• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Inquest Jurors to be subjected to Developed Vetting

#2
I always thought that the priciple of trial law was to be judged by a jury of your peers. Unfortunately allowing the uneducated and/or those wih very little undertanding and knowledge of the English language jurists makes that theory in modern society a joke. If you are a moronic chav with a tourettes-like vocabulary and a dislike for society and on trial, would his "peers" sitting in judgement make for a safe verdict?
If I was on trial, I would like some sort vetting to ensure the jury excluded ................. buggers, muggers, religious fanatics, anti-social malcontents, ex-policemen, nonces, the plainly thick .............[endless list]. I realise that that would probably preclude oveer 50% of the adult population so I would suggest that the people excluded from a vetting list cannot avoid their public duty, I would advocate they spend the length of a trial doing public work relevent to their ability. Why should the dregs of society do nothing?
 
#3
Probably because the executive rather than the judiciary is responsible for national security.

The alternative is more CMPs and PIIs

The journo seems to have scan read the IA and has equated "Vetting" with DV, but the assessment budgets £4k per juror. Seems far too cheap for DV.

(Other vetting is available)

Not the best of the grauniads journalistic efforts I'm afraid
 
#4
Brilliant for jurors.

Do the DV then use to get yourself a decent job!

Christ they can hardly get jurors now to turn up, not ask friends for advice on the verdict on facebook or smoke weed during a lunch break.
 
#5
The problem: https://update.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/impact-assessment.pdf
What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary? There is a perception that oversight is not effective and that as a result the security and intelligence agencies are not properly held to account. The security and intelligence agencies (the Agencies) need oversight that is demonstrably independent and effective in order to retain the confidence of Ministers, Parliament and the public. Oversight should also be sufficiently high profile that stakeholders are reassured that the Agencies are under proper scrutiny. For these reasons, it is necessary for the Government to review arrangements for the oversight of the Agencies to ensure they are appropriate and up to date, that they are in line with recent developments in the roles of the Agencies and that they also meet the needs of the public.
Costs of vetting
B.12 There would be costs associated with vetting jurors at around £4,000 per person. At least 20 individuals would typically be vetted for a case due to the possibility of failed vetting and drop-outs. It is therefore estimated that around £80,000 would be spent on vetting per inquest. Table B3 sets out the costs. We assess that 90% of all sensitive cases would require a jury.
Looks like DV to me. Perhaps (radical thought I know), going to the DVA and saying give me thirty people who are already DV'd and send them the jury papers would save even more money?

I think the 'problem' is fairly well explained and will reduce PII submissions
 
P

PrinceAlbert

Guest
#6
The article is very out of date. The DV vetting proccess is now done online.

The form is fully automated, and submitted electronically from a MoD website.
 
#7
More to the point: we are told that DBS-NSV are snowed under with new cases so do we really want to increase that workload?

But in principle, why not?
 
#8
SC and CTC can be done online via Cerberus (when it works!) but DV still consists of a Cerberus based element and a face-to-face interview with a Vetting Officer. True Fact.
 
P

PrinceAlbert

Guest
#9
DBS-NSV are snowed under with new cases so do we really want to increase that workload?
The new computer system that is in place now with the DVA has sped things up. The times for SC/DV to go through have drastically reduced.

My DV has been squared away in under 2 weeks, though I was bumped to the top of the queue and given top priority (it's the way I role)

SC and CTC can be done online via Cerberus (when it works!) but DV still consists of a Cerberus based element and a face-to-face interview with a Vetting Officer. True Fact.
Yes it is. I had my 3 hour interview yesterday, though there is much more than just one interview.
 

walkyrie

Old-Salt
Book Reviewer
#10
To paraphrase - "everybody is equal, but some people are more equal than others."

Vetting Jurors seems like an easy way to skim the undesireables out of a potential jury line up. Everyone I know who has been summoned has got out of it when their employer has appealed (and they're employed across the full employment spectrum) so on that basis alone I assume the calibre of Jurors is currently low *awaits incoming*

I am highly suspicious of a system in which the executive, rather than legal advocates, can filter jurors.
I agree with your principle. Absolutely.
But in practice? Its a very long winded way to go about rigging a jury.
 
#11
The new computer system that is in place now with the DVA has sped things up. The times for SC/DV to go through have drastically reduced.

My DV has been squared away in under 2 weeks, though I was bumped to the top of the queue and given top priority (it's the way I role)



Yes it is. I had my 3 hour interview yesterday, though there is much more than just one interview.
Then I hope you are disguising your IP address when posting, because the Russians and Chinese have flagged you now!
 
#13
DV is for long term and frequent access to the highest classification of material. What on earth will they cover which requires them to be read on in this way?

On the plus side, I'm told going rate for DV is £5-£10K on salaries in relevant jobs at the moment. Best get mine renewed soon!
 
#14
Can't see it happening. Even getting SC is a pain in the arse because of the background info required so I can't see everyone called up for jury duty getting DV'd.
 
P

PrinceAlbert

Guest
#16
Mine took just over five ****ing months, I can't see this working if they come up against an odd one.
That used to be the norm. Apparently this automated online processing has made it faster, and the massive backlog has been cleared.
 
#17
Can't say I share your optimism to be honest. VSIs never work so I always have to ring them up and although the system is indeed automated, they still need pink bodies to check and interview and there's only a finite number of those chaps and chapesses.
 
#18
I think the only logical purpose of DV for jurors is to make sure that they're the "right kind of fellow" who won't go and talk about the "secret" information they've been exposed to after the event. Rather defies the point of having a jury.
 

Latest Threads