How much freedom do juries have to act undirected?
This is one of those tricky ones where neither the sender nor I know much about it and yet it should probably be put to readers, in the hope they can throw some light on it.
Mark from Mayenne wrote:
One of the features of the British jury system is that it was set up to help ensure that nobs could not arbitrarily lock up an ordinary citizen.
On the one hand 12 of his peers have to find him guilty. On the other hand a jury has the right to find a defendant not guilty regardless of the evidence against him, if they think the nobs are trying to take the piss with a law that restricts the freedoms of the common man. They can thereby change the law. Not a lot of people know that.
This right has a special name though I don’t know what it is offhand. There is not much point my talking about it on my blog that is not widely read, but I’d think that if you mentioned it, word might spread.
It would seem to me to be within the libertarian remit of your blog to mention that the iniquitous laws now in place that restrict freedom of speech can be overturned by the ordinary citizen.
I live in hope of seeing a jury find someone not guilty who is in flagrant beach of this kind of law.
I replied:
Can you give me some context, some specifics of this?
Mark replied:
I don’t know much about this, but here is a website that describes the origins, in the case of William Penn that was the first situation in which this right was excercised, and that became part of the British constitution. http://prorev.com/juries.htm This link to the Guardian has some comment on a more recent case during the Falklands war. http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-26646,00.html
It would seem that it is well within a jury’s rights to find a defendant not guilty regardless of the evidence, if they do not feel inclined to do so. However I don’t know if this means that the law is permanently changed. But it certainly means that one doesn’t need to be lobbying politicians and civil servant; an education of the public would be enough.
I think that it means in the USA, the jury could find the wikkileaks soldier not guilty if they thought he acted in the public’s interest.
I’d agree but am a bit nonplussed how to find out much about it. It certainly should be explored and I’ll try to do so. Can any readers help out here?
………..
A word about emails
Material comes through at a rate of knots to the inbox and the majority is not published, obviously. The difficulty for me is when someone writes something political which seems to be for publication but later it turns out not. And it cuts both ways.
For example, Wiggia sent a personal opinion the other day and I didn’t publish because it seemed to fall on the personal side of the line but then he provided a pic and I realized it was for publication after all.
This sort of thing goes on every day. With the high volume providers, it’s pretty clear where the line is but not so much in the emails from further afield. I’ve taken a stab on this above being OK for publication, as the tone is that it would be worth exploring, possibly with me fleshing out the piece. Trouble is, I can’t because I know little about it.
Filed under: History & Culture, Politics & economics
English Law is a curious thing and it is true that the Law is whatever a Judge says it is. It is also true that a Judge can change the Law by a verdict overturning a previous verdict.
It is also true that a jury can reach a verdict of ‘not guilty’ against the evidence as presented.
Because our legal system is so flexible, we are in no need of any Human Rights Acts because out Parliamentary system is not tyrannical (in theory and before Blair tried to adapt it to the Napoleonic Code making a mess of the whole thing in the process)
The concept is called ‘jury nullification’ and it is one of the most important concepts embodied in English common law.
It came to the fore in the 17th century with Burchel’s case, a follow on from the jury acquittal of William Penn on charges of sedition, despite a directive from the judge that a verdict of guilty be returned.
‘It is a constitutional doctrine that allows for the acquittal of defendants who are technically guilty of a crime, but who the jury does not feel should be punished for their actions because the law itself is unjust.’
It has also been seen in cases where defendants have with trivial or ‘victim-free’ breaches of the law.
See also the Scottish law verdict of ‘not proven’.
Thanks for that.
James Higham recently posted…Blindfolded …
I guess no problem with your publishing it but had I known your intent I might have used different words than “nobs taking the piss”
As Chuckles points out , it is called jury nullification.
Although the Judge is under no obligation to disclose this is an option to the jury and in cases for instance on our new ‘strict liability’ laws where there is technically no defence. ( I also have heard that the defence is not allowed to mention it )
They will direct that the jury MUST find the defendant guilty , when in fact they need do nothing of the sort. It relies on someone savvy in the jurors room.
Wikipedia Jury nullification
Is the defendant allowed to mention it?