Cycling UK Forum

From today's Daily Telegraph.

Andrew Edis QC prosecuting, .... "This is, in my experience a fairly unique situation...." (my emphasis)

Where's horizon when you need him?

The word "unique" is unique amongst uncomparable adjectives, in the extent to which grammatically incorrect comparatives and qualifying adverbs are so often mis-applied to that word. Well, fairly unique, at any rate...

661-Pete wrote:The word "unique" is unique amongst uncomparable adjectives, in the extent to which grammatically incorrect comparatives and qualifying adverbs are so often mis-applied to that word. Well, fairly unique, at any rate...

Quite.

But is that quite as in "precisely" or as in "fairly?"

We have a language where there are so many shades of meaning that even a word like "quite" can have opposite meanings. Trial by jury involves clever people in fancy dress trying to bamboozle a dozen ordinary people into believing one interpretation of things rather than another. It's hardly surprising that they sometimes succeed, but because of the secrecy surrounding the process nobody really knows how often that is so. It seems to me that the only thing which is unusual about the present case is that there has been somebody in the jury room who has taken the trouble to write it all (or probably only some of it) for the delight and desperation of the judge and, ultimately, the wider world.

Hah! And my Lady Wife has just referred me to a thing on the BBC News website, by which we learn that "the average age of girls trafficked for sex is 12-14 years" ...

thirdcrank wrote:Trial by jury involves clever people in fancy dress trying to bamboozle a dozen ordinary people into believing one interpretation of things rather than another.

That's a definition worthy of Wikipedia.

I do wonder which is the more likely explanation.

A dozen thick jurors or one incompetent Judge?

I would love to hear their opinions about him.

thirdcrank wrote:Quite.

But is that quite as in "precisely" or as in "fairly?"

We have a language where there are so many shades of meaning that even a word like "quite" can have opposite meanings. Trial by jury involves clever people in fancy dress trying to bamboozle a dozen ordinary people into believing one interpretation of things rather than another. It's hardly surprising that they sometimes succeed, but because of the secrecy surrounding the process nobody really knows how often that is so. It seems to me that the only thing which is unusual about the present case is that there has been somebody in the jury room who has taken the trouble to write it all (or probably only some of it) for the delight and desperation of the judge and, ultimately, the wider world.

You're quite right, of course.

meic wrote:I do wonder which is the more likely explanation.

A dozen thick jurors or one incompetent Judge?

I would love to hear their opinions about him.

I suspect it was not a dozen thick jurors but a minority of intransigent jurors with the majority seeking the help of the judge to try to convince them they couldn't do what they wanted to do (i.e. use evidence free assumptions and speculations). I do think though it would be good to have available an adviser to the jury with whom they could discuss process and procedure issues. Most jury members will not be familiar with what is expected of them and as we all know, doing something for the first time is never as straight forward as simply following the written instructions.

It's a couple of years now since I sat on a jury. Bear in mind that I'm familiar with the criminal law.

By the luck of the draw, I had the seat nearest the door so whenever we were sent out while things were discussed in our absence, I was the least inconvenienced of the 12 but we were backwards and forwards all the time.

I really did listen closely to every word spoken (and as I've posted before, the moment when the background noise began to interfere with my ability to hear, it was hand up and a note to the judge.) Part of the prosecution case must have been excluded and that left some unexplained stuff that would have been better left out altogether. The prosecution evidence included a ventilation duct which had obviously been seized at some stage because they thought it had been used in connection with growing cannabis. There was a fair bit of oral evidence about the exhibit which was completely irrelevant either to the prosecution or defence in respect of the charges we were dealing with.

Having listened to all the evidence I had an initial feeling of bewilderment, which was increased by the closing submission of the defence counsel, who really was clutching at straws. By the design of the courtroom, rather than any theatricals on his part, he was standing directly in front of me, but the theatrical bit was when he picked up a large legal tome (can you have a small tome?) and began waving it at us. The only significant thing he said was that we must have noticed how hostile the police had been towards his client. Despite the law book, there were no legal points for us to consider and the whole thing "boiled down" ( phrase the Recorder repeatedly used in his summing up) to a matter of the credibility of the defendant's explanation for being in possession of a lot of controlled drugs and megabucks. Incidentally, there was not the slightest suggestion that any evidence had been fabricated, just that his possession of the drugs and cash was completely innocent.

I've never mentioned a word to anybody about how I came to be the jury foreman or how we reached our decision. It didn't take us long. It seems to me indefensible that as a retired police officer I should have been on a jury, never mind being its foreman. My conscience is clear that when I gave our guilty verdicts, they were "true verdicts."

The issues for the defendant were serious: after we had convicted the defendant we were told he was facing a minimum seven years imprisonment because of his previous convictions. We had been told he was recently released from prison at the time he was arrested but we didn't know about the minimum seven years. I suspect that the defence tried to get that included but were unsuccessful. When the Recorder explained it to us, there were groans from some of my fellow jurymen (particularly the jurywomen) so I suspect things might have gone differently had they known.

It was an interesting experience for me but it simply served to confirm my impression that it's a pantomime.

TonyR wrote:

meic wrote:I do wonder which is the more likely explanation.

A dozen thick jurors or one incompetent Judge?

I would love to hear their opinions about him.

I suspect it was not a dozen thick jurors but a minority of intransigent jurors with the majority seeking the help of the judge to try to convince them they couldn't do what they wanted to do (i.e. use evidence free assumptions and speculations). I do think though it would be good to have available an adviser to the jury with whom they could discuss process and procedure issues. Most jury members will not be familiar with what is expected of them and as we all know, doing something for the first time is never as straight forward as simply following the written instructions.

