I have just read an interesting, but disturbing article on Marilyn Stowe's Blog, concerning the recent murder trial of Joanne Hill. Mrs Hill murdered her daughter, Naomi, by drowning her in the bath. Naomi had cerebral palsy and it has been well reported in the media that Joanne Hill was an 'evil woman', who was 'ashamed' of her daughter. Yet closer inspection reveals a slightly different story, that of a depressed woman, who had attempted to commit suicide on two occasions and who was also diagnosed with severe post natal depression, following the birth of daughter. In fact Joanne Hill's history of mental illness went back to her teenage years, when she was treated for depression and 'abnormal' thoughts.
It seems that after Joanne Hill had killed Naomi, she dressed her and put her in the car and was subsequently captured on CCTV at a petrol station, laughing and joking with a colleague. The jury took just one hour and twenty minutes to reach a verdict of guilty. The jury decided that Joanne Hill was bad, but not mad. So, no doubt after a loo break and a cuppa, the jury probably spent less than an hour deciding this woman's culpability, who incidentaly was flanked by 2 psychiatric nurses during the trial.
Like many law students, I am a strong proponent of the jury system, it's a historic, fundamental right to be tried by one's peers and all that...
But, I recently sat in on a local criminal trial, quite a complex affair involving 2 defendants and 4 indictments. Following 6 days of evidence, the jury were sent out to deliberate. Having sat through 3 hours of closing speeches, 2 hours of summing up, the jury were dismissed to consider all possible angles to the case, armed with a 20 minute CCTV tape to watch and a bundle of documents to peruse. A little over 40 minutes later, at about 4p.m. they returned a majority verdict. The judge made them return the following day.
By coincidence I travelled the same train route as one of the jurors and walked behind her as she sashayed out of the court and towards the station, looking very pleased with herself. It was at that precise point that my faith in the jury system was shaken to the core. I knew from her self righteous demeanor that guilty verdicts had been found, but that wasn't my problem with this jury, it was the lack of time they took to go over all of the evidence. Counsel for each side had each presented credible arguments about the contents of the CCTV and other evidence, arguments that deserved a fair amount of thought, but no, some of the jurors were entering their third week of jury service and clearly wanted out. Incidentally, the defendants spent the first 2 days of trial unable to hear the prosecution evidence against them, someone had switched off the courtroom microphones, so the glass enclosed dock had no sound going to it.
So, if I'm ever arrested for a triable either way offence and given the choice, I'm off down the Magistrates Court, no jury trial for me, not on your life.
5 comments:
Pish, BM, are you sure they did not return a unanimous verdict ? A jury cannot return anything but a unanimous verdict within less than 2 hours - section 17(4) Juries Act 1974.
I don't see, though, that this matters much. Obviously, the defendants were guilty. They wouldn't have been in court if they were innocent, would they ?
Why are you shocked? A jury is not a creature of conscience; it is more likely to make up its mind on the guilt or innocence of the defendant based on the appearence of counsel than it is to properly weigh up evidence and provide a carefully considered verdict. Many jury members are not serving because of a sense of public pride; they just want to avoid bieng fined ( though time off work is also useful) - that, and bieng able to get home in time for early evening TV.
A cynical attitude, I know, but I speak from experience.
BB. As I said, the judge made the jury return the following day, so their decision wasn't accepted at that point, however what I was trying to put across was the fact that the jury couldn't have deliberated the evidence properly to come to a majority decision so quickly.
Anon. Yes, I think you are spot on with your summing up of the jury.
Rats, the one thing I have managed to learn so far, and I still got it wrong.
I am also on the cyncial side. A jury is only the bulwark of democracy blah, blah, in the glorified world of whomever says such things (me and ? Glanville Williams, but I am probably wrong on that as well). For the vast majority of jury members, it is inconvenience which can only be avoided for so long. For my one stint of 5 days, I resented the lost pay and the faffing about. It's a good job my defendant was a guilty as sin because, if he wasn't, I would have found him so just out of spite.
Rats, the one thing I have managed to learn so far, and I still got it wrong.
I am also on the cyncial side. A jury is only the bulwark of democracy blah, blah, in the glorified world of whomever says such things (me and ? Glanville Williams, but I am probably wrong on that as well). For the vast majority of jury members, it is inconvenience which can only be avoided for so long. For my one stint of 5 days, I resented the lost pay and the faffing about. It's a good job my defendant was a guilty as sin because, if he wasn't, I would have found him so just out of spite.
Post a Comment