So some members of a jury decide to set up their own WhatsApp group and use it to PSA programmes on TV about the content of the case.
Lucky our judicial system isn't backlogged in anyway...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ke14er8djo
'That episode' in Peepshow now just reflects real life it seems!
having done jury service, this is no suprise
There was me thinking this would be about how stupid crims are, but looking at social media I’m not sure I’d want to be tried by twelve randomers.
I presume rule #1 of jurydom isn’t ’Don’t Be a Dick’ but something very specific about discussing or sharing information outside of the court.
I have concerns about the government getting rid of juries in more trials, and then I read stuff like this
I did jury service a couple of months ago and was really surprised about several things; I expected to be bored, to be frustrated at the court not having its shit together and I expected to baffled by bullshit legalese. Instead, everything was done fairly and with complete transparency. The fifteen members of the jury followed the rules and took their responsibility seriously.
My one reservation is that juries form opinions on defendants guilt and vote accordingly rather than sticking to the finer points of law, it's not easy to work out whether 85% certainty constitutes "beyond reasonable doubt", after all, "it's not up to the defendant to prove their innocence".
There was me thinking this would be about how stupid crims are,
Well it was - just not the people in the dock! No mention of what action was taken against the jurors? Nor why it was secret: if you want future jurors to appreciate the significance public awareness would be helpful.
“Reporting restrictions on the reasons for the discharge of the jury were lifted on Friday”
I have concerns about the government getting rid of juries in more trials, and then I read stuff like this
That's why you're reading things like this to discredit the current system. Auntie Beeb is no longer independent, just another arm of the government PR machine.
Auntie Beeb is no longer independent, just another arm of the government PR machine.
You're absolutely right- the Beeb, the Telegraph, The Daily Mail, GB News - all of them colluding to report the same story - all obvious shills for the government
I have concerns about the government getting rid of juries in more trials
I don't, most people are woefully unequipped to make rational decisions based of complex criteria. As chicken mentions most people will form emotion based opinions on the defendants guilt.
I have concerns about the government getting rid of juries in more trials, and then I read stuff like this
That's why you're reading things like this to discredit the current system. Auntie Beeb is no longer independent, just another arm of the government PR machine.
Somewhere a picnic is wondering where you’ve gone.
Having seen the documentary series, on Netflix, about Puff Daddy/P Diddy/Sean Combes trial for trafficking, abuse, rape, all kinds of nastiness, this seems to be all part of the judiciary service now. The defence used social media influencers to post garbage about the case, making witnesses look unreliable etc, to get him a much lower sentence than he deserved. Way of the world now.
The defence used social media influencers to post garbage about the case, making witnesses look unreliable etc, to get him a much lower sentence than he deserved. Way of the world now.
'reputation management' as they call it, which is largely an industry that aims to corrupt the reputations of anyone other than their client.
I think in the instance of a case like this one it had been a political football long before it came to trial and had also been sensationalised by the online right. For the jurors it would have been impossible to come to the case without some sort of foreknowledge of the stories around it. But we also live in an age of instant gratification - we have the answer to every question in our pocket. Evidence in the case would have been laid out slowly and methodically with breaks of hours or even days between one step in the story and the next. It would have been just too tempting for people wanting to do their own sleuthing.
Auntie Beeb is no longer independent, just another arm of the government PR machine.
You're absolutely right- the Beeb, the Telegraph, The Daily Mail, GB News - all of them colluding to report the same story - all obvious shills for the government
Proving my point that there's a campaign to discredit the current system of jury trial, which if my memory serves is less than 10% of the court caseloads at any one time. There are greater gains in scheduling and sitting efficiency to be made.
@tonyf1 Play the ball not the man! You may not like my argument but being rude is not the way to win.
Auntie Beeb is no longer independent, just another arm of the government PR machine.
You're absolutely right- the Beeb, the Telegraph, The Daily Mail, GB News - all of them colluding to report the same story - all obvious shills for the government
Proving my point that there's a campaign to discredit the current system of jury trial, which if my memory serves is less than 10% of the court caseloads at any one time. There are greater gains in scheduling and sitting efficiency to be made.
@tonyf1 Play the ball not the man! You may not like my argument but being rude is not the way to win.
if I was going to have a campaign to discredit jury trials I can think of better ways than accurately reporting court proceedings (unless you are suggesting the jury never did these things or the judge didn’t discharge the jury?). This case seems to be an example of how a jury (a) were kept accountable by their being multiple jurors to report misconduct (b) were dealt with by the existing judicial system. On top of which this seems to be the sort of case they have no plans to replace with single judges.
“Reporting restrictions on the reasons for the discharge of the jury were lifted on Friday”
Reporting restrictions are sometimes appropriate but usually there is some explanation. I haven’t seen any such explanation, they were only lifted because the press pushed for them to be lifted. Open justice is really important.
there's a campaign to discredit the current system of jury trial
Do you mean a campaign beyond reporting the collapse of this one, huge-profile trial that reflects many of the issues in current society (attitudes to immigrants, dissing public services/government/legal system). When it collapsed there was a huge swell of bullshit nationally, right up to "deepstate cover-up of things they don't want us to talk about; Tommy Twonames for prime minister"
Reporting restrictions are sometimes appropriate but usually there is some explanation. I haven’t seen any such explanation,
I wonder if there was an intent to prosecute them but that it's now been shelved
Auntie Beeb is no longer independent, just another arm of the government PR machine.
