Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
How exciting, anything we might have seen in the shops?
Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
You and @SeanT should be nicknamed The Ice Twins...
I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?
It says "Cyclefree"
Aha. Ta. I cannot see an author at all. But I have horrific problems reading this blog full stop. It is nigh on impossible. A dinosaur from the era of primeval blogging.
I think you’re a bit harsh there Stuart. We tend to think of you as a survival rather than a dinosaur.
Edit - but I don’t think, reading between the lines, that this will be an actual renationalisation. In any case, that would be both difficult and costly given the number of franchises that have been relet recently.
What I think will happen is structural reform so that the franchises are paid to run trains by the government, rather than paying the government to run trains.
Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
Taking out the punctuation doesn’t make things more readable, either. That first sentence of yours is a shocker, as is the one in brackets.
In any case, the right to comment arises from being a reader, not a writer.
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
Taking out the punctuation doesn’t make things more readable, either. That first sentence of yours is a shocker, as is the one in brackets.
In any case, the right to comment arises from being a reader, not a writer.
Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
Taking out the punctuation doesn’t make things more readable, either. That first sentence of yours is a shocker, as is the one in brackets.
In any case, the right to comment arises from being a reader, not a writer.
On topic, I agree with most of the thread header. One quibble I would make is about very complex fraud trials, although obviously(!) this is an area where I am much less expert than she is.
I seem to remember the catalyst for change there was a trial that lasted for over three years, then collapsed because the jury withdrew. By that time, they had all of course lost their jobs, and given the rather paltry fee that was earned for sitting on cases had suffered considerable financial hardship. For nothing.
So the Blair Government, for whom civil liberties were always of course at best a minor consideration, made fraud trials the preserve of specialist tribunals. Whether that was done out of a genuine desire to resolve matters so ordinary people would not have to suffer injustice, or because they were crooks who wanted the ‘right’ verdict, is of course a different question.
The obvious solution to that would be to have a few - say, a couple of hundred - professional jurors, who would be paid a salary and hear such cases as their main role. It could be attractive to older people, shortly to retire, and run for a maximum of say, seven years (and then the conclusion of the case at the time) so you get reasonable churn.
But on the main point, any step to get rid of juries is outrageous. It would be bad enough in a justice system we could trust. In he British system, it would be horrendous.
Thanks, Ms Cyclefree, another thoughtful piece. Justice delayed is, IIRC, justice denied. Pity the poor soul, too, found Not Guilty after spending a considerable time on remand.
There have been one or two odd verdicts, of course. The Revenue chose to have the late Ken Dodd tried for tax fraud in front of a Liverpool jury, when it's not unknown for such cases to be tried 'away from home'.
And I was struck by the Express..... no I didn't and don't buy it, just look at the headlines on the BBC...... using Fahrenheit, which I thought had been consigned to the past everywhere except the USA. Another noteworthy, to me anyway headline was the Mail..... the Mail ...... going after a Tory minister.That's at least twice they've done this in the recent past. Have they decided that Johnson's government is really Tory...... a band of brigands, rather than Conservative, as the management understand it?
See. I'd really like to do jury service. I reckon it would be interesting. It's on my bucket list.
It is usually very boring. You spend most of the two weeks sitting around waiting to be called. You are quite likely to hear no case at all, one if you are lucky, two if you are very lucky. If you are called, the case will probably be pathetically trivial and as likely as not your fellow-jurors will mostly be mind-numbingly stupid and unsuitable for the job.
You will be mightily pleased when it is all over.
That sounds sadly familiar. Yours wasn’t at Snaresbrook too, was it?
At mine there was a moment when one of the jurors exclaimed “you can’t believe what he said, he’s a policeman!” to nods from around the jury room.
Indeed Ian it was Snaresbrook! And the equivalent line I heard 'He must be guilty because otherwise the Police wouldn't have arrested him.'
