Over the last few weeks I have posted on David Lammy`s proposals for radical changes within the courts` system, removal of right to jury trials, increased magistrates` sentencing powers, removal of automatic right to appeal to crown court and the statistics on such appeals. Lammy continues to assert that his proposals on removing some jury trials will reduce the backlog to "normal" waiting times by 2035. But could there be another underlying reason for his apparent endeavours to change a centuries old institution which are being opposed by almost all those for whom justice for all is a basis for their involvement in our legal system?
One must consider whether there might be a connection between some "perverse" acquittals and the ethnic or political composition of jurors. This country is no longer a nation with a basic set of common values. There is a growing population of Muslims whose interests are the establishment of sharia and who appear to be, at least philosophically, believers in a theocracy, such belief inherently in opposition to the British Judeo Christian foundations of our country. The pressure for special legal protection for supposed Islamophobia, a misnomer by any etymological inspection, is a current example of an unhealthy and unwelcome trend.
Top 5 areas by number of Muslims (England & Wales) are
1. Birmingham 341,800
2.Bradford 166,800
3.Tower Hamlets 123,9004.Manchester 122,900
5.Newham 122,100
Top 5 areas by percentage Muslim population
1.Tower Hamlets 39.9%
2.Blackburn with Darwen 35.0%
3.Newham 34.8%
4.Luton 32.9%
5.Redbridge 31.3%
The question is whether it can be shown that the above demographic is linked to perverse jury verdicts connected with offences under the public order acts or those associated with criminal damage. Evidence of acquittals “against the evidence” can be suspected eg when protesters admit an intention to damage property yet are acquitted.
Nationally Muslims are about 6.5% of England and Wales so all above areas are far above average. The top 5 wards by % Muslim population exhibit even higher concentrations of Muslims.
1.Bastwell (Blackburn with Darwen) 73.5%
2.Shear Brow (Blackburn with Darwen) 70.3%
3.Whitefield (Pendle) 67.1%
4.Toller (Bradford) 64.3%
5.Small Heath (Birmingham) 62.1%
At ward level 70%+ Muslim populations do exist but only in a small number of tightly clustered neighbourhoods. There is no direct statistical conclusion that the Muslim prison population is directly connected with the above numbers. What can be said is that with a Muslim population of 6.5% the prisons` Muslim population is 18%.
What is meant by "perverse" verdicts? Typically this refers to: acquittals despite strong evidence, convictions despite weak evidence and “jury equity” cases (e.g. acquittals contrary to law/evidence). The well-known 2010 MoJ jury research study "Are Juries Fair?" by Professor Cheryl Thomas (UCL), found high levels of jury comprehension and adherence to evidence but no basis for concluding widespread perverse outcomes but one could also consider whether there was any sufficient effort to look for such evidence. Can juries in demographically exclusive enclaves where Muslims are in a high minority or low majority be trusted to be objective assessors of evidence?
Recent debate has centred on acquittals in cases involving disruption of infrastructure, climate or political protest and criminal damage linked to protest. Examples often cited in commentary include defendants associated with groups like Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and currently Palestine Action. Some acquittals can appear to be perverse. "Lawful excuse” in criminal damage can be subjectively framed. Human rights arguments (Articles 10 & 11 ECHR) can be engaged and what appears factually obvious might still be legally contestable. Public or political pressures might be behind weak or borderline cases to be nevertheless brought to trial. In such cases perverse verdicts should be no surprise. There is, however, no statistical evidence that shows an increase in acquittals “against the evidence”. What can be said is that there is increased visibility and legal complexity of politically motivated criminality and social media ready to erupt as any vulcano given the slightest pretext. However DPP v Ditchfield 2023 Protecting Property has changed the balance to some extent insofar as a defence for protest motives was excluded. Between 2019 and 2022 there appeared to be a spike in "perverse verdicts" but since then there has been a decline in such acquittals. Now protest motives cannot justify damage in law.
The conclusion thus far is that there is no evidential basis to relate those protest-trial outcomes to the “top 5” Muslim-population areas identified earlier. Any attempt to do so would be inferential and on the available data, weak. That`s not to say my earlier questions are without foundation. If the needle is unwanted it`s pointless wasting time and resources looking in the haystack. What David Lammy [and the legal deep state] don`t want us to know (or even themselves also) about possible socio-political influence in juries selected in areas as listed above is a question to be asked before there is the possibility of an answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment