There are times I really like our Jury system

Quite so, but the Bristol case concerned the Criminal Damage Act 1971!

 

I can see your point but I think even rank-and-file tory MPs and most tory supporters would not want to see an end to trial by jury since it's a fundamental part of our unwritten constitution. But yes, it could happen - which makes it all the more vital that the opposition parties come together for the next general election to get rid of them.

 

In case anyone still thinks the jury made a perverse judgement, please read this.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022...th-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/

 

What if we've already read it? [Above, post #218]

 

Read it again?

 

Reight!

 

Juries don't really think in these terms, or at least the one that I sat on didn't. I don't recall ever hearing any information during the GBH case we heard regarding possible sentencing in the event that someone was found guilty. In reality, it would be impossible to predict accurately, as much depends on previous criminal record, and the specific factors of the case as to where it would fall within the sentencing guidelines (something which I'm only aware of from having to use them as a magistrate, so they're not at the forefront of a typical person's mind). Once we'd delivered our guilty verdict, we then heard the defendant's string of previous convictions being read out in court as a sentencing hearing was being arranged, which was the first time we were made aware of this. We had to decide upon a verdict without being given this information, precisely because of the prejudicial impact it might have had on us as a jury. However, it would then have been a factor within the decision on sentencing.

The deliberations we held as a jury were all around the facts we were presented within the case. We'd had some guidance from the judge as to what the relevant considerations should be, in terms of the specific tests that were required for the particular charges facing the defendant. In reality, I doubt that the argument you're making regarding the prospect of the potential sentence would ever be particularly relevant to a jury in this country. The jury has a single job - to decide on whether a defendant is guilty or otherwise. It's something that gets re-inforced to you several times during a case. Sentencing is typically done separately after this, so a jury is not even present at the time this takes place (and to this day I have no idea what sentence was ultimately given in our case).

Based on my experience, the biggest challenge of having a jury system is overcoming the fact that they are made of a largely random selection of people, which includes those who don't want to be there and who have little intention of taking the role seriously. In the case I described above we ultimately had to notify the judge that we would only be able to return a majority verdict on the basis that one of our number's only input into the deliberations was at the start when he said something to the effect of "I think he's not guilty because (something unrelated to the evidence in the case), nothing is going to change my mind and I just want to get out of here as quickly as possible".

 

Your experience was different to mine then. There was one case where we acquitted based on the fact that the defendant would have probably got a custodial sentence, if it had been most likely that they would have got a fine or suspended sentence we would have said guilty.

 

And this is the problem, isn't it? Because juries don't have to give reasons for their verdicts no-one can ever be sure whether they have based their decisions on the evidence, and the careful directions of the judge, or whether other factors have exercised their minds.

 

And interestingly the leader of the ‘movement’ who attacked Keir Starmer last night.

 

Same guy (ex-conservative councillor who’s been pictured with Boris) who provoked the police by taking over the peaceful vigil for that murdered girl, turned it into anti-lockdown then disappeared when it all kicked off? Nice human being