHS, my goodness, has anyone suggested the abolition of the Papacy? The reactive forces would be overwhelming.

Social Care in government control? Cannot work because families will suddenly emerge to take control as is common practice in some cultures.

Vaccine passports, a non runner in my opinion because it impinges upon the underlying concept of consent to medical matters.
 
Last edited:
A legal problem has been presented to me and although I know the solution it being a basic tenet of legal study, May One ask the thoughts of the lay membership?

You are walking atop a cliff edge and your child throws an object over that cliff. Unknown to the child, and it being a blind vista, the object strikes a person on the beach below and kills the citizen. Who is
liable for the death and was there intent involved in the action of the child?
 
A legal problem has been presented to me and although I know the solution it being a basic tenet of legal study, May One ask the thoughts of the lay membership?

You are walking atop a cliff edge and your child throws an object over that cliff. Unknown to the child, and it being a blind vista, the object strikes a person on the beach below and kills the citizen. Who is
liable for the death and was there intent involved in the action of the child?
Not being educated in Law (and looking at it from a UK perspective), I would say that there was no premeditated intent on behalf of the child (i.e. no pre-planned thoughts of the child to cause injury or death to anyone below). I would class the incident as an accident (horrible, though the outcome was). Was the child of an age where they could be held responsible for their actions? And, are parents expected to be accountable for every single action of their child (even if they have always taught 'right from wrong?').

Kevin
 
Therein lies the problem. Intent versus liability. The law is indiscriminate, no fear or favour and ignorance of the Law has no defence. Add to the recipe, it is the task of a prosecutor to prove an intent or a deliberate act that is on trial. The defendant had nothing to prove. Indeed, the right of silence is supreme. However, although the Criminal law may absolve the defendant, the Civil Courts may offer a route of redress under the laws of liability.

If a wrong doing can be proven, Tort Law, compensatory action is justified and is under Crown Authority. Contempt is a crime and punishable to the limits on statute.

Thank you Kevin.

The offence of Homicide however has no weight as intent as absent. Involuntary manslaughter is a possible route but this is a prevalence in the United States, any charge that results in a trial is a foundation of legal practice in USA, something I am struggling with. My supervising educators at Harvard are badgering me to eliminate my British thinking when constructing my arguments.

In my opinion, there is no criminal charge to answer.
 
Last edited:
JENNYJET submitted this interesting post in a discussion on the Climate Change thread. If anyone wants to develop the subject, perhaps particularly relating to juries, they are welcome to do so here.

Going back to jurors and verdicts, it is the risk society takes when placing the liberties and in some jurisdictions the lives of defendants in the hands of ordinary peers whom by nature are ignorant of the niceties of the Law.

It is the sworn duty of Councel to use ' best endeavours ' in the interests of their client. Prosecutors for The Crown and defenders for the accused. The presiding judge places the Law before the jury whilst summing up and occasionally may direct a jury to aquit but NOT compel such an action. It is a foundation of justice that the decision of a jury is final.

It is the nature of democracy that dissent is tolerated to the extent that a jury can disregard the Judiciary in matters of deliberation at the conclusion of a trial. We may disagree with and ridicule a verdict but this a precious freedom we would be wise to protect...it could be you on the jury or a defendant one day and thankful we do not go in for kangaroo courts!

As to the victims, it is open to them to pursue a civil damages claim if a criminal trial fails them. A lower threshold of proof may be in their favour.

All the above is my considered opinion.
 
I believe that the jury system is far from perfect and but at least it allows the ordinary person to play a part in the administration of Justice. The alternative would be a panel of judges as they used to have in Northern Ireland (the Diplock Courts) as a way of dealing with trials affected by 'The Troubles'.

Where judges would score over juries is in not being influenced by the theatrical performances of some barristers. It sometimes seems that the more persuasive barrister has a good chance of 'winning' when the respective merits of a case are evenly balanced.

In some ways attending a criminal trial is akin to going to the theatre to see a play, except that it is real life.

The defendant is the playwright but perhaps with more to lose
The judge is the director
The barristers are the leading actors
The witnesses are the other actors
The jury members are the press theatre critics whose opinion of the 'performance' is born out in their verdict
The people on the public benches in the court are the theatre audience

If it was possible, but it's not as there are too many practical and legal obstacles, it would be a fascinating exercise to have a shadow jury listening to cases to see how often they disagreed with the verdict of the official jury.