You're absolutely right- the Beeb, the Telegraph, The Daily Mail, GB News - all of them colluding to report the same story - all obvious shills for the government
Proving my point that there's a campaign to discredit the current system of jury trial, which if my memory serves is less than 10% of the court caseloads at any one time. There are greater gains in scheduling and sitting efficiency to be made.
@tonyf1 Play the ball not the man! You may not like my argument but being rude is not the way to win.
Lighten up and maybe work on your sense of humour? Life doesn’t always need to be about proving your point and winning. Anyway off to get the blanket and wicker basket out.
Having seen the documentary series, on Netflix, about Puff Daddy/P Diddy/Sean Combes trial for trafficking, abuse, rape, all kinds of nastiness, this seems to be all part of the judiciary service now. The defence used social media influencers to post garbage about the case, making witnesses look unreliable etc, to get him a much lower sentence than he deserved. Way of the world now.
be careful confusing the US system with ours! We don’t have politically appointed or elected judges, we select juries by random with virtually no opportunity for “objection”, media rules on contempt seem to be wildly different, TV cameras are allowed to report live proceedings. In the UK sentences are always a matter for the judiciary not the jury; whilst we do have some plea bargaining even that is not linked to promises of sentence (other than statutory discounts for a guilty plea).
a UK defendant trying to influence a jury with a social media campaign would likely find themselves in contempt, and if their legal team were involved it would be surprising if they didn’t get struck off.
I have concerns about the government getting rid of juries in more trials, and then I read stuff like this
Yes, it’s supposed to be a trial by a jury of your peers, but then I look at the people around me, and social media posts, and immediately think “mmmm, maybe not…”
Yes, I do realise the case highlighted might be a different judicial system, but I wouldn’t trust some people I know to give an unbiased opinion based on the evidence given. Or some people I’ve worked with… *rollseyes*
be careful confusing the US system with ours!
I wasn't, I was just saying that this is how social media is infecting the world of justice. If jurors can jump on the internet and view their socials during a trial, or use any encrypted messaging systems, or indeed, post anonymously on social channels themselves, it's going to have an affect on juror systems everywhere.
I have concerns about the government getting rid of juries in more trials, and then I read stuff like this
Yes, it’s supposed to be a trial by a jury of your peers, but then I look at the people around me, and social media posts, and immediately think “mmmm, maybe not…”
Yes, I do realise the case highlighted might be a different judicial system, but I wouldn’t trust some people I know to give an unbiased opinion based on the evidence given. Or some people I’ve worked with… *rollseyes*
Having served on a jury earlier this year, some of the people there were definitely peers of the defendant!
oh he was trying to do some fake moralising the other day, backing up one of the well known nazi trolls, I called them out for it and he lost the plot.
There was me thinking this would be about how stupid crims are, but looking at social media I’m not sure I’d want to be tried by twelve randomers.
I'm not sure I'd want to be tried solely by a judge, either. A jury can appreciate the shades of grey but the judge is forced to take constant and almost arbitrary binary decisions.
As a witness to one case I found it incredibly frustrating trying to explain a fairly complex scenario to a judge with bad hearing, pausing every sentence or two while his assistant whispered into his ear - what was he saying? I have no idea but it obviously didn't help him understand.
Yes - and the risk exists everywhere, but US freedom of speech arguments and sensationalist media trials make it particularly high risk. There have been a handful of UK cases where jurors were found in contempt for doing exactly the sort of thing you suggest. We don't know how big an issue it is - probably some cases have been decided where nobody spoke up - its a lot of faith to put in 11/14 strangers though that they will all ignore your contempt. Any defence (or Crown) attempt to manipulate the media message to influence the jury would be considered contempt here but actually almost seems to be acceptable in some other jurisdictions. The decision on the sentence (which you referred to) is never an issue for the jury in the UK, and of course Judges might not be as immune to media campaigns as they would like but selection, appointment and promotion of judges in the UK is wildly different from the US. Having a political allegience in the US is a reason to get appointed, having one here is a reason to get removed! Similarly, you pretty much get the random 12/15 people selected here, in the US there are professionals specialising in Jury selection to try and get you the mix needed to get you off.be careful confusing the US system with ours!
I wasn't, I was just saying that this is how social media is infecting the world of justice. If jurors can jump on the internet and view their socials during a trial, or use any encrypted messaging systems, or indeed, post anonymously on social channels themselves, it's going to have an affect on juror systems everywhere.
.
As a witness to one case I found it incredibly frustrating trying to explain a fairly complex scenario to a judge with bad hearing, pausing every sentence or two while his assistant whispered into his ear - what was he saying? I have no idea but it obviously didn't help him understand.
The judge, and if there is one the jury, have to write their own notes of the evidence tendered. It's completely normal to have to pause every sentence or so in complicated or important matters. People giving evidence often tend to underestimate how quickly they speak and how quietly they can be speaking as well (I've been "told off" by judges for both issues and I've been in the box lots).
I have never seen a Clerk of Court whispering in a judge's ear because they're deaf.