That wasn't the worst of it though. We had one juror so illiterate he couldn't read the oath. No problem, the judge said, the Clerk would read it line by line and the juror would repeat it after her. He could barely do that. Personally I thought the jufge should have discharged him there and then but he joined the rest of us. Predictably he made no contribution to the discussion and just rowed along with the rest, most of whom were concerned only with how quickly they could get away.
Never been so ashamed of a committee of which I was a member.
Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
Taking out the punctuation doesn’t make things more readable, either. That first sentence of yours is a shocker, as is the one in brackets.
In any case, the right to comment arises from being a reader, not a writer.
Edit - but I don’t think, reading between the lines, that this will be an actual renationalisation. In any case, that would be both difficult and costly given the number of franchises that have been relet recently.
What I think will happen is structural reform so that the franchises are paid to run trains by the government, rather than paying the government to run trains.
And, no doubt, the government will ensure Tory donors and mates of the PM get any cash going.
Thanks, Ms Cyclefree, another thoughtful piece. Justice delayed is, IIRC, justice denied. Pity the poor soul, too, found Not Guilty after spending a considerable time on remand.
There have been one or two odd verdicts, of course. The Revenue chose to have the late Ken Dodd tried for tax fraud in front of a Liverpool jury, when it's not unknown for such cases to be tried 'away from home'.
And I was struck by the Express..... no I didn't and don't buy it, just look at the headlines on the BBC...... using Fahrenheit, which I thought had been consigned to the past everywhere except the USA. Another noteworthy, to me anyway headline was the Mail..... the Mail ...... going after a Tory minister.That's at least twice they've done this in the recent past. Have they decided that Johnson's government is really Tory...... a band of brigands, rather than Conservative, as the management understand it?
Given the rings he ran round the exceptionally pompous and arrogant counsel, I’m pretty sure any jury would have let Dodd off!
See. I'd really like to do jury service. I reckon it would be interesting. It's on my bucket list.
It is usually very boring. You spend most of the two weeks sitting around waiting to be called. You are quite likely to hear no case at all, one if you are lucky, two if you are very lucky. If you are called, the case will probably be pathetically trivial and as likely as not your fellow-jurors will mostly be mind-numbingly stupid and unsuitable for the job.
You will be mightily pleased when it is all over.
That sounds sadly familiar. Yours wasn’t at Snaresbrook too, was it?
At mine there was a moment when one of the jurors exclaimed “you can’t believe what he said, he’s a policeman!” to nods from around the jury room.
Indeed Ian it was Snaresbrook! And the equivalent line I heard 'He must be guilty because otherwise the Police wouldn't have arrested him.'
That wasn't the worst of it though. We had one juror so illiterate he couldn't read the oath. No problem, the judge said, the Clerk would read it line by line and the juror would repeat it after her. He could barely do that. Personally I thought the jufge should have discharged him there and then but he joined the rest of us. Predictably he made no contribution to the discussion and just rowed along with the rest, most of whom were concerned only with how quickly they could get away.
Never been so ashamed of a committee of which I was a member.
Snaresbrook is renowned among lawyers for being the hardest court in which to get a conviction.
One of my jurors thought that “I know that family, they’re awwright” was a critical piece of evidence. It was the closest I have come to being in a scene from Eastenders.
I would hope that a by-product of the changing demography of East London might be an end to Snaresbrook’s reputation as a villains’ court.
And the management and organisation of the place is terrible, as you say.
The way they treat jurors, you’d think they were the criminals. Not just their associates.
Tory MPs reported to be on Parler, (the alternative to Twitter):
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) Maria Caulfield (Lewes) Mark Jenkinson (Workington) Ranil Jayawardena (NE Hants) Dean Russell (Watford) James Cleverly (Braintree) Angela Richardson (Guildford) Nadine Dorries (Mid Beds) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Henry Smith (Crawley) Ben Bradley (Mansfield)
Edit - but I don’t think, reading between the lines, that this will be an actual renationalisation. In any case, that would be both difficult and costly given the number of franchises that have been relet recently.
What I think will happen is structural reform so that the franchises are paid to run trains by the government, rather than paying the government to run trains.
