It's all too easy to slag of the jurors and it may well be true that not all are mensa material.
I thought that part of the role of a judge is to explain the relevant parts of the law and procedure in laymens' terms to jurors and others.
I've met some arrogant gits practising law and my guess is that this bloke didn't do his job properly and is covering his own botty by sneering at the jurors.
Could be wrong though.
Couldn't be more wrong Len I'd say. Have you seen the questions they sent the judge?? I've done it a 3 times and without fail all the Judges have gone to extreme lengths to explain what is required. A judge’s direction rarely leaves you in little doubt which way to go. For goodness sack this is not a difficult complex case is it? I have found a number of times that too many jurors think they are Inspectors Morse/Frost/Columbo and think they have to "solve" the case. If you do it properly then you only consider the evidence given and do not make judgements on what might have happened or why. The way the law works in this country I have found it more difficult to convict than acquit but as Foreman on all but one of my cases, have managed to send a few down!
The trouble is too many decent, intelligent people get out of jury service leaving too many idle thickos to do it because they think it'll be a laugh and that they can swindle a few quid on expenses!
If you cannot read that, here is the text. The Daily Mail at it's best!
EIGHT WOMEN, FOUR MEN…….AND NO CLUE Of the eight women and four men on the Vicky Pryce Jury, only two were white-the rest appeared to be of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin. At least twice, the court finished 30 minutes early because a jury member has a “religious observance” to keep. Despite their visibly different backgrounds, none of the 12 appeared to struggle with the English language while reading the oath at the beginning of the trail at Southwark Crown Court. However, inability to understand written English is not a bar to serving on a jury. The 200,000 people a year called for jury service receive letters printed in eight languages to “encourage” non-English speakers. It was noted during the Pryce case that many of the jurors were casually dressed and none of the men wore a shirt and tie. The woman selected by the jury to be their foreman was well dressed but she was in the minority. It was she who eventually passed a note to the judge saying the jury were “highly unlikely” to reach a verdict. The words “highly unlikely” were underlined twice.
If you cannot read that, here is the text. The Daily Mail at it's best!
EIGHT WOMEN, FOUR MEN…….AND NO CLUE Of the eight women and four men on the Vicky Pryce Jury, only two were white-the rest appeared to be of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin. At least twice, the court finished 30 minutes early because a jury member has a “religious observance” to keep. Despite their visibly different backgrounds, none of the 12 appeared to struggle with the English language while reading the oath at the beginning of the trail at Southwark Crown Court. However, inability to understand written English is not a bar to serving on a jury. The 200,000 people a year called for jury service receive letters printed in eight languages to “encourage” non-English speakers. It was noted during the Pryce case that many of the jurors were casually dressed and none of the men wore a shirt and tie. The woman selected by the jury to be their foreman was well dressed but she was in the minority. It was she who eventually passed a note to the judge saying the jury were “highly unlikely” to reach a verdict. The words “highly unlikely” were underlined twice.
Christ on a bike! The Daily Wail is hitting new lows with that piece.
isnt there a Jury selection process ? if so then the fault lies with the so called "experts" who did the selection not the numptys that were on it regardless of their sex or skin pigment
isnt there a Jury selection process ? if so then the fault lies with the so called "experts" who did the selection not the numptys that were on it regardless of their sex or skin pigment
You get 18 shipped in and they go up one by one to do the oath and counsel can refuse up to so many each, 3 I think. Still probably 15/18 are numptys anyway.
Having read through the way the questions were worded and given the length of time they were in deliberations my intepretation is that at least one person in that room had attempted to answer these questions to their fellow jurors without success and in the end just gave up and went with the flow in asking the judge.
They don't appear to have been written by a complete dribbling loon is what I'm saying I suppose.
isnt there a Jury selection process ? if so then the fault lies with the so called "experts" who did the selection not the numptys that were on it regardless of their sex or skin pigment
Either side can challenge up to 7 jurors, or that was the figure last time I did it 3 years ago, so they can effectively 'try' and get mostly women or men depending on the case and complexity. It's got to be done before they are sworn in and no reasons are given.
Like any groups there's a large cross section of the community involved, and I found that looks, fashion etc. count for little.
As this was a high profile case I'm sure some challenges would have been issued, but as is life you get what you're given.
At least two of those questions must have had the Judge peeing himself.
If you cannot read that, here is the text. The Daily Mail at it's best!
EIGHT WOMEN, FOUR MEN…….AND NO CLUE Of the eight women and four men on the Vicky Pryce Jury, only two were white-the rest appeared to be of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin. At least twice, the court finished 30 minutes early because a jury member has a “religious observance” to keep. Despite their visibly different backgrounds, none of the 12 appeared to struggle with the English language while reading the oath at the beginning of the trail at Southwark Crown Court. However, inability to understand written English is not a bar to serving on a jury. The 200,000 people a year called for jury service receive letters printed in eight languages to “encourage” non-English speakers. It was noted during the Pryce case that many of the jurors were casually dressed and none of the men wore a shirt and tie. The woman selected by the jury to be their foreman was well dressed but she was in the minority. It was she who eventually passed a note to the judge saying the jury were “highly unlikely” to reach a verdict. The words “highly unlikely” were underlined twice.
