The jury's out (forever): first Crown Court trial without a jury to be heard

[London_Calling]

Have we really got to the point where the police can't prevent jury tampering?

The answer is no, surely?

 

[detective-boy]

Have we really got to the point where the police can't prevent jury tampering?

Sort of.

It's not that it can't be prevented ... but when someone is intent on doing it (as they obviously were in this case) the level of interference with the lives of jurors is unacceptable. They would literally have to be kept guarded 24hrs a day, phone, e-mail, etc. all cut off, no contact with friends, relatives, etc. That may be OK for a day or two, but this trial would last weeks, if not months and that is just unacceptable.

There comes a point where the system needs to stand up and say "Fuck you. If you don't want to play by the rules, then we'll change them. We are not just going to throw the towel in because you make things impossible by the rules which are there to ensure YOU get a fair trial.". That point was reached here.

 

[TAE]

Who decides though? Surely part of the 'innocent until proven guilty' is that someone would have to prove that he really is such a nasty piece of work before denying him a jury trial. Perhaps going by previous convictions is an option, but that can quickly become a chicken and egg situation. What if someone is so good at intimidating the jury that he never gets a 'previous conviction'.

his second trial ended with a hung jury

Slighly unfortunate phrase used there.

 

[detective-boy]

Who decides though? Surely part of the 'innocent until proven guilty' is that someone would have to prove that he really is such a nasty piece of work before denying him a jury trial.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that just because someone is a "nasty piece of work" they don;t get a jury trial. As I understand it, it will only be resorted to (at the decision of senior judges, and subject to Appeal in the normal ways if the defence take issue) if a jury trial has been attempted several times and jury interference or intimidation has taken place to prevent them being completed.

I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that if there is jury tampering then the defendant(s) is / are behind it ...

 

[CyberRose]

That seems a fairly reasonable solution, any intimidation of the jury and you don't have one! Simples

 

[Azrael]

He's dangerous, he can't have a jury at his trial because he'll have them intimidated, he was given bail, turned up for his trial, decided he didn't like it and fucked off. If it was a plot to a TV prog it'd be seen as too far fetched.

So a judge decided the accused was so dangerous that we had to strip away his right to jury trial, but he was given bail?!

Come on!

Authoritarianism is bad, but blundering authoritarianism ...!

That seems a fairly reasonable solution, any intimidation of the jury and you don't have one! Simples

Even if it wasn't the thin end of the wedge (which is is, Labour have already tried to throw juries out of some fraud trials), who decides this? A judge. In secret, apparently.

No thanks. Either jury trial's a right or it isn't. No exceptions.

The CPS drop thousands of cases every year. If the government had genuine concern for the public, they'd put a stop to it. But they don't. This is a pretext, nothing more.

Who decides though? Surely part of the 'innocent until proven guilty' is that someone would have to prove that he really is such a nasty piece of work before denying him a jury trial. Perhaps going by previous convictions is an option, but that can quickly become a chicken and egg situation. What if someone is so good at intimidating the jury that he never gets a 'previous conviction'.

Or make them too afraid of the law to intimidate jurors. The elephant in the room: violent men who don't fear the law. Take away juries, and they'll just nobble the judge, or the judge's friends and family. Are all those people going to be protected as well? We're right back where we started.

Slighly unfortunate phrase used there.