And, no doubt, the government will ensure Tory donors and mates of the PM get any cash going.
I suspect for legal reasons they will go to the owners of the current franchises.
This government believes it is untouchable, that it can act as it wishes. Its lies and its corruption speak volumes for the contempt in which it holds voters. It’s notable that smarter PB Tories, who have always struck me as patriots with genuine integrity, are repudiating it. https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1276044336954855424?s=21
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I’m a very strong supporter of the jury system, tempered only by my direct experience of it. Some things look better from a distance.
Shapps cannot nationalise something already owned by the state
I think "take in-house" would be a better description. Quite whether it makes much difference is open for debate. But after the Railtrack fiasco, the railways have never really operated in a private way as envisaged by Major.
Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
Taking out the punctuation doesn’t make things more readable, either. That first sentence of yours is a shocker, as is the one in brackets.
In any case, the right to comment arises from being a reader, not a writer.
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I’m a very strong supporter of the jury system, tempered only by my direct experience of it. Some things look better from a distance.
When my dad did it, he was annoyed that there was one juror who thought he knew better than the judge and barristers. Instead of judging the case on the arguments put forward, he refused to consider them on the grounds that things hadn't been done the right way therefore they should acquit.
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I’m a very strong supporter of the jury system, tempered only by my direct experience of it. Some things look better from a distance.
When my dad did it, he was annoyed that there was one juror who thought he knew better than the judge and barristers. Instead of judging the case on the arguments put forward, he refused to consider them on the grounds that things hadn't been done the right way therefore they should acquit.
PB'ers really shouldn't be allowed to serve in the first place.
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I’m a very strong supporter of the jury system, tempered only by my direct experience of it. Some things look better from a distance.
There's an element of lottery about it, Ian, but on the whole I defend the system, although I would cut the number of jurors. Ten would work just as well; maybe only 7 would also work.
I sat on four cases, three at Snaresbrook and the other at Guildford. Two of the juries were perfectly ok. Both dealt with trivial offences and I think got it right. One of the others was lamentable, as mentioned below.
The fourth (Snaresbrook) was intriguing. It concerned the handling of £51k in forged £20 notes. It was the defendant's misfortune to have drawn a really good set of jorors, some of whom were smarter than the barristers and managed to suss him out. We found him guilty, unanimously, but to the evident surprise of the court. I remain to this day entirely convinced the verdict was correct.
So on the whole, a mixed bag. And on the whole I would certainly keep trial by juror. But I'd be tempted to tweak it.
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I’m a very strong supporter of the jury system, tempered only by my direct experience of it. Some things look better from a distance.
There's an element of lottery about it, Ian, but on the whole I defend the system, although I would cut the number of jurors. Ten would work just as well; maybe only 7 would also work.
I sat on four cases, three at Snaresbrook and the other at Guildford. Two of the juries were perfectly ok. Both dealt with trivial offences and I think got it right. One of the others was lamentable, as mentioned below.
The fourth (Snaresbrook) was intriguing. It concerned the handling of £51k in forged £20 notes. It was the defendant's misfortune to have drawn a really good set of jorors, some of whom were smarter than the barristers and managed to suss him out. We found him guilty, unanimously, but to the evident surprise of the court. I remain to this day entirely convinced the verdict was correctly.
So on the whole, a mixed bag. And on the whole I would certainly keep trial by juror. But I'd be tempted to tweak it.
Surely the logic of your experience that some jurors are inadequate is that you need a larger body, to maximise the chance of getting at least a few who are able to do the job properly and swing the others?
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I’m a very strong supporter of the jury system, tempered only by my direct experience of it. Some things look better from a distance.
When my dad did it, he was annoyed that there was one juror who thought he knew better than the judge and barristers. Instead of judging the case on the arguments put forward, he refused to consider them on the grounds that things hadn't been done the right way therefore they should acquit.
My first jury had one man who wanted to find Not Guilty and a woman who wanted to find Guilty, in both instances without any regard whatsoever for the evidence. Fortunately the other jurors gave them short shrift.