Someone is supposed to have once said - opinions vary as to who it was - that it is better for a hundred guilty people to be acquitted than for one innocent person to be convicted.

There are numerous cases down the years where people have been convicted but subsequently had the conviction overturned, sometimes many years later after a substantial term of imprisonment.

There are probably as many, perhaps more, people acquitted who were guilty but there can be many reasons for that, often deficiencies on the part of the Prosecution, although the gullibility of juries might also play a part on occasions. Before she emigrated to Australia our daughter was a lay magistrate in North West England. Speaking in general terms she would say that they sometimes had to acquit people, who they were as certain as they could be were guilty, because the Prosecution failed to come up to proof.
 
As mentioned elsewhere on this platform, shadow juries exist in Law Schools when at a suitable time has passed, contentious trials are played out with a 'Moot trial', every element is replicated i.e. Evidence is the same, students act as Counsel, and non law students are the jury. Results are collated and if a trend emerges, the relevant authority is informed.

As to the 'theatrical ', this is the practitioner at work fulfilling his/her professional duty on behalf of the one that pays.

As mentioned earlier, it is the job of the professional to make their case, the Judge or the head magistrate to inform of the relevant law and manage the progress of the trial and the jury to deliberate according to the oath. Members of juries always retain their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and this the jeopardy of Trial by peers, personal feelings against evidence presented together with confusion about the Law and what it requires of them.

An example might be that of The Crown v. Bentley, a case where a jury found Bentley Guilty with a recommendation of mercy, this was a capital offence under Joint Enterprise whereby all parties are severally liable to the outcome of the crime. Given the evidence, and the guidance of the judge, the jury allowed emotion to shape their verdict. The then Home Secretary declined the mercy call and applied the Law as required of him.

It appears simple but as it stands, the Bristol trial may be referred to the Courts of Appeal under the perverse verdict rules and the Police may be asked to investigate if Jury manipulation is suspected as the evidence was incontrovertible and defendants pleas were of justifiable action and the press may have exceeded the reporting limits pertaining to live trials.

Constitutionally, the verdict is final however the Law has protections against unexpected outcomes or if I may be flippant, a legal VAR taking a reference from football.
 
Thank you JENNY.

The Derek Bentley case from the early 1950s was a cause celebre at the time and for many years afterwards. For those not familiar with the case Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig burgled a warehouse in South London. They were 'caught in the act' and as a result Craig shot at and killed a police officer, PC Miles who had attended the incident.

Bentley was 18 but was of low mental capacity. Craig was 16. The murder charge evidence against Bentley turned on a remark he was supposed to have made. Another police officer told Craig to put down his gun whereupon Bentley was alleged to have shouted, "Let him have it Chris" which the Prosecution interpreted as meaning Craig should shoot the officer. The Defence denied that Bentley had made the remark and if he had it could mean that he should let the officer have the gun. Craig then shot PC Miles, causing fatal injuries.

The jury found both Craig and Bentley guilty of murder which, as JENNY pointe out, was a capital offence at that time. Because Craig was 16 he could not be put to death but was instead ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure. In fact, he remained in detention for ten years before being released. Bentley was hanged.

For many years afterwards there were campaigns for Bentley's conviction to be quashed until in 1993 he was granted a royal pardon in respect of the death sentence. Five years later the Court of Appeal quashed Bentley's conviction for murder.

There was much sympathy for Bentley, both at the time and subsequently, which was stirred further 20 years after the event by the publication of a book that sought to show that PC Miles might have been hit by a bullet from another officer's gun. The snag with that theory was that none of the officers at the scene was armed at the time the police officer was shot dead.

There wasn't the same sympathy for PC Miles or his family. I think that they were done a huge disservice by the clamour to treat Bentley as a victim. The only victim that night was PC Miles.

The fact that Craig only served ten years in detention for the cold-blooded murder of a police officer was also lost in the ongoing controversy over Bentley.

As for the so-called Colston Four, I read that the Attorney General was considering seeking a review from the Court of Appeal in order to clarify the law. It would not overturn the acquittal or lead to a retrial, unless of course new and compelling evidence came to light. I haven't read anything about possible jury manipulation. Has that possibility been reported in the news media?
 
