http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21516473

The judge is pretty scathing in his comments on the jury. Would you have sat there for the last few weeks amidst all the media blitz and actually understood what was going on?
I did jury service in the mid 90’s and IIRC there wasnt much info given about your responsibilities other than say guilty or not guilty based on what was presented to you in the court. Granted I would imagine not many people on the jury (if any in my case) had been in court before and could claim to understand everything especially when half the language used went over my head.

What can we expect from the public who dont understand what perjury is or what (perverting) the course of justice is. Its not like the world at large stops to explain these laws but simply assumes we all know, and like many a meeting at my work not many people will put there hand up and say ‘i dont understand?’ for fear of (wrongly) looking daft.

To my mind, there’s more to some of these questions than initially meets the eye, particuarly Q5:

Q5. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?

It sounds to me like an exasperated foreman/forewoman was having to deal with at least one juror who was either

a. Insistent on acquitting/convicting based on something they’d read in the paper/twitter/whatever, or
b. Trying to be Poirot and implying stuff from something they weren’t supposed to.

I don’t think the whole jury was being dumb. The questions suggest unmanageable elements within the group.

whether the defendant’s “religious conviction” to follow her wedding vows of obeying her then husband, Chris Huhne, would be reason enough to acquit her of committing a crime with him.

I want a religion that absolves me of any legal wrongdoing!

That, again, is the sign of someone absolutely idiotic on the jury who wouldn’t be budged from a numptyous opinion.

but with permission to find 10/2 or 11/1 it suggests that there’s at least 3 mentally challenged individuals on the Jury. Quite possible mind.

numptyous

WOTD

Numptyous. Brilliant.

I think there’s a fair chance that given the options by the defence (as stated above) that a few on the jury would you use Kyles Defence (see $H-ITV weekday mornings) which states:

Why should I care

To my mind, there’s more to some of these questions than initially meets the eye, particuarly Q5:

Q5. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?

In my experience the defence is very good at fielding questions that tug at the jury’s ignorance. I was a juror where the defence simply had to draw attention to the fact that an interview had been written down in a a bobby’s notebook, rather than taped like what you see in a TV Drama.

The problem is – the question is more memorable than the answer for many people, so non of the witnesses this question asked of confirmed this, everyone asked said that an interview would not commonly be taped in these circumstances and a written report of the interview was quite correct, and quite typical. In his summing up the judge told us there was sufficient evidence to convict.

For many jurors though – asking the question about the interview meant there must be a doubt about the interview or rather that interviews like this must be doubtful. Why else would the question be asked by a lawyer in a court, he surely knows what he’s talking about and after all everything is on tape on TV. To them this meant there was ‘reasonable doubt’.

We could have had a longer debate about it and maybe asked some questions of judge – but the jurors were so sick of being dicked about by the court all week they just wanted to have a show of hands and go home.

Whatever’s happened, I reckon it’s safe to say that these are the most expensive 3points in legal history! For everyone involved, including us! Farcical!

I do wonder about trial by jury, there are some right morons about and it’s quite worrying to think that one day you may rely on one or more of them for your liberty….

Not that they’ll take me alive!

The point where the judge had to explain “reasonable doubt” is funny too – sounds like he was seriously close to losing it with the jury.

Always comes back to rule #1 in life: people are idiots. Work from that and you’ll never go wrong

Always comes back to rule #1 in life: people are idiots. Work from that and you’ll never go wrong

+1

Hmm. Question 1:

1. You have defined the defence of marital coercion and also explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples. Please expand upon the definition, specifically “was will overborne”.

Judge: “The words are relatively straightforward English words which the law does not permit me to go beyond further than I have by way of clear illustration in these directions.”

I’d want to see the full definition but that’s not an easily followed expression, and it’s not in general use. I think I know what it means, but then I have a strong grasp of english and a little legal education. Why is the definition phrased unclearly? Why can’t he rephrase it into terminology that will be more universally understood?

Likewise “A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable.”- that’s like forum arguing. I know linguistically what is meant by “reasonable doubt” but I don’t know legally how far the definition of reasonable can be stretched. Some people hold opinions which I consider unreasonable, but they do not. Totally unhelpful answer to a reasonable question

“There’s a difference between speculation, which is not permitted, and inferences.”- but then, he doesn’t actually say what it is. Again, I know the difference but it’s perfectly reasonable that a juror might not, it doesn’t make them stupid.

Obviously there could be selective quoting in the article, but he does seem to be an arrogant bell-end.