I agree that this is a bad proposal. I did jury service in Luton, and was very impressed with the seriousness with which the jurors approached the issue.
Hmm, it's almost as if holding firm and weathering the Dom storm has helped to break the power of the media-Opposition blob and enabled the Government to ignore their bleating in the future...
Republicans say President Trump should make a course correction and shift his strategy after a series of dismal polls showed him badly trailing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I’m a very strong supporter of the jury system, tempered only by my direct experience of it. Some things look better from a distance.
There's an element of lottery about it, Ian, but on the whole I defend the system, although I would cut the number of jurors. Ten would work just as well; maybe only 7 would also work.
I sat on four cases, three at Snaresbrook and the other at Guildford. Two of the juries were perfectly ok. Both dealt with trivial offences and I think got it right. One of the others was lamentable, as mentioned below.
The fourth (Snaresbrook) was intriguing. It concerned the handling of £51k in forged £20 notes. It was the defendant's misfortune to have drawn a really good set of jorors, some of whom were smarter than the barristers and managed to suss him out. We found him guilty, unanimously, but to the evident surprise of the court. I remain to this day entirely convinced the verdict was correctly.
So on the whole, a mixed bag. And on the whole I would certainly keep trial by juror. But I'd be tempted to tweak it.
Surely the logic of your experience that some jurors are inadequate is that you need a larger body, to maximise the chance of getting at least a few who are able to do the job properly and swing the others?
Of the 'bad' jury I was on, I would say that two, maybe three at a push were up to the task. So how many would you need to guarantee 'a few' decent ones? One problem the couple of us who were trying to do our duty had was that the other jurors were chatting away in small and nosiy groups, occasionally glancing at the watches and complaining that they wanted to get away quick.
Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
Taking out the punctuation doesn’t make things more readable, either. That first sentence of yours is a shocker, as is the one in brackets.
In any case, the right to comment arises from being a reader, not a writer.
Such a term would be unenforceable, I think.
The right to comment arises from registering on the site, and abiding by the terms of use.
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I’m a very strong supporter of the jury system, tempered only by my direct experience of it. Some things look better from a distance.
There's an element of lottery about it, Ian, but on the whole I defend the system, although I would cut the number of jurors. Ten would work just as well; maybe only 7 would also work.
I sat on four cases, three at Snaresbrook and the other at Guildford. Two of the juries were perfectly ok. Both dealt with trivial offences and I think got it right. One of the others was lamentable, as mentioned below.
The fourth (Snaresbrook) was intriguing. It concerned the handling of £51k in forged £20 notes. It was the defendant's misfortune to have drawn a really good set of jorors, some of whom were smarter than the barristers and managed to suss him out. We found him guilty, unanimously, but to the evident surprise of the court. I remain to this day entirely convinced the verdict was correctly.
So on the whole, a mixed bag. And on the whole I would certainly keep trial by juror. But I'd be tempted to tweak it.
Surely the logic of your experience that some jurors are inadequate is that you need a larger body, to maximise the chance of getting at least a few who are able to do the job properly and swing the others?
Of the 'bad' jury I was on, I would say that two, maybe three at a push were up to the task. So how many would you need to guarantee 'a few' decent ones? One problem the couple of us who were trying to do our duty had was that the other jurors were chatting away in small and nosiy groups, occasionally glancing at the watches and complaining that they wanted to get away quick.
How does more jurors solve that problem?
Simple statistics.
Take your jury where only two were capable, and your earlier suggestion that maybe juries of seven would still work.
If you started with that jury of twelve and narrowed it down to seven, there is a 28% chance that not one of the new jury would be up to the task.
Any councillor who behaved as Jenrick had done would find themselves in court.
Not when one is above the law.
This has been the issue throughout Johnson's career. There is never personal recourse to cock-up or conspiracy. So why should Jenrick be any different.
On topic, I agree with most of the thread header. One quibble I would make is about very complex fraud trials, although obviously(!) this is an area where I am much less expert than she is.
