Random Irritations

[KenL]

With all the footage, it beggars belief that a simple guilty verdict wasn’t returned in about 10 minutes. I suspect that members of the jury agreed with what they did and based their decision on that and not the law.

I agree 100%. A disgrace. Retrial hopefully.

 

[KenL]

That jury saw and heard 2 months of evidence that none of us have seen or heard.
They were subjected to persuasive arguments by barristers and KCs that we didn’t hear.
They would have been given complex instructions, to which we aren’t party, to follow on how to apply the law to their decisions on each defendant.
Then they deliberated and argued with each other for 36 hours before being unable to agree.
There’s going to be a retrial for some of it, I think.
It’s not the jury’s fault.
Unless you thought I was defending the defendants, which I absolutely did not.

It’s not the jury’s fault unless they went in with their mind made up!
How there is no conviction for ramming into a place of work armed with weapons, determined to wreck the place and not complying with police instructions to surrender and breaking the spine of one of them is bizarre.

 

[Billysboots]

It’s not the jury’s fault unless they went in with their mind made up!
How there is no conviction for ramming into a place of work armed with weapons, determined to wreck the place and not complying with police instructions to surrender and breaking the spine of one of them is bizarre.

Ken, with respect, you have either not read the very post you’ve quoted, or not fully understood what Rich said.

 

[Hobbit]

That jury saw and heard 2 months of evidence that none of us have seen or heard.
They were subjected to persuasive arguments by barristers and KCs that we didn’t hear.
They would have been given complex instructions, to which we aren’t party, to follow on how to apply the law to their decisions on each defendant.
Then they deliberated and argued with each other for 36 hours before being unable to agree.
There’s going to be a retrial for some of it, I think.
It’s not the jury’s fault.
Unless you thought I was defending the defendants, which I absolutely did not.

Listening to the news piece, specifically the charge of grievous bodily harm with intent I thought the CPS screwed up. The issue is proving intent. If intent wasn’t proved, it’s not guilty. A lesser charge of causing grievous bodily harm, i.e. a fractured vertebrae, would have sailed through.

I can’t remember the detail of the other charges but thought the CPS aimed high, which brings a greater risk of failing. I thought the charges had been put together by the office junior. I’d be interested to know what the judge said in summing up. He must be fuming.

 

[KenL]

Ken, with respect, you have either not read the very post you’ve quoted, or not fully understood what Rich said.

Explain please.
Edit… My intention was not to criticise the poster I quoted. Perhaps the jury!

 

[4LEX]

That jury saw and heard 2 months of evidence that none of us have seen or heard.
They were subjected to persuasive arguments by barristers and KCs that we didn’t hear.
They would have been given complex instructions, to which we aren’t party, to follow on how to apply the law to their decisions on each defendant.
Then they deliberated and argued with each other for 36 hours before being unable to agree.
There’s going to be a retrial for some of it, I think.
It’s not the jury’s fault.
Unless you thought I was defending the defendants, which I absolutely did not.

Thanks for the response.

Given the clear evidence my view is the CPS set the bar too high and went for the upper end of the charges they could bring, as Hobbit has mentioned. A huge mistake in hindsight but they were obviously hoping to set an example of these people and lock them up for a long time. Now there's carte blanche for others to do the same and cause more carnage.

I also think some of the jury might've been blinded by an 'agenda' regarding the reason for the protest which played a part in their decision. If a jury member agrees or has a degree of sympathy with the crime, it doesn't matter how much evidence they hear, they will always deliver a not guilty verdict. It happened in the 70's and 80's regarding bank robbers getting off, working class members of the jury had more in common with the robbers than the banks so viewed it as a fair game. Some of the blags people walked away from were unbelievable in that era.

All in all a total mess!

 

[RichA]

Thanks for the response.

Given the clear evidence my view is the CPS set the bar too high and went for the upper end of the charges they could bring, as Hobbit has mentioned. A huge mistake in hindsight but they were obviously hoping to set an example of these people and lock them up for a long time. Now there's carte blanche for others to do the same and cause more carnage.

I also think some of the jury might've been blinded by an 'agenda' regarding the reason for the protest which played a part in their decision. If a jury member agrees or has a degree of sympathy with the crime, it doesn't matter how much evidence they hear, they will always deliver a not guilty verdict. It happened in the 70's and 80's regarding bank robbers getting off, working class members of the jury had more in common with the robbers than the banks so viewed it as a fair game. Some of the blags people walked away from were unbelievable in that era.

All in all a total mess!

Yep.
I think that the 70s and 80s stuff was a more reaction to the widespread belief of police faking evidence than any kind of Robin Hood affinity that jurors had with the criminals.
As @Hobbit says, it looks like they charged the guy here with the wrong GBH offence.
Not guilty of criminal damage for the others is harder to understand and makes jury equity look probable. Strong feelings about the subject that motivated the attack on the weapons factory are not uncommon, even if not everyone shares them. Maybe enough jurors felt that way to prevent a result. But we will never know because their discussions were secret.

