Thursday 28 February 2013

Nowt wrong with juries

3 years ago I wrote this.

The first Vicky Price jury should not have been discharged.  It should have been told to only consider the evidence heard in Court and left to deliberate.  Juries are independent and free - they can reject the evidence, reject the Judge's directions and should not be discharged for recalcitrance   Recalcitrance is what they do best.  It is what they are there for.  It does not bring justice into disrepute, it is what justice is.  Juries should only deliver a verdict on the evidence heard in Court, but they cannot be compelled to do so.  They cannot be compelled to do anything.  Long may that remain so.


  1. Totally agree though not a fashionable view. My memory may play tricks but I seem to recall that a jury returned a not guilty verdict in a case of possession of a firearm when the defendant used the gun to shoot someone who had previously run down and killed the defendant's son. Law 0 Justice 1

  2. And they should have proceeded to find Vicky Pryce not guilty, as should the second jury - as I argue here: Vicky Pryce is innocent, OK