I seem to remember the catalyst for change there was a trial that lasted for over three years, then collapsed because the jury withdrew. By that time, they had all of course lost their jobs, and given the rather paltry fee that was earned for sitting on cases had suffered considerable financial hardship. For nothing.
So the Blair Government, for whom civil liberties were always of course at best a minor consideration, made fraud trials the preserve of specialist tribunals. Whether that was done out of a genuine desire to resolve matters so ordinary people would not have to suffer injustice, or because they were crooks who wanted the ‘right’ verdict, is of course a different question.
The obvious solution to that would be to have a few - say, a couple of hundred - professional jurors, who would be paid a salary and hear such cases as their main role. It could be attractive to older people, shortly to retire, and run for a maximum of say, seven years (and then the conclusion of the case at the time) so you get reasonable churn.
But on the main point, any step to get rid of juries is outrageous. It would be bad enough in a justice system we could trust. In he British system, it would be horrendous.
The less obvious, but possibly more effective solution would be properly to fund and train those responsible for investigating and prosecuting fraud.
The system at the moment is pitifully inadequate. And the vast majority of cases will go nowhere near a court.
(And in general, Cyclefree's argument that even complex cases ought to be able to be explained in simple terms has much force.)
A very good piece; I'd love to do jury duty just to see how it works. My sense is that juries are overly cautious, but I guess that's only natural. On tax fraud cases, I've always wondered if some jurors just don't like the tax man. I can think of one illiterate, newspaper column writing, ex-football manager who appeared to be very fortunate to be acquitted.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I’m a very strong supporter of the jury system, tempered only by my direct experience of it. Some things look better from a distance.
A bit like democracy, perhaps ?
It's often crap, but better than the alternatives.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
It almost certainly won't end the same way if only because it has a majority of 80. It is most unlikely that the total paralysis that eventually killed the Major government and as near as bugger it the whole party will afflict it.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
Morning all, for those unaware of the different system, in Scotland we have 15 "man" juries and we don't go in for majority votes. The jury can lose up to 3 jurors before a trial has to be abandoned and a conviction just needs an 8/7 vote.
In addition the accused person in Scotland has no say in what form the trial will take, other than the most serious offences, it is entirely within the discretion of a Procurator Fiscal to decide whether to prosecute a case before a Justice of the Peace (not legally qualified but with a solicitor as clerk who advises him/her on the law), a Sheriff ( normally experienced solicitor or advocate [barrister] who has become a part-time or full-time judge) who can deal with the case with or without a jury or the High Court where there is almost always a jury except in e.g. the Lockerbie Trial where a bench of High Court judges can sit instead of a single judge with a jury.
For completeness, Justice of the Peace courts in Scotland never have juries. Traditionally Glasgow was the only court which had paid JPs, all the others around the country are volunteers who get their expenses refunded. Sheriffs have the jurisdictions somewhere between England County Court and High Court judges.
How's that People vs Elite thing working out for y'all?
A government minister rushing through a proposal to save a property developing pornographer a tax bill of £45,000m earmarked for a under resourced inner city borough. It could be a novel. If only we knew any novelists on PB.
How's that People vs Elite thing working out for y'all?
A government minister rushing through a proposal to save a property developing pornographer a tax bill of £45,000m earmarked for a under resourced inner city borough. It could be a novel. If only we knew any novelists on PB.
Hmm. That's a hard one.
And with that further awesome pun, teaching calls.
Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
You and @SeanT should be nicknamed The Ice Twins...
What's the point claiming that while remaining anonymous? You could claim to have gone the moon too - why should anyone believe you? It doesn't make your opinion right or wrong.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Allegations of blatant bribery and corruption of members and officers around planning issues is rampant and done without any nervousness at making such a serious allegation. Rich people getting access others dont is at least a step down from that, and more likely to be true.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
I had the weirdest jury experience - I was visiting another city for the day and was approached by a policeman outside the county court and pressganged on the spot to join a jury to make up the numbers. I didn't even know that was possible.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
It almost certainly won't end the same way if only because it has a majority of 80. It is most unlikely that the total paralysis that eventually killed the Major government and as near as bugger it the whole party will afflict it.