As to the Colston case, when and if a review is ordered, it would be a given that ANY suspicions about jury manipulation ( nobbling ) and media activities would be investigated as a part of a review. What cannot be reviewed is the deliberations within the jury rooms as they are secret, no justification for the verdict is required.

My understanding is that the evidence was incontrovertible and somewhat rich of content however the jury might appear to have allowed personal beliefs and emotion to over ride the direction of the judge as to the relevant laws in force and by which the trial was conducted.

No, I have not encountered anything in the media about the jury however, amongst my law student friends and educators, they are somewhat dismayed by the verdict. Believe me, they are not happy bunnies! One , even questioning whether to continue with studies.

Clarification of law is the domain of The Law Commission in the general and the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction in the specific. Previously it was the bailiwick of the Law Lords but Lords reform legislation passed those duties to the newly created Supreme Court.

Hoping this helps!
 
My understanding is that the evidence was incontrovertible and somewhat rich of content however the jury might appear to have allowed personal beliefs and emotion to over ride the direction of the judge as to the relevant laws in force and by which the trial was conducted.
Thank you for that JENNYJET.

There have been many newspaper and other news media reports about the so-called Colston Four (incidentally, I don't know how they feel about that characterisation given that the name Colston is toxic amongst many activists in Bristol) and I have linked one of the newspaper reports below.

In that report Attorney General Suella Braverman is quoted, "Without affecting the result of this case, as attorney general, I am able to refer matters to the court of appeal so that senior judges have the opportunity to clarify the law for future cases. I am carefully considering whether to do so."

The report goes on to say:

If the case does go to the court of appeal, the judges will not be able to rule on whether the jury’s decision was correct, only on whether there was an error in law in the directions that were given to the jury.

Juries have an absolute right to acquit, which they have exercised in the past for protestors against climate change and military action even when defendants have admitted causing disruption or damage.


If the matter is referred to the Court of Appeal in the first instance, and I note your points about the Law Commission and the Supreme Court, and clarification is provided it still would not, as I see it, get around the situation of a jury ignoring a judge's direction on the law and going its own way with its verdict.

The Colston case acquittal was by a majority verdict, so either one or two members of the jury apparently did not agree with the other members. Had not the Criminal Justice Act of 1967 veered away from unanimous jury verdicts this case would have meant the CPS having to consider seeking a retrial.

 
Remember also that as things stand, this is now Case Law and can be used as precedent thus causing further muddle in some minds and giving juries justification in disregarding a judge. Further, those aquitted cannot be retried on the same charge under Double Jeopardy rules but the fact they stood trial can be considered if a further offence of a similar nature occurs. Free they may be but they now have a history that can be used against them!
 
Remember also that as things stand, this is now Case Law and can be used as precedent thus causing further muddle in some minds and giving juries justification in disregarding a judge. Further, those aquitted cannot be retried on the same charge under Double Jeopardy rules but the fact they stood trial can be considered if a further offence of a similar nature occurs. Free they may be but they now have a history that can be used against them!

It is absolutely not a precedent. Jury verdicts create no precedent in law.
 
Clearly KARFA, you know best in these matters. Please enlighten me!

A jury is not bound by anything a previous jury has decided in another case. I have never heard of a jury being directed to decide something based on what another jury previously decided. Quite simply a case could be brought tomorrow for different people based on the same scenario with the same charges, and the jury is free to decided as it wishes and could find them guilty. They are not bound by what was decided here, and tbh the jury members might be ineligible if they had awareness of this case and were implicitly biased based on what was decided before.
 

Upload Media

Upgrade Your Account

Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.



Forums4aiports
Subscribe

NEW - Profile Posts

9 trips in 9 days done 70 miles walked and over 23-00 photos taken with a large number taken at 20mph or above. Heavy rain on 1 day only
5 trips done and 45 miles walked,. Also the RAF has had 4 F35B Lightning follow me yesterday and today....
My plans got altered slightly as one of the minibus companies had to cancel 3 trips and refunded me but will be getting nice discount when I rebook them.
wondering why on my "holidays" I choose to get up 2 hours earlier than when going to work. 6 trips in 6 days soon coming up with 3 more days to sort out

Trending Hashtags

Advertisement

Back
Top Bottom
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock