Idiots going to idiot (collapse of Rochdale grooming trial)

[wisbech]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0ke14er8djo

Yeah there will be another trial, but the fkwits that derailed this should be fined/ be in contempt of court

[rdjohn]

Another good reason for Judge-only trials.

[tangerine_sedge]

Any legal experts on here, able to tell us what the punishment could be for this jury behaviour? It feels like contempt of court?

[a_dreamer]

I m no legal expert, but the outcome of this case leaves me with so many questions about how our system functions. When a trial ends this way, who actually picks up the tab for the defense and prosecution?

It feels like a massive waste of resources at a time when the courts are already backed up for years. Beyond the financial cost, there is the immense human suffering for victims, families, and even the accused having to endure the trauma of a second trial. (Talking broadly here rather than anything to do with this specific case) I'd imagine there is also a stress impact for the legal professionals especially when we are talking about the more serious trials. I'd imagine many must get desensitised to the horrific details, but surely having to go through stuff again isn't good for them

It s hard not to feel troubled by the apparent lack of common sense we're seeing lately more broadly

Edited by a_dreamer on Saturday 24th January 10:24

[Hugo Stiglitz]

tangerine_sedge said:

Any legal experts on here, able to tell us what the punishment could be for this jury behaviour? It feels like contempt of court?

Contempt of court.

[butchstewie]

tangerine_sedge said:

Any legal experts on here, able to tell us what the punishment could be for this jury behaviour? It feels like contempt of court?

I'm more interested in what it will be than what it could be.

I have a horrible feeling this sort of behaviour will almost be excused as "innocent idiots who didn't know not to do it" rather than a very serious "you have jeopardised a bloody big trial by not doing as you were instructed".

[BikeBikeBIke]

"a member of the group warned that viewing the broadcast was contrary to the judge's directions, but one responded: "I'm going to watch it anyway," followed by a smiley emoji.

Another juror messaged that they too would watch the broadcast."

There better be a prosecution over this. Utter, utter wkers.

[wisbech]

‘The salt of the earth - you know, morons’

[CTO]

I did jury service last year, for the first time.

The level of stupid in some of the jurors was off the scale.

One guy openly boasting about jumping the train to get to the jury service, and “never paying tickets”, another lady said to the group that she was surprised to be here, “because the really serious stuff happens at magistrates court.”

At least half of them I wouldn’t trust to baby sit my dog

[GadgeS3C]

CTO said:

I did jury service last year, for the first time.

The level of stupid in some of the jurors was off the scale.

One guy openly boasting about jumping the train to get to the jury service, and never paying tickets , another lady said to the group that she was surprised to be here, because the really serious stuff happens at magistrates court.

At least half of them I wouldn t trust to baby sit my dog

They let them vote too...

[sparta6]

rdjohn said:

Another good reason for Judge-only trials.

I was at a private event with Sir Brian Leveson last week.

It sounds as if Part 2 of his report should be fascinating and revelatory.

[bergclimber34]

You are specifically told that talk about the case in public is not allowed, I know for a fact that I did a few times while dropping other jurors at certain places for lifts, I think we may have briefly talked about it on a bus once to get somewhere. What you are NOT told about is that while the case is on, on lunch you will see defendants in town, they will go into the same effing shops as you. That is very disturbing initially.

But to set up a Whatsapp group is complete and utter contempt, you would have to be idiotic to think that is a good idea.

The other issue has to be, how the hell did the other juror find out? If these cretins were openly discussing it how utterly dumb

[Oilchange]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Any legal experts on here, able to tell us what the punishment could be for this jury behaviour? It feels like contempt of court?

Contempt of court.

Yep this I think.

Wouldn't want to be one of them. The judge would have warned them just as they were sworn in so no excuses

[bloomen]

Most jurors will never have had any contact with the legal trade or understand why things work the way they work.

To go straight from posting 'yaw gawjus, hun' on Facebook to weighing up major crimes is beyond the conception of most.

Gotta be a middle ground to transition somewhere.

I know the judge will them plenty, but they could do with having it rammed up them beforehand.

Edited by bloomen on Saturday 24th January 12:15

[Wheel Turned Out]

bergclimber34 said:

The other issue has to be, how the hell did the other juror find out? If these cretins were openly discussing it how utterly dumb

Someone else in the chat warned them that it was not allowed, so presumably many (if not all) jurors were a part of the WhatsApp group.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Is it not a case of being too sensitive about these things? How exactly is watching a documentary going to jeopardise a fair trial? Genuine question. I am a layman, I don't understand the finer points of law, but if the point of having a jury is to have the perspective of 12 ordinary citizens on the facts presented to the court, why do they cease to be ordinary when researching the case? Would they have been instructed not to watch TV or read certain books 50 years ago?

[butchstewie]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Is it not a case of being too sensitive about these things? How exactly is watching a documentary going to jeopardise a fair trial? Genuine question. I am a layman, I don't understand the finer points of law, but if the point of having a jury is to have the perspective of 12 ordinary citizens on the facts presented to the court, why do they cease to be ordinary when researching the case? Would they have been instructed not to watch TV or read certain books 50 years ago?

This is a grooming gang trial and maybe you watch Tommy Robinsons "documentary".

Maybe in a parallel universe it's Trumps trial over events on Jan 6th and you watch that Panorama documentary with the funky edit.

How do you know what you watch is fair and balanced?

There's a reason courts tell people to stay away from stuff like that during a trial.

Better to rely on evidence heard in court rather than "do your own research" IMO.

[Wheel Turned Out]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Is it not a case of being too sensitive about these things? How exactly is watching a documentary going to jeopardise a fair trial? Genuine question. I am a layman, I don't understand the finer points of law, but if the point of having a jury is to have the perspective of 12 ordinary citizens on the facts presented to the court, why do they cease to be ordinary when researching the case? Would they have been instructed not to watch TV or read certain books 50 years ago?

Because the facts presented in court have to meet a certain standard, they have to reach a threshold of authenticity otherwise they will not be admissible. If jurors start letting documentaries, forum threads, social media posts, and goodness knows what else influence their view then what hope of a genuinely fair trial is there?

Of course in reality it's hard to eliminate prejudices jury members may have. But we should at least still be trying to, all the same.

[Paul Dishman]

CTO said:

I did jury service last year, for the first time.

The level of stupid in some of the jurors was off the scale.

One guy openly boasting about jumping the train to get to the jury service, and never paying tickets , another lady said to the group that she was surprised to be here, because the really serious stuff happens at magistrates court.

At least half of them I wouldn t trust to baby sit my dog

I was nominated as foreman of a jury about 15 years ago, so chaired the discussion in the jury room. I went round the table to get an idea of how everyone felt when one person said that the defendant must be guilty because "the police had gone to a lot of time and trouble to get him prosecuted"

But to be fair, the rest of the jury were sensible people and we had a sound discussion of the evidence

[Mr Penguin]

Paul Dishman said:

I was nominated as foreman of a jury about 15 years ago, so chaired the discussion in the jury room. I went round the table to get an idea of how everyone felt when one person said that the defendant must be guilty because "the police had gone to a lot of time and trouble to get him prosecuted"

But to be fair, the rest of the jury were sensible people and we had a sound discussion of the evidence

I don't know what I would say to convince that person