Many citizens/immigrants both recent and and those who have been here long term long term have problems with the language, this is well documented.

No matter if they are from Eritrea or Poland. It is as straw man argument to try and introduce racism into this. Defence only have strict criteria in how they can challenge members of any given jury, their ability to speak or understand good English is not part of this challenge procedure. The defence do not even know if they can speak the language as they do not converse, the only one whom ever speaks is the foreperson who delivers the verdict.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rules.html







Those of us who read the full court transcripts can easily see the verdict was perverse. Juries have been known to get it wrong before sending innocent people to the gallows and this was before the advent of multi cultarism political correctness.

I agree with Dr David Green.

So do I.

At the risk of changing the subject, I have sat on a jury where some of the members, who appeared to be indigenous Brits, had difficulty following the case; and therefore were at a severe disadvantage when assessing and discussing the case in the jury room. At least two female jury members assumed that the defendant must have been guilty simply because they appeared in a court.

I have sat on juries on two separate callings, and the whole experience has left me with serious doubts about the whole justice system. The very poor standard of 'police evidence' in one case could only be described as appalling; unprofessional, and even criminal.

It must cast doubt when the Jury in the Harris case convicted him on at least one charge where there was no other evidence other than the witness who said he assaulted her.
The prosecution could not provide any other evidence printed, written or personal opinion that Harris was even at the place on the day in question. The witness could not even remember when the day in question was.

Maybe if they had acquitted on this charge as they should so clearly have done it would add credibility to the rest of it even with the desire for revenge in the wronged relationship and the other witness who had already sold her evidence to an Aussie paper.

The way they found this charge lets us get into the head of that jury, that on the basis he must have done the other offences he must have done this one.

I too have sat on a Jury in the past and there is always a small element who will argue, cajole and put their point of view across in the way that other should follow it.

If we can't rely on our juries then perhaps we should follow South Africa and abolish 'trial by jury' and simply have a judge decide!

And then we come back to Jon's comment somewhere that it can depend on who is the cleverest barrister!
(Maybe that is on the Rolf Harris thread).

Jury's need to be directed by the judge who is after all the professional and experienced legal brain and who controls/directs the trial.

The judge in this case should have pointed out the weakness of the evidence of some of the charges but chose not to. The jury could then have weighed that evidence in balance with the judges remarks.

Read into that what you will. Conspiracy? Probably not but it does beg the question as to why celebs are under the microscope and judges/politicians are not. Plenty of smoke with still living politicians but I don't see their houses getting turned over live on BBC News.

Where judges and those on control follow the rules of Natural Justice then there is no fault with the system.

Where they do not the system is open to abuse.

Unless the Judge is a closet paedophile in a paedophile case

_________________
Lets be careful out there !

The point of my post above was to highlight the fact that simply being between 18 and 70 years of age is not necessarily the best qualification for sitting in judgement of the accused; the inability to read and speak English is not the only limiting factor affecting some jurors and disadvantaging the accused.

From my experience as a juror, the quality of evidence can also be greatly improved before the CPS accept there is a case to answer before a court.

I would like to clarify my opinion on that statement. Juries only need directing by the judge concerning matters of law, not concerning the verdict. One case I sat on, the judge effectively tried to direct the jury to find the accused guilty. I think the judge was completely out of order.