1. You have defined the defence of marital coercion and also explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples. Please expand upon the definition, specifically “was will overborne”.

Judge: “The words are relatively straightforward English words which the law does not permit me to go beyond further than I have by way of clear illustration in these directions.”

That judge needs his balls kicking. Its a perfectly legitimate question asking for clarity and he answers by spending his handsomely recompensed time dicking about 12 people who’ve been compelled to give their time freely.

That was the answer to the question about reasonable doubt, not the question you’ve posted

The actual answer to q1 was:

Answer: “The pressure applied by the husband need not involve violence or physical threats. The law requires that a husband was present and coercion was to such an extent that she was impelled to commit an offence because she truly believed she had no real choice but to do so.”

Not according to the BBC. A similiar but slightly different answer was given to the reasonable doubt question.

“Mr Justice Sweeney said it did not require violence or physical threats and meant a woman was so affected by pressure from her husband that she was “impelled” to commit an offence and truly believed she had no real choice.

He added: “The words are relatively straightforward English words which the law does not permit me to go beyond further than I have by way of clear illustration in these directions.””

Full text:

IN THE SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT

R

-v-

VASILIKI PRYCE

JURY QUESTIONS

Q1. You have defined the defence of marital coercion on page 5 of the jury bundle and also explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples. Please expand on the definition, provide examples of what may fall within the defence, specifically ‘will was overborne’ and does the defence require violence or physical threat?

Answer: “The pressure applied by the husband need not involve violence or physical threats. The law requires that a husband was present and coercion was to such an extent that she was impelled to commit an offence because she truly believed she had no real choice but to do so.”

Q2. In the scenario that the defendant may be guilty but there may not be enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time when she signed the notice of intent to prosecute to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be, not guilty or unable or not safe to bring a verdict?

Answer: “Turning to page three of my written directions, the direction is combining the burden and standard of proof with the need for a majority verdict. If, having carefully considered all of the evidence, at least 10 of you feel sure of the guilt of the defendant then it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if after careful consideration at least 10 of you were feeling less than sure of guilt, then it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. And so it follows that if at least 10 of you are not sure, the appropriate verdict is one of not guilty.”

Q3. If there is debatable evidence supporting the prosecution case can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict? If so can inferences/speculation be drawn on the full evidence or only where you have directed us to do so?

Answer: “The drawing of an inference is a permissible process. Speculation is not. In this case the evidence on which the prosecution relies is largely undisputed, and where you are willing to draw inferences from that is entirely a matter for you.”

Q4. Can you define what is reasonable doubt?

Answer: “The prosecution must make you feel sure beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with, beyond the written directions [he had already given them]”.

Q5. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?

Answer: “The answer to that question is a firm no. That is because it would be completely contrary to the directions I have given you.”

Q6. Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence didn’t bring witnesses from the time of the offence, such as the au pair or neighbours?

Answer: “You must not, as I have now emphasised many times, speculate on what witnesses who have not been called might have said or draw inferences from their absence. Her evidence is that no one else, other than Mr Huhne, was present when she signed the form.”

Q7. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?

Answer: “There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence and there is no burden on her to prove anything at all. The defendant does not have an obligation to present a defence, in this case the defendant has given evidence and it is for you to judge the evidence from her in the same way you would any other witness.”

Q8. Can we speculate about the events at the time Miss Pryce sent the form or what was in her mind when she sent the form?

Answer: “The answer to that is an equally firm no. The position in a criminal is that no one must speculate. There is a difference between speculation, which is not permitted, and inference, which is the drawing of common-sense conclusions from the facts of which you are also sure. Speculation is guesswork. That is not the same as inference at all.”

Q9. The jury is considering the facts provided but is continuing to ask the questions raised by the police. Given that the case has come to court without answers to these questions please advise on which facts in the bundle the jury should count on to determine a not guilty or guilty verdict.

Answer: “You must decide the case on the evidence [put before the court]. It is for you to decide which you consider to be important, truthful and reliable then decide what common-sense conclusions you can safely draw. It is not for me to tell you which piece or pieces of evidence are important and which are not. That is a matter for you to decide.”

Q10. “Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, he ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

Answer: “This is not, with respect, a question about this case at all. Vicky Pryce does not say that any such reason formed any part of her decision to do what she did. Answering this question will not help you in any way whatsoever to reach a true verdict in this case. I must direct you firmly to focus on the real issues in this case.”