Anoter shit piece from the Mail. How did they know those words were underlined? Did he judge tell them?
I think the jury are being treated unfairly here. The woman has admitted she is guilty. Her defense are trying to get her off by using an arcane law (marital coercion) that surely should have been removed in the middle of the last century. Would this defense be available if her and Huhne had never married? Would it have been available to Huhne if the roles were reversed? She is one of the most eminent economists in the country, uses her own surname and she wants the courts to believe any criminal act she committed was was because she was so threatened by her husband. She should be thrown in jail for chronic waste of tax payers money immediately.
I think the religious question was very valid because it is the only circumstance where she may have a case e.g. If she was a devout muslim with no education and no knowledge of woman's rights in a modern developed society then maybe there is a case for absolving her for deliberate attempt to pervert the course of the law.
Marital Coercion is such ridiculous and antiquated concept I am not surprised the jury had problems understanding what was been asked of them. I am surprised such case was brought before a jury in this country. In a backward muslim country no, but in a secular country like ours I am astonished.
isnt there a Jury selection process ? if so then the fault lies with the so called "experts" who did the selection not the numptys that were on it regardless of their sex or skin pigment
Either side can challenge up to 7 jurors, or that was the figure last time I did it 3 years ago, so they can effectively 'try' and get mostly women or men depending on the case and complexity. It's got to be done before they are sworn in and no reasons are given.
Like any groups there's a large cross section of the community involved, and I found that looks, fashion etc. count for little.
As this was a high profile case I'm sure some challenges would have been issued, but as is life you get what you're given.
At least two of those questions must have had the Judge peeing himself.
This is not correct. The right to peremptory challenge has gradually been whittled down, most recently from 7 to 3 and since 1988 in England, to none. The problem was that when there were multiple defendants, each of the defendant's Counsel could challenge without reason and the rejection rates got to ridiculous levels. (A good way of making sure you were never chosen to sit on a case was to always have a copy of The Daily Telegraph tucked under your arm.) Counsel (from both sides) can still challenge BUT there must be a reason, like the jury make-up is unrepresentative or biased (everyone carrying a Daily Telegraph!) or a juror knowing or related to one of the defendants.
Commonly , the court clerk will have a batch of 15 potential jurors and will select 12 at random from those 15. (Leaving three spares in the event of any valid challenges).
Chris Huhne and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce are both facing jail after she was convicted of perverting the course of justice by taking speeding points for him a decade ago.
Pryce, 60, was found guilty on Thursday after a retrial at Southwark Crown Court, while former energy secretary Huhne admitted the offence last month at the start of their trial.
A date for sentence has not yet been set, but the former couple have both been warned by Mr Justice Sweeney to be under no illusion of what to expect.
Perverting the course of justice carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, with the average jail term at 10 months. Huhne, 58, also faces a hefty legal bill after lengthy attempts to get his case dismissed, as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced it will apply for costs.
Malcolm McHaffie, deputy head of special crime at the CPS, said: "Chris Huhne made sustained challenges against the prosecution before pleading guilty at the last minute. This was expensive for the CPS and we will be applying for costs."
Pryce, of Crescent Grove, Clapham, south London, looked shocked as the jury of seven men and five women returned a guilty verdict today after deliberating for more than 12 hours.
Giving a statement outside court as the economist faced crowds of waiting media, her solicitor Robert Brown said: "Mrs Pryce is naturally very disappointed to have been convicted. She would like to thank all those who have supported her during this difficult process, particularly her children, her friends and colleagues. Mrs Pryce will return to court to be sentenced in due course. No further comment will be made until this is completed."
The verdict brings the long-running scandal to an end, a decade after Pryce took speeding points for her then husband as he tried to avoid losing his driving licence. The offence only came to light in May 2011 in the national press after a media campaign by Pryce - disclosed during the trial - to "nail" her former husband after he left her for PR adviser Carina Trimingham.
Huhne staunchly denied the allegation but was forced to step down as a Cabinet minister after he and Pryce were charged last February. His attempts to fight the case failed and he dramatically changed his plea to guilty on the first day of his trial, resigning as MP for Eastleigh and bringing an end to a once-promising political career.
In further political fallout, business secretary Vince Cable and Nick Clegg's wife Miriam on Friday denied they knew anything of the scandal before it hit the headlines, after questions were raised about how much the Lib Dems knew before the story was published. Emails between Pryce and Sunday Times political editor Isabel Oakeshott, disclosed to the jury, suggested that Pryce had confided in Mr Cable and his wife Rachel about the points swapping.
The offence only came to light in May 2011 in the national press after a media campaign by Pryce - disclosed during the trial - to "nail" her former husband after he left her for PR adviser Carina Trimingham.
Comments
Couldn't be more wrong Len I'd say. Have you seen the questions they sent the judge??
