We have all been led to believe that the British system of trial by jury is a wonderful example of justice being blind and all are equal before the law. All are blind who continue to believe that. It was only a century ago that an Appeal Court was incorporated into the system to counter miscarriages of justice and half a century ago that hanging was abolished. As we are all too aware these modifications were leisurely in coming into being and were not universally welcomed by vociferous if small minorities. Miscarriages of justice still occur. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has published its latest statistics:-
Referrals and decisions (April 1997 – October 2023)
826 cases referred to appeal courts
803 appeals heard by the courts
566 successful appeals
222 decisions upheld
15 abandoned by applicant
826 cases referred to appeal courts
803 appeals heard by the courts
566 successful appeals
222 decisions upheld
15 abandoned by applicant
These matters would have been heard originally by a jury in the crown court. Prior to their retirement to consider their verdict the jury would have been advised that they must come to a verdict based only on the evidence presented to them; a simple enough instruction on the face of it but one in which the words of the judge have in recent cases been stretched to breaking point. The departure from decades of almost total compliance with such judicial direction became aware to the public by “the Colston Four”. In 2020 four defendants all admitted to taking an active part in removing Edward Colston’s statue and disposing of it in Bristol Harbour as the prosecution had alleged. Their defence to the charge lay in why the statue had been removed. Colston was a slave trader who invested heavily in his native city. They were cleared of criminal damage. Last month nine climate change protesters were cleared of causing £500,000 worth of criminal damage to the windows at the headquarters of HSBC bank in London. They were acting under the name of Extinction Rebellion. Sally Hobson, prosecuting, said: “They accept that on 22 April 2021, they went to the HSBC building armed with hammers and chisels and they also accept that they used those tools to break the windows – they were responsible for the damage. “The value of the damage caused is in the region of £500,000 and additional security measures caused further expenditure so as to ensure damage was not caused again. “Although the defendants accept they caused the damage, they deny that their actions amount to criminal conduct. Simply put, the damage was caused during a protest and the defendants say that they were lawfully justified in doing what they did. “We say that whatever the purpose behind them causing the damage there was no lawful excuse for doing so. It was, we say, unlawful conduct outside of a lawful protest.” Criminal damage is lawful if the defendant believes the owner of the property consents to the damage (as found in section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1970).
There have been other similar cases. In 1982 Clive Ponting was acquitted of breaching the Official Secrets Act despite admitting to leaking documents relating to the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. The judge directed the jury that Ponting’s duty lay to the civil service and that he had no viable defence. In 2007, Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard were acquitted of sabotaging US bombers at the outset of the Iraq war. The defendants suggested that the bombers would have been used to commit war crimes.
Lords Devlin and Thomas in 1956 and 2011 respectively agreed that even when the evidence is overwhelmingly to convict, the law does not prevent juries from returning a perverse verdict. The Bar`s code of conduct does not allow a barrister to inform jurors of their right should they so wish to bring in a perverse verdict; it would constitute misconduct. The logical conclusion is that a defendant in such circumstances in order to follow the examples of Ponting or the Colston four in arguing from that angle would have to be self representing. That conclusion itself is somewhat paradoxical or Kafkaesque.
There are some learned professors of law who argue that juries should have the right to hear arguments of perversity and not to be directed that only evidence presented in court should be considered in their coming to a verdict. From my lowly position as a retired magistrate it`s my view that that argument would lead to not only more perverse verdicts but politically motivated verdicts examples of which are current offences against British companies or subsidiaries of Israeli companies on the pretext that they are acting against Palestinian interests.
Law and politics are essential to our way of life. Like water we cannot survive without them in combination but also like water too much can kill us. It`s also the case when the H is separated from the O2 the situation is combustible.
There have been other similar cases. In 1982 Clive Ponting was acquitted of breaching the Official Secrets Act despite admitting to leaking documents relating to the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. The judge directed the jury that Ponting’s duty lay to the civil service and that he had no viable defence. In 2007, Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard were acquitted of sabotaging US bombers at the outset of the Iraq war. The defendants suggested that the bombers would have been used to commit war crimes.
Lords Devlin and Thomas in 1956 and 2011 respectively agreed that even when the evidence is overwhelmingly to convict, the law does not prevent juries from returning a perverse verdict. The Bar`s code of conduct does not allow a barrister to inform jurors of their right should they so wish to bring in a perverse verdict; it would constitute misconduct. The logical conclusion is that a defendant in such circumstances in order to follow the examples of Ponting or the Colston four in arguing from that angle would have to be self representing. That conclusion itself is somewhat paradoxical or Kafkaesque.
There are some learned professors of law who argue that juries should have the right to hear arguments of perversity and not to be directed that only evidence presented in court should be considered in their coming to a verdict. From my lowly position as a retired magistrate it`s my view that that argument would lead to not only more perverse verdicts but politically motivated verdicts examples of which are current offences against British companies or subsidiaries of Israeli companies on the pretext that they are acting against Palestinian interests.
Law and politics are essential to our way of life. Like water we cannot survive without them in combination but also like water too much can kill us. It`s also the case when the H is separated from the O2 the situation is combustible.
It`s that time of the year again when a spurious date approximating to the winter solstice was allocated to the birth of a Jewish boy in Bethlehem, a village in Judea an area which is unfortunately less peaceful than it could be. Nevertheless the message is clear: goodwill to you all and thank you for spending a few of your valuable minutes reading this and perhaps some previous offerings on this site. 
No comments:
Post a Comment