But I can see it doing a Gordon Brown.
I fear you underestimate Johnson's capacity for chaos.
Excellent article, btw. I can only think that those who complain about its length simply aren't very good readers, or have spent too long on Twitter.
I'm not commenting on this thread as I haven't read it but generally apart from Mike Smithson (who is excellent) most threads could be edited by a third and be much better reading for it. Piling in adjectives, adverbs and waffle doesn't make something a better read. Usually it makes it far worse.
Everyone else would do well to take a leaf out of Mike's book. His threads are concise and to the point.
(I'm a published bestselling author who has won prestigious literary prizes in case you doubt my right to make this comment.)
You and @SeanT should be nicknamed The Ice Twins...
What's the point claiming that while remaining anonymous? You could claim to have gone the moon too - why should anyone believe you? It doesn't make your opinion right or wrong.
I think that probably was aimed at someone other than me. But if it was aimed at me, I should tell you that the moon sucks. You can't get a decent cheese for love nor money and there isn't any nice forested area to cycle through. Not worth the effort.
I think that is exactly Starmer's strategy, to be more left wing than Ed but also sound competent and boring so the public don't mind as much. So far it seems to be working.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
That assumes, of course, that said BoZo behaves rationally and logically without a careful eye on 'how it looks for him'!
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
I had the weirdest jury experience - I was visiting another city for the day and was approached by a policeman outside the county court and pressganged on the spot to join a jury to make up the numbers. I didn't even know that was possible.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
From my four cases the judges were.....: 1) Definitely not surprised 2) Probably not surprised, but didn't say 3) Definitely surprised 4) Probably not surprised at the verdict but annoyed with the prosecution barrister who had made such a hash of things that the guy got off when he shouldn't have.
I'll add another from a case I know well. James Hanratty was hanged for the A6 murder. The judge's summing up was impeccable, and he was surprised by the verdicy.
So I would say 'quite often', upwards of 20% in my estimation.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I suspect the comment refers to the historical. Darius Guppy for starters up to and including, more recently, Miss Arcuri.
Doncaster is an interesting choice of example - I've lost count of the number of dodgy dealings there....
I've never met anyone who didn't think this sort of thing was happening everywhere with all politicians.
Ever met anyone who thought it should be?
Only if its them wanting the planning permission
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
Hard, maybe, but necessary. When we do no more than shrug and accept, we're f*cked, and deserve to be.
Having served on a couple of juries, I've no time at all for the system, though I admit it is superior to the trial by ordeal it replaced in the early 13th century. One of the other jurors, I'm pretty sure, made his decision because he didn't want to be away from the office any more. Others may well have had similar motivations. And there was an unhealthy atmosphere of peer pressure. As somebody once said, when you hear why jurors make the decisions they make, the idea of facing a jury of your peers is terrifying.
I'd favour some form of professional juror panels, with a secret ballot replacing deliberations.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I suspect the comment refers to the historical. Darius Guppy for starters up to and including, more recently, Miss Arcuri.
Personally I'd include the Cummings business too. When your chief SPAD lies blatantly and publicly to the Press in the Rose Garden at number ten and you still back him, something stinks.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I suspect the comment refers to the historical. Darius Guppy for starters up to and including, more recently, Miss Arcuri.
Personally I'd include the Cummings business too. When your chief SPAD lies blatantly and publicly to the Press in the Rose Garden at number ten and you still back him, something stinks.
Except of course that the police took no action in any of those cases, so the 'stink' exists only in your imagination.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I suspect the comment refers to the historical. Darius Guppy for starters up to and including, more recently, Miss Arcuri.
Personally I'd include the Cummings business too. When your chief SPAD lies blatantly and publicly to the Press in the Rose Garden at number ten and you still back him, something stinks.