Mr Justice Sweeney went on: “I want to repeat the absolutely vital importance of your following my directions of law to the letter and the fact that it is an equally important part of each of your individual duties to ensure that all of you do follow my directions of law to the letter.

“Without doing so, you are simply not in a position to reach a true verdict according to the evidence one way or the other.

“It is essential that each of you ensure that my directions of law are faithfully applied by all of you. If, for whatever reason, any one or more of you feel you do not understand my directions, then it would be wholly wrong to reach a verdict one way or the other.

“Equally, the duty of all of you is to ensure that no one of your number does reach a conclusion one way or another unless they are confident they are able to understand and follow to the letter my directions. It does come in some cases that jurors are simply not able to agree in sufficient numbers on the verdict.

“If, after further consideration, you find yourselves in a position where you are simply not able to agree, then you must of course have the courage to say so. I hope all that is clear.”

I’ve given up trying to predict what way juries will go at trial. One thing they are not are homogenous entities that are consistent with one another. I’ve been witness to truly breath taking insouciance – members falling asleep, failing to grasp the rudimentaries of a case, playing detective themselves and (I impute from their questions) coming up with all manner of preposterous hypotheses.

Your average STW thread, (with all the varying views, opinions, wild assertions, biases, irrelevancies and disregard for the facts) can be like a deliberating jury in-action … yeah, frightening isn’t it to think that some of us on here might one day be called upon to perform our civic duty!

For balance – I’ve know of many, very engaged, intelligent and interested juries that take their role seriously as well and some good points have been made on here. Jurors can find themselves in a confusing, adversarial arena with some towering ego’s swaggering about, which they have to acclimatise to before then even begin to assimilate and interpret the information.

I think the jury should now go on trail, the idiots outed and shot.

The “reasonable doubt” response is the one that is always used in court now. There’s just no way to explain or illusrate it further without bias.

surely to be “reasonable” is to be a conclusion that can be defended by reason?

Some hypocrisy in her desire to stitch him up, yet try to get off Scot-free of the exact same incident.

What a pair of little kids they have turned out to be. Caring Liberal Chris has turned out to be a self-serving slimeball and his Mrs just looks like a bitter old harridan who’s only means of gratification is to squeal him up.

Politics at its best.

I’d have found her guilty. I’m not clever but completly understand the definition of coercion as explained in the above responses. Reasonable doubt isn’t hard either. Some of those jury members should be hanging their heads in shame.

Having served on a Scottish jury (15 folk) I’d say its an eye opening experience…a vast range of intellects or ability to take it seriously. Most folk saw it as a jolly, even though it was a child abuse case. One guy who was happy to put himself up for jury spokesman (it ended up being me) wanted us all to come to a rushed guilty verdict as he fancied an afternoon in the bookies. I’d say 4 or 5 folk were diligent and interested enough to listen to all sides of the case and discuss rationally.
Today wasn’t therefore a total surprise in a relatively lengthy case.

Firstly, Pryce has admitted doing something that was wrong, so why has this gone this far? Proceedings far outweigh the crime, surely this should have been dealt with by a magistrate.

Secondly, very poor reflection on the public ability to read/listen and level of understanding by the jury.

timber – she’s been charged with Perversion of the course of Justice. It goes beyond a magistrate court. She admits the offence but is using one of only a few defences in law being marital coercion. The jury have to decide on the level of coercion, not the offence itself.

timber: Firstly, Pryce has admitted doing something that was wrong, so why has this gone this far? Proceedings far outweigh the crime, surely this should have been dealt with by a magistrate.

Perverting the course of justice is not a minor offence. It can ONLY be tried on indictment (i.e. in front of a jury). Even if the matter could have appeared at the magistrates court:
– they only have a maximum of 6 months sentencing power.
– they don’t usually see cases lasting more than 2 days because of the difficulty getting the same bench (volunteers) on consecutive days. District Judges can sit in the Mags court for more complex cases, but have no greater power.

Having served on a Scottish jury (15 folk) I’d say its an eye opening experience…a vast range of intellects or ability to take it seriously. Most folk saw it as a jolly, even though it was a child abuse case. One guy who was happy to put himself up for jury spokesman (it ended up being me) wanted us all to come to a rushed guilty verdict as he fancied an afternoon in the bookies. I’d say 4 or 5 folk were diligent and interested enough to listen to all sides of the case and discuss rationally.
Today wasn’t therefore a total surprise in a relatively lengthy case.