I've done it a 3 times and without fail all the Judges have gone to extreme lengths to explain what is required. A judge’s direction rarely leaves you in little doubt which way to go.
For goodness sack this is not a difficult complex case is it?
I have found a number of times that too many jurors think they are Inspectors Morse/Frost/Columbo and think they have to "solve" the case. If you do it properly then you only consider the evidence given and do not make judgements on what might have happened or why.
The way the law works in this country I have found it more difficult to convict than acquit but as Foreman on all but one of my cases, have managed to send a few down!
The trouble is too many decent, intelligent people get out of jury service leaving too many idle thickos to do it because they think it'll be a laugh and that they can swindle a few quid on expenses!
Intersting view from the Daily Mail
EIGHT WOMEN, FOUR MEN…….AND NO CLUE
Of the eight women and four men on the Vicky Pryce Jury, only two were white-the rest appeared to be of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin.
At least twice, the court finished 30 minutes early because a jury member has a “religious observance” to keep.
Despite their visibly different backgrounds, none of the 12 appeared to struggle with the English language while reading the oath at the beginning of the trail at Southwark Crown Court.
However, inability to understand written English is not a bar to serving on a jury.
The 200,000 people a year called for jury service receive letters printed in eight languages to “encourage” non-English speakers.
It was noted during the Pryce case that many of the jurors were casually dressed and none of the men wore a shirt and tie.
The woman selected by the jury to be their foreman was well dressed but she was in the minority. It was she who eventually passed a note to the judge saying the jury were “highly unlikely” to reach a verdict.
The words “highly unlikely” were underlined twice.
They don't appear to have been written by a complete dribbling loon is what I'm saying I suppose.
It's got to be done before they are sworn in and no reasons are given.
Like any groups there's a large cross section of the community involved, and I found that looks, fashion etc. count for little.
As this was a high profile case I'm sure some challenges would have been issued, but as is life you get what you're given.
At least two of those questions must have had the Judge peeing himself.
I think the religious question was very valid because it is the only circumstance where she may have a case e.g. If she was a devout muslim with no education and no knowledge of woman's rights in a modern developed society then maybe there is a case for absolving her for deliberate attempt to pervert the course of the law.
Marital Coercion is such ridiculous and antiquated concept I am not surprised the jury had problems understanding what was been asked of them. I am surprised such case was brought before a jury in this country. In a backward muslim country no, but in a secular country like ours I am astonished.
Counsel (from both sides) can still challenge BUT there must be a reason, like the jury make-up is unrepresentative or biased (everyone carrying a Daily Telegraph!) or a juror knowing or related to one of the defendants.
Commonly , the court clerk will have a batch of 15 potential jurors and will select 12 at random from those 15. (Leaving three spares in the event of any valid challenges).
Pryce, 60, was found guilty on Thursday after a retrial at Southwark Crown Court, while former energy secretary Huhne admitted the offence last month at the start of their trial.
A date for sentence has not yet been set, but the former couple have both been warned by Mr Justice Sweeney to be under no illusion of what to expect.
Perverting the course of justice carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, with the average jail term at 10 months. Huhne, 58, also faces a hefty legal bill after lengthy attempts to get his case dismissed, as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced it will apply for costs.
Malcolm McHaffie, deputy head of special crime at the CPS, said: "Chris Huhne made sustained challenges against the prosecution before pleading guilty at the last minute. This was expensive for the CPS and we will be applying for costs."
Pryce, of Crescent Grove, Clapham, south London, looked shocked as the jury of seven men and five women returned a guilty verdict today after deliberating for more than 12 hours.
Giving a statement outside court as the economist faced crowds of waiting media, her solicitor Robert Brown said: "Mrs Pryce is naturally very disappointed to have been convicted. She would like to thank all those who have supported her during this difficult process, particularly her children, her friends and colleagues. Mrs Pryce will return to court to be sentenced in due course. No further comment will be made until this is completed."
The verdict brings the long-running scandal to an end, a decade after Pryce took speeding points for her then husband as he tried to avoid losing his driving licence. The offence only came to light in May 2011 in the national press after a media campaign by Pryce - disclosed during the trial - to "nail" her former husband after he left her for PR adviser Carina Trimingham.
Huhne staunchly denied the allegation but was forced to step down as a Cabinet minister after he and Pryce were charged last February. His attempts to fight the case failed and he dramatically changed his plea to guilty on the first day of his trial, resigning as MP for Eastleigh and bringing an end to a once-promising political career.
In further political fallout, business secretary Vince Cable and Nick Clegg's wife Miriam on Friday denied they knew anything of the scandal before it hit the headlines, after questions were raised about how much the Lib Dems knew before the story was published. Emails between Pryce and Sunday Times political editor Isabel Oakeshott, disclosed to the jury, suggested that Pryce had confided in Mr Cable and his wife Rachel about the points swapping.
hangingsentencing takes place. I think he should get an extra month for his taste in women.2) Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
This bloke will get at least that hopefully.
She will get 3 months too.