My verdict on our justice system
Let's have some sympathy for the Vicky Pryce jury. Sitting in judgment is a tough job
12 Angry Men: the jury system as it ought to work. Photograph: Ronald Grant Archive
The jury in the Vicky Pryce case were, no doubt, just being conscientious.
After sitting through days of evidence in the Mysterious Case of Mrs Huhne and the Speeding Points, they came back to the judge with 10 questions to help them reach a verdict.
Mr Justice Sweeney was so horrified by the questions that, when they said they were unlikely to find agreement, he abandoned the trial and sent them all home on the grounds that they didn't understand what they were doing. The prosecutor, Andrew Edis QC, said the jurors had shown an "unparalleled" failure to understand "very basic concepts of jury trials".
No doubt they meant well. It is good when jurors take their job seriously. Unfortunately, their earnestness simply makes the questions even more hilarious. I think my favourite is question five: "Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it, either from the prosecution or defence?"
I am disappointed that the judge sent them home without asking: "You have a reason based on no facts and no evidence? What in God's name is it?"
Nevertheless, he deserves credit for amusing the nation with his response to question four ("Can you define what is reasonable doubt?"), to which the judge replied: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't allow me to help you with."
It is cruel that all this has been made public. My guess is that these questions were submitted by perfectly intelligent people, who were being driven slightly mad by the warped logic and limited understanding of some fellow jurors.
I've done jury service; trust me, that's likely. I imagine an exhausted schoolteacher sighing: "No, we can't accept your theory that 'marital coercion' involved Huhne tickling her until she screamed. If you don't believe me, let's ask the judge."
The questions do look preposterous on the page. Many barristers will, I'm sure, have jabbed their fingers at the newspaper and shouted at their spouses: "You see what I have to deal with? These are the people I'm talking to, day after day, week after week, year after year! Their blank, uncomprehending eyes! Their open, drooling mouths! Their constant scratching! And then you think I want to spend my Sunday at Ikea!"
Based on my experience, I would say that 90% of jurors struggle with the distinction between inference and speculation. They really have amazing trouble getting it. But I would also say that, somehow, justice is usually done. It's like a messy goal: there is fumbling, shoving, confusion and mud, but the ball fumbles its way to the back of the net. The jury system is a precious and wonderful thing.
I would bet that this case was discussed by a majority of good, bright people and scuppered by a couple of idiots. Then again, by the law of statistics, there must occasionally be 12 idiots on a jury. Last week, a conversation about a different case somewhere else in the country might have unfolded like this…
Juror One I reckon he's guilty. Can't wait to find out! They tell us the answer before we go home, right?
Juror Two No, no, you have to write in for the answers. [Writes on paper: "Dear judge, who did it?"]
Juror Three I reckon he was drunk. Drunk driving. As well as speeding.
Juror Four Speeding? This is a murder trial. He was on foot.
Juror Three No, I reckon he was driving. And I'd have a drink if I'd just murdered someone, wouldn't you? It's all a cover-up. [Writes: "Dear Judge, are we allowed to find him guilty of a crime he's not currently accused of?"]
Juror Two Speaking of drinking, who's for a lemonade?
Juror Five How is this supposed to work?
Juror Two I think you pour it in the glass and then you just sort of have it.
Juror Five [doubtfully] Should we ask the judge?
Juror Three Am I the judge?
Juror Seven No, you're the foreman.
Juror Three I forgot that [drinks lemonade miserably]. So I have to work out how long he goes to prison, and then I stand up and say it?
Juror Eight Yes, or you can choose to do the non-religious one instead.
Juror Three I've got hiccups.
Juror Nine He's not guilty, anyway. I saw him in the cafe at lunchtime.
Juror Two So?
Juror Nine So how could he have been drunk? He was only having a piece of toast.
Juror Two But he's allowed to be drunk. There's no law says you can't be drunk when you do a murder.
Juror Five I don't think the crime was today anyway. It was, like, a week ago.
Juror 10 But I was on holiday a week ago! How am I supposed to know what happened then? [Writes: "Dear Judge, I love skiing. Do you?"]
Juror Three I've just googled him on my iPhone.
Juror 10 That's not allowed! They specifically said, no research!
Juror Three This isn't research, it's inference. It helps me infer he's guilty. Look, here he is burgling a house.
Juror 10 That's not him, that's Ronnie Barker.
Juror Four I thought he was fatter.
Juror 10 It's an old picture. [Writes: "Dear Judge, can we have a DVD of Open All Hours?"]
Juror 12 [Waking up suddenly] Right! I think we've covered everything.
Juror 10 You're right. We've cracked it. Let's go back in, ask the questions and find out who won.
They ring for the court usher.
No comments:
Post a Comment