Reminds me a bit of the juror on the Wack Jacko trial who interviewed after the trial and said (paraphrased) 'I though he had done it, but I didn't like that prosecutor'

Entirely coincidentally, but the other day tb and I were discussing the whole issue of jury trials and saying that it's easy to forget that many countries that we regard as entirely civilised and fair etc don't have jury trials. Indeed, at appeals and in the upper courts, we don't either.

The jury system came out of [iMagna Carta[/i, although at that stage it was only intended that barons judge other barons – nothing to do with us peasants.



But it doesn't mean that you have to have a jury system to have a fair and scrupulous judicial system. I doubt we'd suggest that, say, the likes of Denmark, Sweden and Germany had inherently unfair judicial systems, and none of these have jury trials in any situations. Some countries have jury trials in some situations but not all.

Perhaps we don't need to be as wedded to the jury system as we are (for fairly understandable reasons of tradition).

Maybe we should just up turn a drum.

When I did my jury service one of the clerks of the court mentioned after the event we had made the right decision. It was the car theft case which took a long time due to one juror struggling (coincidentally) enough with the concept of reasonable doubt. It was as if she wanted CCTV footage of him driving the car away and simply could not accept that although we had no such evidence the evidence we did have meant it was unreasonable to conclude he didn't steal the car. However I am sure she felt she was in the right to stand her corner and surely that is part of the process. It would be no good if juries retired and came back five minutes later with a verdict.

The thing is though without being party to the discussions the Pryce jury had or party to the evidence they were presented with, it is not possible to slag them off for not even managing to reach a majority verdict or IMO even for the questions asked.

The point I made earlier, given the sheer number of trials and ONE case of this happening (the trial judge said it was unique in his 30 years experience), it does seem OTT, to say the least, to extrapolate questions as to the adequacy of the entire jury system.



It would not be an improvement, as it already exists. But don't let the facts get in your way.

There are a number of police who are as crooked as any criminal, and they are far more dangerous because they have the shield of being 'the law' and so, with it, have blinkered people like your magistrate friend on their side.

Persoanlly, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

You should print that, and next time you have need for the police, hand copies of it to those who come to your aid. Except of course you won't.

Personally, whilst there are crooks in any walk of life you care to name, I find most people including coppers are actually on the face of it decent folk just trying to get through life as best they can just like me, and I start by giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. Well obviously not Wakefield fans, but you understand the general point.

.....Believe that all you like, I have personal experience of something which blows your vision of our lovely, hard working police out of the water.

Correct!

To be fair to the jury, the defence used, that she did commit the crime but was coerced by a control freak husband, would be very difficult to prove, as would be the argument by the prosecution that she willingly comitted the crime. At the end of the day Pryce and Huhne are the only ones who know the truth. I know the defence came up with that she was "forced" to have an abortion, but if I was prosecuting I would have argued that she sought the abortion as it would have adversely affected her career at the time.

Huhne must be kicking himself for pleading guilty considering he could have been put in front of such an inept jury.

Personally I would have found Pryce not guilty for no other reason other than to rub Huhne's nose in it a bit more.

Oh, of course you do. But of course it's something you can't possibly share on here, as they would have to kill you. So you can only mutter dark hints, and we must accept your dire apocryphal message as YOU, above all men, KNOW.



You do not know all 135K police officers so you do not have personal experience of the overwhelming majority of them, so spare me your tendentious bullcrap.

It's not a question of belief, nor do I have any such rose-tinted "vision", but some decades of extensive experience. And yes I could tell you plenty of not so savoury stories too, as people could about any group or occupation, but it doesn't change the general point I was making.

Oh, bravo!

Phrase of the day won, and at such an early hour.

Hey, I don't deny there may be some hard working policemen and women out there, but neither can it be denied there are some real criminals among their number.....I was responding to the poster who quoted the magistrate who believed ALL police speak the truth and only deal with the truth, because, if that is true, then that is very, very scary for anybody who is unfortunate enough to get mixed up with some of the bad guys in the police force.

Like I say, personally, through an unfortunate experience, I wouldn't trust any of them at all.....That's not to say that the likes of yourself can't put your faith in them, its just I'm pretty loathe to.

I have had some good experience with the police and I've also had my fair share of run-ins with some of the bastads who have managed to infiltrate the ranks. I've also got a couple of mates who are in the force.

By and large I don't have a problem with the police in general, what I do have a problem with is when there is any doubt over the activity or procedure and how any incident is then investigated. The IPCC is not fit for purpose: it is beyond bafflement that with the numbers of people who have died in police custody, not one single officer has ever been found guilty of any offence. The fact that police officers are allowed to confer before writing up their notebooks invites collusion - a privilage that is not offered to any members of the public who may find themselves accused of any offence.

Re: the above.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/21/anatomy-of-betrayal-undercover-police?CMP=twt_guHere's a prime example of what's wrng with the police[/url

Think you've hit the nail on the head with that breakdown. As I said earlier - in my experience of jury service one jury did not function properly because it had a few over-anxious women on it who were frightened of making a decision. Perhaps, the answer is male only jurors so the ladies don't need to worry their pretty little heads over matters other than shopping?

I sat on jury duty myself last year and agree entirely with the comments made about some jurors. Without going into detail we had one juror who rather than deciding on the guilt on the accused based on the evidence wanted to decide what the charges should have been and decided that the court should have pursued a different charge and insisted on sending a note to the judge to this effect. the not suprising reply that came back was simply for the jury to decide if the accused was guilty of the charges heard and not to try and make the law. we then spent a day whilst she insisted she knew more about the law and what the accused should have bee n charged with than the judge CPS and police. she was nearly thrown out of the jury room window

We now come someway to understanding the female mental fragility within the Dally household.

Wasn't a friend, just a paying customer

They don't call me Chris Huhne for nowt.

Are you a bully like he allegedly is?