 

[Billysboots]

Explain please.
Edit… My intention was not to criticise the poster I quoted. Perhaps the jury!

I get that.

There’s not really anything to explain, though. Rich had given an excellent précis of just a small part of what goes on in jury trials in order to try and explain the outcome in this case, and your response suggested you had either not read his comments, or hadn’t understood them.

For my part, far from doing away with jury trials, as seems to be the plan in many cases in the future, I have always thought there is a place for specialist juries in very limited cases, corporate fraud being an obvious example.

In my former life my position as an Expert Witness in fatal and serious collisions meant I was very often giving evidence which was extremely complex and confusing, as it was reliant on an understanding of physics and maths which was often degree level. The onus was on me to try and keep things as simple as possible, whilst still making sure the evidence was out there to consider. I often watched the faces of jury members, and even barristers and judges, glaze over as I started to lose them.

So I can certainly understand why juries get decisions “wrong” when, to the rest of us the verdict seems obvious. And you have to remember that, what you have read in the papers and online, and seen on TV news items, is reliant on the journalist or reporter themselves understanding what they have just heard. And believe me, they very often don’t.

Anyway, time to move on.

 

[irip]

Slightly off tangent but I have always been of the belief we should have professional jury’s.
There is so much at stake for both parties and so much lawyer speak and often medical I think it can be very difficult to follow for a lot of the public.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Slightly off tangent but I have always been of the belief we should have professional jury’s.
There is so much at stake for both parties and so much lawyer speak and often medical I think it can be very difficult to follow for a lot of the public.

Whilst I have some sympathy with that idea, the thought that jurors would be choosing to do it for a living is more worrying. I like it that jury’s are your average person who doesn’t want to really do it, but does because it’s a requirement.
The risk of bias or deliberate leaning is a concern if professional jurors brought in.

 

[Billysboots]

Whilst I have some sympathy with that idea, the thought that jurors would be choosing to do it for a living is more worrying. I like it that jury’s are your average person who doesn’t want to really do it, but does because it’s a requirement.
The risk of bias or deliberate leaning is a concern if professional jurors brought in.

I’m not in favour of professional juries for the reasons you cite, but I do see @irip point.

Which is why I say I like the idea of specialist juries in limited cases. It’s possible to have a specialist jury without it being professional.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I’m not in favour of professional juries for the reasons you cite, but I do see @irip point.

Which is why I say I like the idea of specialist juries in limited cases. It’s possible to have a specialist jury without it being professional.

Financial fraud is the one that stands out to me. Highly technical, very dull. Beyond most people, I'm including myself in this. Having a specialist jury in this field makes sense to me.

 

[irip]

Whilst I have some sympathy with that idea, the thought that jurors would be choosing to do it for a living is more worrying. I like it that jury’s are your average person who doesn’t want to really do it, but does because it’s a requirement.
The risk of bias or deliberate leaning is a concern if professional jurors brought in.

I think the risk of bias is higher in the general public.
I have heard people say I got to do jury service I’ll make sure someone pays for that and similar.
I think professional jury’s if trained and monitored properly would be better than supposed 12 of your peers.

 

[Bazz]

I'm so bored. Work is just dull and has never once stimulated me mentally, just something I have to do. Can't do much out of the house other than running because the weather is so bad, summer holiday is miles off. Just doomscrolling the same 3 or 4 apps day after day.

 

[Orikoru]

I'm so bored. Work is just dull and has never once stimulated me mentally, just something I have to do. Can't do much out of the house other than running because the weather is so bad, summer holiday is miles off. Just doomscrolling the same 3 or 4 apps day after day.

Could have written this myself.

 

[Bazz]

Could have written this myself.

I'm hoping it's just a lack of sunlight and we'll be ok when it brightens up.

 

[IanM]

Tey and remember, if you’re the main wage earner, a dull job is infinitely better than no job.

It's the time of year, the weather has been shocking. Hopefully, warmer days lie ahead.

 

[irip]

Was bought a gift voucher for Xmas but could not make the date it was booked for.
Having looked online I couldn’t find a phone number so emailed to ask if I could change the date.
Received an email back to say someone would reply within 24-48 hours.
That was 2 weeks ago and no reply so emailed twice more and again no response.
It’s meant to be for today but still can’t contact anyone.
It’s in London and the wife wants to stay a couple of nights but can’t book anything as need to move this tour thing first and want to make sure all dates work

 

[Tashyboy]

Italy has prevented a cyber attack on the Olympic Games with origins in Russia, and at the same time FIFA and The Olympic committee are discussing the possibility of allowing Russia and Belarus back into the fold.

 

[jim8flog]

So you agree with a copper getting hit with a sledgehammer and those responsible getting off? Interesting.

My understanding was about what they were actually charge with, with premeditation coming in to the argument and the not guilty verdict. I think I heard something about the guards over reacting in the first place and a plea of self defence being made.