A deficit of understanding - how prevalent is this?

[Karafan]

I had a wry smile at Mr Justice Sweeney's stinging criticism to an incompetent jury who confronted him with a litany of ten idiotic questions during the trial of Chris Huhne's ex wife, Vicky Pryce.

Having unfortunately recently seen, at close quarters, the banal and trivial preoccupations of a sizeable group of people, I really cannot profess to have been surprised to see that His Honour should be asked a series of silly basic questions such as "Should we speculate as to what she was thinking?" and "Can we come to verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?". His indignant response ("In over 30 years of criminal trials I’ve never come across this") brought a smile to my face as I pictured the worlds of the rarified and the banausic colliding in spectacular fashion. I would hate to think that my liberty rested in the hands of the Geordie Shore-watching, vacuous types that clearly peopled that jury room.

Having done jury service myself, I was elected as foreman by the others, on account of the fact that "you seem to know what's going on" (not especially, but I did listen, pay attention and follow the twists and turns of the evidence as presented) - and as I was the only one there actually taking any notes!

Our deliberations were punctuated with just the type of asinine questions with which Mr Justice Sweeney was presented: I despair of people sometimes. Quite unbelievable.

[eighthobstruction]

Would anyone venture - what the character of the foreperson in this case might have been??....(sorry, that's speculating....)....I certainly feel I could have answered those questions that were given to the judge , should I have been in that jury room....

[Ferretfancy]

When I sat on a jury, we were given very clear instructions by the judge based on the rule that we must only consider the evidence given in court, and this advice was very clear. In the jury room a couple of members came out with the argument that the accused were known local villains, so why didn't we rest for a bit and then find them guilty? This argument was sat on heavily by the rest of us, and in the discussion that followed we identified some rather dubious points in the evidence which led to the opposite verdict.
Frankly, I'm surprised that the judge did not give the jury much firmer instructions once the first idiotic question had been presented to him.

[jean]

In the circumstances, the questions were not idiotic at all.

(We've already got one thread on this. Are we really so stupid as to need two?)

[Karafan]

I disagree Jean - the level of the questions asked revealed a fundamental lack of understanding bordering on sheer stupidity. As Ferret says, very clear instructions are given in layman's terms. To consider your judgement for two days and then to present a list if ten questions was certainly felt by the judge to be unprecedented. I think had he had any confidence in their abilities he would not have dismissed them as he did.

[jean]

The circumstances I'm talking about are the fact that no proper evidence was presented by either side.

The defence made statements for which there was no corroborating evidence. The prosecution relied entirely on speculation, based on VP's supposed character.

How were the jury supposed to infer anything from that?

In asking their questions they were just that much more conscientious than many would have been.

(But given that a new trial is about to start, FF has asked us not to discuss this further, hasn't she?)

[Simon]

With you all the way, Jean. Questions that, I suspect, are asked more commonly than people would think, in certain cases. Judge is just as at fault, if his summing up or directions hadn't covered at least some of the points. But I'm biased - I haven't much time for way the British legal system has developed more recently anyway, though I accept that some excellent lawyers do a very good job.

As for discussing, it's perfectly OK to discuss this general aspect of any legal process.

[french frank]

(But given that a new trial is about to start, FF has asked us not to discuss this further, hasn't she?)

No, I think it's all right to discuss the meanings of words in their judicial context. Just don't relate them to the case in hand or suggest how they might relate. "For instance, if in this case..."

[Flosshilde]

I think had he had any confidence in their abilities he would not have dismissed them as he did.

He dismissed the jury because they said that they were unable to reach a verdict. It's not an uncommon occurrence. It's nothing to do with the judges confidence in their abilities (& surely the expression of an lack of confidence by the judge could be grounds for an appeal against any verdict?)

Could the judge be charged with contempt of court for criticising the jury while it was still deliberating - which is what he did - & revealing anything relating to their deliberations - which he did? Jury members are not supposed to talk about what happens in their discussion with anyone else during or after the trial.

[jean]

Excellent article here

(But don't comment for legal reasons, the Guardian says.)

[Barbirollians]

Excellent article here

(But don't comment for legal reasons, the Guardian says.)

It is an excellent article and the jury system is far preferable to any alternative as anyone who has spent much time in magistrates courts will know .

Some of the jury's questions were perfectly sensible . Three at least were not and I can understand entirely why Sweeney J was pulling his hair out !

The prosecution in this case simply had to present the evidence - admitted that she signed the form saying she was driving and her admission that she wasn't . It was then for her to raise the defence of marital coercion . A pretty unusual defence , which the judge explained clearly and that was a pretty simple question of fact for them to decide.

[Julien Sorel]

The prosecution in this case simply had to present the evidence - admitted that she signed the form saying she was driving and her admission that she wasn't . It was then for her to raise the defence of marital coercion . A pretty unusual defence , which the judge explained clearly and that was a pretty simple question of fact for them to decide.

That she signed the form is a simple question of fact. But I don't see that deciding whether "marital coercion" was involved is, for the jury, a question of fact at all. Given that it appears all they were presented with was assertion and counter-assertion (no witnesses gave evidence one way or the other). I don't see how they could infer anything so any decision they made on the subject would be entirely speculative, as it were.

[mercia]

[Removed - comment on case - ff]

[jean]

That she signed the form is a simple question of fact. But I don't see that deciding whether "marital coercion" was involved is, for the jury, a question of fact at all. Given that it appears all they were presented with was assertion and counter-assertion (no witnesses gave evidence one way or the other). I don't see how they could infer anything so any decision they made on the subject would be entirely speculative, as it were.

Very clearly put - that is the nub of it, and I am amazed at how many people are afflicted with a deficit of understanding that prevents them from seeing it.



[Removed - comment on case- ff]

[Sir Velo]

[Removed - comment on case - ff

I think we are being asked not to comment on the specifics of this case.

The defence of marital coercion (and its common law antecedent of the "melancholy doctrine") reflected the commonly held view of society that married women were considered to be legally in thrall to their spouses (i.e. could be coerced to act against their will).

As far back as 1977, the Law Commission recommended that the defence of marital coercion should be abolished altogether. They said that they did not consider it to be appropriate to modern conditions.