We are only seven months into this government. Things are only just getting started. The attacks on our democracy, the lies and the corruption are only going to accelerate from here. They think they are untouchable.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
From my four cases the judges were.....: 1) Definitely not surprised 2) Probably not surprised, but didn't say 3) Definitely surprised 4) Probably not surprised at the verdict but annoyed with the prosecution barrister who had made such a hash of things that the guy got off when he shouldn't have.
I'll add another from a case I know well. James Hanratty was hanged for the A6 murder. The judge's summing up was impeccable, and he was surprised by the verdicy.
So I would say 'quite often', upwards of 20% in my estimation.
Interesting. My hunch was around 20% - i.e. quite high. And I guess when they are surprised it is usually by the verdict being Not Guilty when they would have voted Guilty if they themselves were on the jury. Not a researchable thing for obvious reasons.
This has the malodorous aroma of the post Black Friday Major Government.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
We seem to be witnessing the end of executive accountability and something close to the celebration of corruption and loose conduct in public life. I suppose this is unsurprising when we have a government with a big majority headed by such a feckless individual as Boris Johnson. Nevertheless it must be fought!
BoZo cannot sack anyone for dodgy dealing because he is up to his neck in it himself.
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
What in particular is he up to his neck in, dodgy dealing-wise?
I suspect the comment refers to the historical. Darius Guppy for starters up to and including, more recently, Miss Arcuri.
Great to hear government ministers say that all you need to do to get acces to them is fork out thousands of pounds to attend Tory fundraisers. The people's government is truly a wonderful thing.
Comments
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1275833526982754309
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1275843574895181827
How exciting, anything we might have seen in the shops?
Have I missed something but when did Starmer become pm and implement anything
Mind you we can all dream our own fantasy
Could work..
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8457731/Britains-railways-renationalised-using-emergency-coronavirus-measures.html
Edit - but I don’t think, reading between the lines, that this will be an actual renationalisation. In any case, that would be both difficult and costly given the number of franchises that have been relet recently.
What I think will happen is structural reform so that the franchises are paid to run trains by the government, rather than paying the government to run trains.
In any case, the right to comment arises from being a reader, not a writer.
One counter example that was recently in the news is the case of the Ingrams and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Going purely on the court case as depicted in the drama (dangerous, I know), I'm surprised the jury convicted them.
I seem to remember the catalyst for change there was a trial that lasted for over three years, then collapsed because the jury withdrew. By that time, they had all of course lost their jobs, and given the rather paltry fee that was earned for sitting on cases had suffered considerable financial hardship. For nothing.
So the Blair Government, for whom civil liberties were always of course at best a minor consideration, made fraud trials the preserve of specialist tribunals. Whether that was done out of a genuine desire to resolve matters so ordinary people would not have to suffer injustice, or because they were crooks who wanted the ‘right’ verdict, is of course a different question.
The obvious solution to that would be to have a few - say, a couple of hundred - professional jurors, who would be paid a salary and hear such cases as their main role. It could be attractive to older people, shortly to retire, and run for a maximum of say, seven years (and then the conclusion of the case at the time) so you get reasonable churn.
But on the main point, any step to get rid of juries is outrageous. It would be bad enough in a justice system we could trust. In he British system, it would be horrendous.
I think in farenheit for above freezing, celsius for below. It is entirely illogical, but it works for me!
There have been one or two odd verdicts, of course. The Revenue chose to have the late Ken Dodd tried for tax fraud in front of a Liverpool jury, when it's not unknown for such cases to be tried 'away from home'.
And I was struck by the Express..... no I didn't and don't buy it, just look at the headlines on the BBC...... using Fahrenheit, which I thought had been consigned to the past everywhere except the USA. Another noteworthy, to me anyway headline was the Mail..... the Mail ...... going after a Tory minister.That's at least twice they've done this in the recent past. Have they decided that Johnson's government is really Tory...... a band of brigands, rather than Conservative, as the management understand it?
That wasn't the worst of it though. We had one juror so illiterate he couldn't read the oath. No problem, the judge said, the Clerk would read it line by line and the juror would repeat it after her. He could barely do that. Personally I thought the jufge should have discharged him there and then but he joined the rest of us. Predictably he made no contribution to the discussion and just rowed along with the rest, most of whom were concerned only with how quickly they could get away.
