After reading about the Ian Watkins case it's made me wonder, when on jury service can you refuse to view any evidence? There is no way that I'd agree to viewing the images/videos that were to be used as evidence in his trial
Surely not - I for one wouldn't like to view anything of that nature so I don't see how it can be forced upon you in a jury
It sort of comes with the territory. If you are picked you would have to listen to and look at some pretty bad stuff but I can't see how you could refuse to view something that could determine whether you convict somebody. Maybe I am wrong I just can't see the judge allowing members of the jury to refuse to do something.
I think that you would be asked in the jury selection process whether you had any objections to serving on that particular case as there is always a pool of jurors to choose from. In the same way the defence can object to jurors inclusion and they can be swapped. Many people serve 2 weeks jury service without going anywhere near a trial.
I think you're probably right but at the same time surely it would go against your human rights to be forced. If women can get £100k in compensation because they were asked (and could quite legally have refused) to march in basic training for the RAF then I'd be expecting millions for being forced against my will to view something which would give me nightmares and flashbacks for the rest of my life. I'd take the state for everything it's got.
Don't get me started on compensation. I still get angry when I think about the pay-out an old army mate got for losing a leg in Bosnia compared to a female member of the RMP who got a six figure sum because somebody allegedly slapped her arse and made a lewd comment and she was so traumatised that she is unable to work again.
ask fearless tyke ( p.m.) he knows about that sort of stuff, errr the legalities not the material before any of the " i'll try and be funny clique " jump on it
So what you are saying is that although you are happy to live in a country with laws and a system of jury trial you wouldn't want to do your civic duty and ensure that violent paedophiles are brought to justice. In a lot of trials the evidence is unpleasant for the jury ( and legal teams and police ) but that's just a consequence of criminal activity but if everyone took your view the criminals could run riot without fear of being prosecuted I suspect in this case the jury had opt outs though
I think that's a bit harsh on Supertyke mate. You know what he's like, everything's TO THE MAX, so when he says "There's NO WAY I'd do that", he probably just means he really wouldn't like to. I really wouldn't like to see anything like that either. I hope to god I'm never called up to do jury service in a case where I'm exposed to, well, anything unpleasant I suppose, but particularly child porn. I'd have to do it, but ******* hell I wouldn't want. I don't think Supertyke would neglect his civil duties either, the above is just his way. Sorry mate, didn't mean to give you a lecture.
I was stirring - in just the way that Supertyke himself often does - I hope that if he was called to jury service he would view the evidence required, and I hope I would as well - fortunately the one time I did Jury service the case was a fairly tame assault one so the photos were only of someone with black eyes and severe bruises - not pleasant viewing but not remotely like the images in this case would be. Anyone who would actually want to view such images really shouldn't be on the jury in the first place