Dennis Benson

In 1844, in a speech to the House of Lords, Lord Denman, then Lord Chief Justice, said that “trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons accused, will be a delusion, a mockery and a snare”. But we still choose to believe that juries represent true justice and choose to ignore the reality that often the verdict reached is the result of one advocate being more eloquent and persuasive than the other.

From time to time evidence suggests that jurors are lacking in self understanding, regularly wrong and, equally, often not valued. One such case hit the headlines a few days ago and surely raises yet again the question as to why we so willingly step forward to pass judgement on others. The case at issue was the Imperial Consolidated Group trial which dragged on for 150 days. A juror sent a two page letter to David Cameron to complain primarily about the unfairness of such lengthy trials on jurors. Ironically the letter was sent before Mrs Justice Gloster began her summing up which itself stretched over 11 days at Blackfriars Crown Court.

In the letter the juror raised such issues as the stress of having to sit in intense concentration for eight months (it had originally been advised that it would last for under half that time). Also mentioned was the fear of being late or becoming ill, the burden of carrying out a civic duty for so long without break and the sense of being trapped. The juror also worried about the stress on the defendants, Jared Brook and Lincoln Fraser especially as she was aware that they had already been tried by a jury which could not reach a verdict.

After the marathon endurance test, the jury aquitted the defendants of conspiracy to defraud but could not reach verdicts on three other charges of conspiracy to defraud and fraudulent trading.

The letter was forwarded from Downing Street to the minstry of Justice, which quickly passed it on to Blackfriars, where it was handed to Mrs Justice Gloster, who shared its unflattering comments with prosecution and defence counsel. The issue however was not what could be said in answer to a legitimate complaint but instead whether the juror should be discharged from the jury after sitting there for seven months. The answer seemingly was that on balance it was better not to discharge her in case it upset the other jurors. Howver no acknowledgement was made in court that those directly resposible for her ‘sentence’ knew of her protest!

At the end of June, she and the other jurors delivered their split decisions and left court none the wiser about the legal establishment’s reaction, which appears to be that the money-making show must go on. This despite warnings from the then Lord Chief Justice about the dangers and unfairness of such long trials. Long fraud cases in particular have become, via legal aid, a licence to print millions but jurors-unlike in the USA-are forbidden to speak out.

This juror was not the only one in the history of twelve good men and true to attempt protest. The media regularly reports instances of jurors so concerned about the justice of the majority verdict reached that they have contacted the defendant to offer words of comfort. As far as one can deduce fron text these were intelligent people who passionately believed that their fellow-jurors had failed to understand some key evidence or had been persuadedby a brilliant advocate.

So there would seem to be a real case for abolishing the concept of twelve supposedly independent experts on two grounds. Firstly we have the stress fcator , secondly the question of intelligence levels high enough to see beyond rhetoric. At the very least there would seem to be an overwhelming argument in favour of complex financial cases being handled by a Judge sitting alone. I recently sat in on a public hearing on a planning dispute and this influenced my view about juries.

The Judge, or Planning Inspector in this case, regularly warned the respective counsels not to waste ‘fancy words’ on him. He was an expert and the fact that they knew this made the presentations purely factual and devoid of emotion.Watching the two Barristers I could well imagine that in a jury situation one would be decidedly more influential than the other. That risk was eliminated.

My other influence came from a case that a friend sat on. It only lasted for two weeks but he was full of stories about one juror, who he claims was both lacking in cricket knowledge not to mention rather lacking in the self-awareness department, who insisted that ‘the window cleaner did it’ despite the fact that the chamois leather wielder was merely a witness as to the colour of  a car. It was probably at that moment that I decided that should I be on trial for ferret-related offences I will opt for trial by Judge.

Of course the choice isn’t available so I shall refrain from putting gin in my opponent,s ferret’s water just before the big race!

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

AND ANOTHER THING ;  Oh dear Mr Clegg, you need to check the wheelnuts! The only justification that young Nick can point to for his sinking the identity of the Lib Dems into the Conservative Praty is the granting of a referendum on AV. Alas the Labour Party has resolved to oppose the bill and a goodly number of Tories is pledged to join them, presumably encouraged by the Prime Minister’s hostility to the idea of AV. Young Nick should not look forward to the usual adulation dished out by the Lib Dem’s annual conference!

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

SOMETHING I LEARNED YESTERDAY!  The first boxes of Black Magic chocolates were unwrapped in 1933. In the first advertising campaigns the chocolates were depicted as the ultimate token of affection. Not an easy substitute for having to go shopping lads!

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….