LORD JUDGE IS MISTAKEN

 15. Jul. 2010. – 11:59:17 

The history, practice and efficiency of the jury system has been examined in ever closer detail by myriad academics and legal eagles and can easily be accessed by those interested. My comment today is a result of a statement yesterday 14/07/2010 by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Judge that juries should be directed by a trial judge not to research a case or anything pertaining to it on the internet. I wonder in all humility if His Lordship knows what a curate`s egg he has opened.

Jury composition from its earliest medieval beginnings until the 21st century has moved from exclusivity to inclusivity; virtually any sane person who is neither lord nor convict is eligible to sit. There is no requirement to have a basic knowledge of English language, mathematics, carpentry or indeed any intellectual or practical ability. The juryman reflects society warts and all. And this is what I find disturbing in Lord Judge`s approach. If we accept that the internet is merely a vast library where those with or without knowledge of a subject can research it to the n th degree it follows that on any case before a jury some jurors might have relevant knowledge that another does not and wishes to find for him/herself. This is what Lord Judge appears to want forbidden. Therefore the ignorant jury member must remain in ignorance and be subject to the inevitable explanations that the knowledgeable fellow member will expound. 

This is nonsense. To have juries of the lowest common knowledge can only be a forerunner to one of two futures; to return to a stricter method of jury selection where individuals` capacity to comprehend proceedings can be tested or to create a new form of “either way” trial where one or both parties can elect for judge or tribunal [three judges] trial or jury trial. However in the tradition of muddled English legal development it is unlikely to be spelt out so blatantly. 

This coalition government born not of goodwill but of necessity has shown some promising trends in its stated wish to eliminate some of the authoritarian actions of its predecessor. If there is, as I now believe, an underlying intention to change radically our trials system there should be more than merely “consultation”, the weasel word of political cowards; there should be encouraged open debate where effective discussion can take place with no pre-determined objective already pencilled in on what was supposedly a blank piece of paper.