I agree. From the wording of the questions as published and from the reported tone of the final note ('highly unlikely' underlined), I believe it is reasonable to infer that there were a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 9 jurors who understood their role, but that the remainder were insistent on considering some "reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it". One can speculate whether the division fell nearer the lower or upper end of the range, but someone with the ability to word the questions in such a way to clearly show the resistance they were meeting in deliberations wrote the notes to the judge. I find it surprising that the court allowed them to be published as they clearly show some of the speculations that occurred in the jury's discussions.

thirdcrank wrote:We had been told he was recently released from prison at the time he was arrested...

I'm surprised that the jury was even told that much - I can only surmise that the defendant put up "good character" as part of his defence. In a case where I sat as a juror (about 20 years ago), one of the prosecution's witnesses, a retired Police Inspector (not you, TC, I'm sure!) unwittingly let out the fact that the defendant was being held in custody facing "several charges". We were only supposed to be trying for one charge, we weren't meant to know about the others. This was enough for the Defence counsel to claim a mis-trial and get us discharged.

thirdcrank wrote:... but we didn't know about the minimum seven years. I suspect that the defence tried to get that included but were unsuccessful. When the Recorder explained it to us, there were groans from some of my fellow jurymen (particularly the jurywomen) so I suspect things might have gone differently had they known.

One of the things we were warned about, in the jurors' guidelines that we were all given, was that "every case that appears in Crown Court before a jury, carries a possible prison sentence". So that we were left in no doubt as to the "it won't matter if we find him guilty, all he'll get is a small fine" line of reasoning. Mind you, I suppose seven years is a stiff sentence, even if (with full parole) he'll only serve 3½ of them....

The Press (BBC in my case) have portrayed the Judge as portraying the Jury as a bunch of thicko's.

The condemnation was of the Jury as a whole. I know that things get distorted but if you were a member of that Jury, you would rightly be very annoyed and doubly so as you have no right of response and I suspect if you did so, that same Judge could bang you up for contempt.

661-Pete wrote:The word "unique" is unique amongst uncomparable adjectives, in the extent to which grammatically incorrect comparatives and qualifying adverbs are so often mis-applied to that word. Well, fairly unique, at any rate...

Wot 661-Pete sed!

Plus qualifying unique shows you up as a complete clot!

I happened to catch a bit of Radio4 the other day - World at One - and I heard a South African legal lady explaining why they don't have juries in SA any more.

Basically, the country has such a long history of bias and racial hatred, and such a wide range of racial types and country of origin, it is impossible to get 12 people as a cross-section. Also, during the days of apartheid, only whites could be jurors. Therefore, very few non-whites every got a fair trial, so now they've done away with juries completely.

Instead, they have a judge plus a team of legal advisers. When a verdict is found, the judge MUST give reasons for the verdict. In this country, for instance, the jury never gives reasons - just the verdict.

Also, all evidence is publicly discussed as you don't have to protect a jury from information about the case and the accused.

I think the SA system has merit.

meic wrote:The Press (BBC in my case) have portrayed the Judge as portraying the Jury as a bunch of thicko's.

The condemnation was of the Jury as a whole. I know that things get distorted but if you were a member of that Jury, you would rightly be very annoyed and doubly so as you have no right of response and I suspect if you did so, that same Judge could bang you up for contempt.

Yes. First of all, the supporters of trial by jury stress the dependable basic common sense of the general public in being able to reach a decision about guilt. Then, they betray their total lack of confidence in those same people by keeping them in the dark about all manner of things a jury may think are important.

Previous convictions are a case in point. (Incidentally, The law has been changed relatively recently to allow this evidence to be given much more often than used to be the case. A Blunkett reform IIRC.)

Anyway, I'm generally of the opinion that the responsibility for ensuring that communications are being understood lies with the sender, rather than the receiver, especially in a situation where the sender is in such a powerful position as compared with the receiver. The individual members of the jury are in no position to raise any sort of alarm even if they realise that something is going over their head.

I've probably mentioned a case which I read about in the paper - seems recent but it may be a few years ago, but certainly in the modern era - where in spite of what the judge must have considered an overwhelming prosecution case, the jury acquitted the defendant. I suspect there may have been other charges to which the defendant had already pleaded guilty, but of which the jury would have been unaware. Anyway, after the verdict, the judge required the jury to remain in court while the defendant's previous convictions were read out and IIRC, the he was quoted as pointing out to the jury that they had to be made aware of what they had done. (The sum total of which was not taking into account previous convictions of which they had not been made aware.) This bizarre conduct seemed to attract no criticism or censure.

meic wrote:The Press (BBC in my case) have portrayed the Judge as portraying the Jury as a bunch of thicko's.

The condemnation was of the Jury as a whole. I know that things get distorted but if you were a member of that Jury, you would rightly be very annoyed and doubly so as you have no right of response and I suspect if you did so, that same Judge could bang you up for contempt.

That was my first thought when I read of it. Clearly it didn't require the whole jury to be "a bunch of thickos" (watch that greengrocer's punctuation ) and indeed the writer of the questions seemed to encompass the issues pretty succinctly. If they hadn't at least two others with them, the "thickos" would have carried a majority verdict and the judge none the wiser! Would he have preferred that outcome (certainly it would have been cheaper)?*


'Unique' can be qualified, in the same way as 'infinite' can. Something which approaches the singular is 'almost unique'; it doesn't reach the apogee of being unique but almost achieves this. In the same way 'fairly unique' is correct English for something which approaches the singular 'to a reasonable degree', i.e. without looking unreasonably hard for a similar occurrence. Whatever (un)reasonable means of course


*This (amongst the jokes - sorry) IMO is the important point being missed by most commentators