IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
Vicky Pryce Jury - a sign of the times?
|
TOPIC: Vicky Pryce Jury - a sign of the times?
|
|
|
|
Vicky Pryce Jury - a sign of the times? 12 Years, 4 Months ago
|
|
|
Given that an exasperated judge found the jurors for this trial so startlingly stupid he felt obliged to kick them out and start all over again, is this one more sign of an increasingly problematic system? If levels of education continue to decline, does it make much sense to haul in any old idiot to make a decision that could wreck someone's life? The following are the questions that these dullards sent to the judge:
Q You have defined the defence of marital coercion and explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples. Please expand on the definition, provide examples of what may fall within the defence, specifically "will was overborne" and does the defence require violence or physical threat?
A The pressure applied by the husband need not involve violence or physical threats. The law requires that a husband was present and coercion was to such an extent that she was impelled to commit an offence because she truly believed she had no real choice but to do so.
Q In the scenario where the defendant may be guilty but there may not be enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time when she signed the notice of intent to prosecute to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be?
A If, having carefully considered all of the evidence, at least 10 of you feel sure of the guilt of the defendant, then it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if after careful consideration at least 10 of you were feeling less than sure of guilt, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
Q If there is debatable evidence supporting the prosecution case, can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict? If so can inferences/speculation be drawn on the full evidence or only where you have directed us to do so?
A The drawing of an inference is a permissible process. Speculation is not. In this case the evidence on which the prosecution relies is largely undisputed, and where you are willing to draw inferences from that is entirely a matter for you.
Q Can you define what is reasonable doubt?
A The prosecution must make you feel sure beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words.
Q Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason not presented in court and which has no facts or evidence to support it?
A The answer to that question is a firm no.
Q Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence didn’t bring witnesses from the time of the offence, such as au pair or neighbours?
A You must not, as I have now emphasised many times, speculate on what witnesses who have not been called might have said.
Q Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?
A There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence [or] to prove anything at all.
Q Can we speculate about the events at the time Miss Pryce sent the form or what was in her mind at that time?
A The answer to that is an equally firm no . . . No one must speculate.
Q Please advise on which facts in the bundle the jury should count on to determine a not guilty or guilty verdict.
A You must decide the case on the evidence. It is not for me to tell you which piece or pieces of evidence are important. Q Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, he ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?
A This is not, with respect, a question about this case at all. Vicky Pryce does not say that any such reason formed any part of her decision to do what she did.
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