That’s my experience – and it’s more folk being weak-minded than stupid. A majority don’t seem to want / care / be able to engage in the process. It’s understandable to an extent, you’re minding your own business and suddenly you’re called upon to deliver judgement that could see someone imprisoned for a very long time (not in the Pryce case obv.) – a lot of people just mentally don’t want to get involved with that.

The Bastard Verdict in Scotland makes this a whole level worse, IM-limited-E. Total cop-out for the aforementioned wasters who can’t take the jury duty seriously. I believe it’s policy for the judges not to discuss this option in any depth in their summing up as it would just heap more confusion upon the beleaguered jurors.

fatmax – Having served on a Scottish jury (15 folk)

but you have it easy you only need 8/15 to agree to get a verdict and have the “Not proven” verdict as a useful escape in this situation!

I’d say 4 or 5 folk were diligent and interested enough to listen to all sides of the case and discuss rationally.

that’s the bit that worries me most, about the jury system – although I can’t find a significantly better solution. The alternative in Scotland is essentially one person making all the decisions which is not necessarily ideal either (although I suspect may actually be at least as dependable) – I don’t know if anyone has ever conducted a survey to see if Sheriffs would have agreed with their Juries had the procedure been Summary business. That would be really interesting.

Today wasn’t therefore a total surprise in a relatively lengthy case.

Actually I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often, especially when you need 10/12 to reach a conclusion.

taxi25 – interesting that you feel you can make that decision without actually having sat through all the evidence (even if you’ve read every press report – you will have only a partial picture). Most of the case will have been incredibly boring* but might actually have built up a picture which was relevant, or established the credibility and reliability of witnesses which then weights the reliance you can place on their evidence.

* from a press perspective.

My aunt was on a jury a while back, horrible child abuse case. 3 of the jurors said, on day 1, basically “I don’t care if he’s guilty or not, someone’s got to be punished for this terrible crime and he’s the only person we can find guilty”.

So that’s encouraging. But I’m sure the OP will be pleased to know that they were all white and scottish.

surely to be “reasonable” is to be a conclusion that can be defended by reason?

Eh? Missing words there or something? I don’t understand.

And is it actually true that lawyers use flowery complicated language in court that jurors don’t understand because they’re mugs? I’ve never been a juror and I’ve never sat in on a jury-tried criminal car, but if either side baffles the jury they risk not convincing the jury. There’s no advantage in using unclear language – and jurors are mostly canny enough to spot bullshit.

I don’t think the legal principles or the underlying facts in this case were very complicated even for lay people. Did she lie? Did she have no choice about lying?

I assume from reading those questions that a number of jurors were stupid and at least one was rather religious re mariage vows.

Question 5 defies beleief that someone would ask it. I assume it was to prove to a juror or jurors just how stupid they were being. I do hope so

Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?

I mean reallty WTF 😯

As for reasonable doubt we all recognise it though we would all struggle to define it. I take it to mean you are not certain though there would still be a sliding scale there.

Question 5 defies beleief that someone would ask it. I assume it was to prove to a juror or jurors just how stupid they were being. I do hope so

It’s the only plausible explanation I can see. Surely anybody who considered it reasonable to come to a conclusion based upon no facts or evidence wouldn’t ask such a question. It must be somebody else making a point to them.

You do wonder just how much stupidity there is on juries that we don’t get to hear about – though clearly this was a very unusual case with a subjective defence.

you have read threads on here that is your 12 peers 😯

I was assuming some of the people on here were only 12 😉

I reckon I’d want a jury of stw regulars. They’re incredibly argumentative, have infinite time to debate minuscule points and all have a position on everything. If reasonable doubt wasn’t created, you’d at least be sure of a mistrial for jury misconduct. 😉

The point where the judge had to explain “reasonable doubt” is funny too

Been there done that. Had a drugs trial where jury was directed that they could draw adverse inference from silence in interview. Jury came back after being dismissed to ask what reasonable doubt meant (the judge had even used the accepted common language “be sure”) and whether they could convict on balance of probabilities, so there was no hope of them grasping more subtle concepts 🙄

Better to have questions than a miscarriage of justice, but I do wonder about trials for complex cases.

In some ways, getting rid of the jury and having decisions made by professional judges is quite appealing. However do we trust the “system” enough for that? More to the point, do all the current crop of professional judges actually have more sense than the average man in the street?

There was a chappie on R4 last night who’d done a lot of research into jury trials, and he reckoned that, in a survey of 1000’s of cases, the judge and defence and prosecution barristers thought that the jury came to a reasonable decision, given the evidence presented, in 85% of cases.