Never been so ashamed of a committee of which I was a member.
One of my jurors thought that “I know that family, they’re awwright” was a critical piece of evidence. It was the closest I have come to being in a scene from Eastenders.
I would hope that a by-product of the changing demography of East London might be an end to Snaresbrook’s reputation as a villains’ court.
And the management and organisation of the place is terrible, as you say.
The way they treat jurors, you’d think they were the criminals. Not just their associates.
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1276044336954855424?s=21
I sat on four cases, three at Snaresbrook and the other at Guildford. Two of the juries were perfectly ok. Both dealt with trivial offences and I think got it right. One of the others was lamentable, as mentioned below.
The fourth (Snaresbrook) was intriguing. It concerned the handling of £51k in forged £20 notes. It was the defendant's misfortune to have drawn a really good set of jorors, some of whom were smarter than the barristers and managed to suss him out. We found him guilty, unanimously, but to the evident surprise of the court. I remain to this day entirely convinced the verdict was correct.
So on the whole, a mixed bag. And on the whole I would certainly keep trial by juror. But I'd be tempted to tweak it.
He was just testing his eyesight.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/504440-gop-trump-needs-a-new-plan
Will he listen.
I hope not.
https://twitter.com/janinegibson/status/1276053439961800704
How does more jurors solve that problem?
The right to comment arises from registering on the site, and abiding by the terms of use.
Take your jury where only two were capable, and your earlier suggestion that maybe juries of seven would still work.
If you started with that jury of twelve and narrowed it down to seven, there is a 28% chance that not one of the new jury would be up to the task.
This has been the issue throughout Johnson's career. There is never personal recourse to cock-up or conspiracy. So why should Jenrick be any different.
Mr Jenrick, fill yet boots!
The system at the moment is pitifully inadequate. And the vast majority of cases will go nowhere near a court.
(And in general, Cyclefree's argument that even complex cases ought to be able to be explained in simple terms has much force.)
It's often crap, but better than the alternatives.
That is not to say this government will end the same way. Infact, we seem more inclined to accept a spot of corruption here and there than we were a quarter of a century ago.
Or perhaps, 'a Lannister always pays his debts.'
But I can see it doing a Gordon Brown.
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
In addition the accused person in Scotland has no say in what form the trial will take, other than the most serious offences, it is entirely within the discretion of a Procurator Fiscal to decide whether to prosecute a case before a Justice of the Peace (not legally qualified but with a solicitor as clerk who advises him/her on the law), a Sheriff ( normally experienced solicitor or advocate [barrister] who has become a part-time or full-time judge) who can deal with the case with or without a jury or the High Court where there is almost always a jury except in e.g. the Lockerbie Trial where a bench of High Court judges can sit instead of a single judge with a jury.
The ghost of Imelda Marcos is laughing...
Edit - or at least, it would be if she wasn't still alive, which I was surprised to find on checking!
And with that further awesome pun, teaching calls.
Have a good morning.
We have cross over from Demings to Rice as 2nd fav.
Harris still favourite at 1.97
It's always been one rule for the rich and another for the poor, but rarely so blatant.
1) Definitely not surprised
2) Probably not surprised, but didn't say
3) Definitely surprised
4) Probably not surprised at the verdict but annoyed with the prosecution barrister who had made such a hash of things that the guy got off when he shouldn't have.
I'll add another from a case I know well. James Hanratty was hanged for the A6 murder. The judge's summing up was impeccable, and he was surprised by the verdicy.
So I would say 'quite often', upwards of 20% in my estimation.
Resigned acceptance is the usual response with cynical sarcasm if the situation involves dubious foreigners.
When the likes of Blair and Osborne get endless millions after leaving office for vague services to foreign investment banks its hard to get morally righteous about dodgy dealings lower down the food chain.
I'd favour some form of professional juror panels, with a secret ballot replacing deliberations.