Are we all Trudi Warner?

[Pale Rider]

Is using your conscience as a juror a right, or not? Is it a worthwhile right if you don’t know about it?

Jury deliberations are sacrosanct, so it's very difficult to answer to these questions.

As I've said, I've seen juries return what appear to be verdicts based on conscience, but as it's strictly illegal to question the panel afterwards on how they reached their verdict, no one can say for sure.

There has been a limited amount of academic research into juries over the years, but the only conclusion I recall is that jurors take their responsibilities with appropriate seriousness - in other words they concentrate hard on the case.

Which doesn't stop them returning a verdict based on conscience.

I couldn't say if jurors know they can return any verdict they choose, but it appears most jurors are keen to follow the directions of the judge, which would always lead them to return a verdict based on the evidence.

 

[matticus]

I couldn't say if jurors know they can return any verdict they choose, but it appears most jurors are keen to follow the directions of the judge, which would always lead them to return a verdict based on the evidence.

Whether you call it "conscience" or something else ... doesn't context come into it?

The simple example given in the OP's video: a fireman breaks down a door to save a life. Should he be guilty of criminal damage?

 

[Pale Rider]

The simple example given in the OP's video: a fireman breaks down a door to save a life. Should he be guilty of criminal damage?

It's a dumb example, the firefighter - or a member of the public - is protected by the 'lawful excuse' provision of criminal damage.

Thus the scenario could never happen.

Coppers driving like loonies during a pursuit does happen.

The situation at present seems to be their dangerous driving is generally ignored until such time as something goes badly wrong, when they can find themselves in the dock.

 

[icowden]

Come on then let's have some examples.

How about this one:-
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/mar/03/sun-daily-mail-contempt

Admittedly from the online version of the Sun but...

How about this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/feb/10/pressandpublishing.sun

or this one:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/high...spaper-king/?trk=portfolio_article-card_title

 

[matticus]

It's a dumb example, the firefighter - or a member of the public - is protected by the 'lawful excuse' provision of criminal damage.

Thus the scenario could never happen.

Coppers driving like loonies during a pursuit does happen.

The situation at present seems to be their dangerous driving is generally ignored until such time as something goes badly wrong, when they can find themselves in the dock.

OK, thanks for the correction. So in fact the Dangerous Driving scenario may be a better example:

What if the police driver scratches my parked Bentley, whilst pursuing a wrong 'un who has kidnapped you?

 

[Pale Rider]

OK, thanks for the correction. So in fact the Dangerous Driving scenario may be a better example:

What if the police driver scratches my parked Bentley, whilst pursuing a wrong 'un who has kidnapped you?

The police insure themselves, so you would be at liberty to claim directly from them for the cost of repair.

A mate did so years ago.

He was wary at first, but got paid fairly quickly.

 

[Bromptonaut]

There has been a limited amount of academic research into juries over the years, but the only conclusion I recall is that jurors take their responsibilities with appropriate seriousness - in other words they concentrate hard on the case.

Has there actually been any academic research?

I thought legislation dating back to Hailsham outlawed any inquiry of jurors?

 

[Pale Rider]

Has there actually been any academic research?

Yes, which is why I said there has been.

I recall seeing a brief summary of a report from some university or other, for which I think they needed permission from the Lord Chancellor.

It was heavily anonymised so there was no clue as to the jurors or even in which court they served.

As a general rule, juries are absolutely sacrosanct which means there is very little hard information as to how they reach their decisions and literally none as to how a decision was reached in a specific trial.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Yes, which is why I said there has been.

I recall seeing a brief summary of a report from some university or other, for which I think they needed permission from the Lord Chancellor.

It was heavily anonymised so there was no clue as to the jurors or even in which court they served.

As a general rule, juries are absolutely sacrosanct which means there is very little hard information as to how they reach their decisions and literally none as to how a decision was reached in a specific trial.

I didn't mean to doubt the existence of any research, more a link to what might exist.

There's been stuff using moot trials or similar and people playing the part of jurors but. AIUI anything based on on recalling what actually happened in a live case falls foul of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Google turns up some stuff, and academic outfits explaining the limitations of what they can do.

Can you recall the Uni who did this and the approx date?

 

[AndyRM]

I didn't mean to doubt the existence of any research, more a link to what might exist.

There's been stuff using moot trials or similar and people playing the part of jurors but. AIUI anything based on on recalling what actually happened in a live case falls foul of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Google turns up some stuff, and academic outfits explaining the limitations of what they can do.

Can you recall the Uni who did this and the approx date?

There was a good "You are the judge" in Viz a couple of issues ago, might have been that?

 

[Pale Rider]

Can you recall the Uni who did this and the approx date?

No and it could have been 15 or 20 years ago.

As I mentioned, the main conclusion as reported was jurors treat their role with appropriate seriousness.

So it looks like 'best of three arm wrestling' doesn't happen.

 

[BoldonLad]

No and it could have been 15 or 20 years ago.

As I mentioned, the main conclusion as reported was jurors treat their role with appropriate seriousness.

So it looks like 'best of three arm wrestling' doesn't happen.

I have never been called upon to be a Juror, and, since I am past the upper age limit, never will be now, but, several of my relations, friends, acquaintances have. None of them (including those who usually leak like a sieve) have ever discussed their jury service, at least, with me, which, I find quite amazing.

 

[newfhouse]

jurors treat their role with appropriate seriousness.

Anecdata: in my experience (one case, six days of evidence, three weeks of deliberation, 10-2 guilty) that was mostly but not entirely true.

 

[newfhouse]

View: https://twitter.com/indigorumbelow/status/1714744308941676863?s=61&t=IaNHN0MzKohAo3Ktl0DsFQ

 

[icowden]

View: https://twitter.com/indigorumbelow/status/1714744308941676863?s=61&t=IaNHN0MzKohAo3Ktl0DsFQ

It'll be interesting to see what happens when one of these cases comes in front of a judge and the defence produces a picture of the plaque on the Old Bailey.