Labour MP charged with Perverting Course of Justice

Please let me get picked for jury duty for the retrial...
 
How has the jury cost the country anything that it shouldn't have? They only deliberate on the evidence presented...
Except sometimes they don’t. Because in this instance if two people sided with her due to colour, political beliefs, whatever then they aren’t going to get a conviction however good the evidence is. It shouldn’t need saying that juries are made of people, and people aren’t predictable.

Understood that we haven’t seen all the evidence/closing arguments but juries can be perverse sometimes. The failure of this jury to reach a verdict is absolutely nothing to do with the CPS. We’ve all seen the evidence they’ve presented, which on the face of it seems clear, but there may be something we aren’t aware of.
 
Last edited:

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
Plus perhaps some people on a jury think 'Oooh, if we find her guilty she will lose her job etc.' or otherwise move from what their task really is, determining guilt, to anticipating the sentence which is not the jury's business. As one can tell from Arrse, not everyone has a talent for objectivity.
 
Except sometimes they don’t. Because in this instance if two people sided with her due to colour, political beliefs, whatever then they aren’t going to get a conviction however good the evidence is. It shouldn’t need saying that juries are made of people, and people aren’t predictable.
We don't know that it's only two jurors who are dissenting. We also don't know that those minority of dissenting jurors have sided with her, it could be that the majority of the jurors have decided that there is reasonable doubt, and that a minority of the jurors have decided that she is guilty, based on their political, racial, or mysogynistic prejudices.

Understood that we haven’t seen all the evidence/closing arguments but juries can be perverse sometimes. The failure of this jury to reach a verdict is absolutely nothing to do with the CPS. We’ve all seen the evidence they’ve presented, which on the face of it seems clear, but there may be something we aren’t aware of.
We haven't seen all the evidence presented. All we have seen is an interpretation, through a journalistic filter, of some of the evidence presented. Also, I can't agree with your assertion that the failure of the jury to reach a conclusion is "absolutely nothing to do with the CPS". It is up to the CPS to present the evidence in a way which leaves the jury with no doubt that the accused is guilty, which they clearly have failed to do. It might not be entirely their fault, but they do have some responsibility.
 
We don't know that it's only two jurors who are dissenting. We also don't know that those minority of dissenting jurors have sided with her, it could be that the majority of the jurors have decided that there is reasonable doubt, and that a minority of the jurors have decided that she is guilty, based on their political, racial, or mysogynistic prejudices.


We haven't seen all the evidence presented. All we have seen is an interpretation, through a journalistic filter, of some of the evidence presented. Also, I can't agree with your assertion that the failure of the jury to reach a conclusion is "absolutely nothing to do with the CPS". It is up to the CPS to present the evidence in a way which leaves the jury with no doubt that the accused is guilty, which they clearly have failed to do. It might not be entirely their fault, but they do have some responsibility.
Unfortunately we have a thing called lying and muddying the waters by defendants and highly paid Barristers who only have to sow a seed of doubt to succeed in our justice system.

This starts with no inference being drawn from a no comment interview which allows defendants months to concoct a story that police have no time to check and answer back to.

By all means go no comment but be prepared to explain why you suddenly have a very detailed story that you felt unable to tell the police at the interview stage.
 
Unfortunately we have a thing called lying and muddying the waters by defendants and highly paid Barristers who only have to sow a seed of doubt to succeed in our justice system.
And that's why there is a distinction made between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt".
 
Unfortunately we have a thing called lying and muddying the waters by defendants and highly paid Barristers who only have to sow a seed of doubt to succeed in our justice system.

This starts with no inference being drawn from a no comment interview which allows defendants months to concoct a story that police have no time to check and answer back to.

By all means go no comment but be prepared to explain why you suddenly have a very detailed story that you felt unable to tell the police at the interview stage.
I wonder how often the “ no comment” is robustly challenged in court, when the story appears.
 
And that's why there is a distinction made between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt".
As I have consistently stated, IMHO, more guilty people avoid prosecution than innocent are wrongly prosecuted.

In a way, that is a good thing but it has a knock on effect of more and more criminals getting away with wrong doing.

One jurors doubt is another’s reasonable doubt. Very subjective.
 
Unfortunately we have a thing called lying and muddying the waters by defendants and highly paid Barristers who only have to sow a seed of doubt to succeed in our justice system.

This starts with no inference being drawn from a no comment interview which allows defendants months to concoct a story that police have no time to check and answer back to.

By all means go no comment but be prepared to explain why you suddenly have a very detailed story that you felt unable to tell the police at the interview stage.
Which all goes to remind me of this:

The Trial: A Murder in the Family - All 4

Turns out that he had done it after all.
 
Unfortunately we have a thing called lying and muddying the waters by defendants and highly paid Barristers who only have to sow a seed of doubt to succeed in our justice system.

This starts with no inference being drawn from a no comment interview which allows defendants months to concoct a story that police have no time to check and answer back to.

By all means go no comment but be prepared to explain why you suddenly have a very detailed story that you felt unable to tell the police at the interview stage.
From my second stint of jury service a few years ago, one of the defendants give a partial no comment interview. The suspect was then given a special warning about replying no comment, to the effect that a jury would be allowed to assume that he was hiding something if he continued to reply no comment. "Special Warning" (or words to that effect) was repeated a number of times in the interview transcript.

We found him not guilty as we presumed that he was more concerned with being done for riding a stolen and unroadworthy motorbike while banned than for conspiracy to commit armed robbery as he seemed a bit simple. There were other reasons for the not guilty verdict as well though.

For the record the other two defendants were found guilty. I dissented as I felt that, although they were probably guilty of something, the prosecution appeared to be winging it with very little actual evidence and I couldn't in all honesty convict on the evidence presented. I felt that because the case was high profile (the police had fired a shot while making the arrests) the CPS had felt obliged to prosecute, even though the physical evidence wasn't there. For example, mobile phone location evidence showed the defendants half a mile away from CCTV footage, a well worn motorbike helmet had no DNA evidence at all, and there was no forensic evidence of a firearm. Basically they were convicted because one of them had done it before and was out on licence when arrested.
 
That was fictional. Next you'll be linking to an episode of Crown Court.
That wasn't the point of the programme.

It was a realistic trial scenario, not an actual trial. Although spread over several episodes, there was never going to be the full disclosure of the evidence or you would have been bored to tears with the tedium of it all.

What it did was, for those who have not experienced it, provide a taste of how a trial is conducted, how the jury deliberated and then came to a verdict. The idea was for you to perhaps form your own verdict based on what was presented, compare that to the 'actual' verdict and then see if you &/or the jury were right or not.

Thanks for playing.
 
Sometimes the evidence is slim but it’s felt that it should be presented to a jury. What you don’t always see is the excluded evidence that CPS want to present but for a whole host of reasons The Judge decides to stop.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Except sometimes they don’t. Because in this instance if two people sided with her due to colour, political beliefs, whatever then they aren’t going to get a conviction however good the evidence is. It shouldn’t need saying that juries are made of people, and people aren’t predictable.

Understood that we haven’t seen all the evidence/closing arguments but juries can be perverse sometimes. The failure of this jury to reach a verdict is absolutely nothing to do with the CPS. We’ve all seen the evidence they’ve presented, which on the face of it seems clear, but there may be something we aren’t aware of.
Must be political interest? last thing old wisker's wants at this point in political time is a by-election in a key marginal seat under these circumstances?
 
Must be political interest? last thing old wisker's wants at this point in political time is a by-election in a key marginal seat under these circumstances?
That's a good point, but seeing as the spakker is barely capable of tying his shoelaces the job must have been passed down the line.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top