Thick As Mince

The jury charged with deciding whether Vicky Pryce perverted the course of justice - by accepting penalty speeding points incurred by her former husband (Chris Huhne) - has clearly exhausted the patience of the trial judge, Mr Justice Sweeney.

Vicky Pryce pled not guilty to the charge - unlike her husband who finally admitted the charge - and the former Lib Dem MP and government minister now faces a prison sentence for his stupidity.

But the jury in Vicky Pryce's trial has been unable to reach a verdict - causing Mr Justice Sweeney to say that a list of questions from the jurors had shown a "fundamental deficit in understanding" of their role. 

Now it's very unusual for judges to criticise juries, but in this case Mr Justice Sweeney didn't mince his words, saying:

"In 30 years of criminal trials I have never come across this at this stage, never."

Before going on to criticise the jury's lack of understanding of the trial process - which is legal speak for saying the jurors were - as 'thick as mince'.

Apparently the jury asked the judge basic questions about their duties - after 14 hours of deliberations they seemed unable to understand how to assess the evidence - despite detailed advice from the judge.

For example, the jury asked for a definition of reaching a verdict "beyond reasonable doubt" - although the judge had given this advice to the jurors in writing.

More shockingly, the jury asked if one of them could come to a verdict based on reasons that were not presented in court or supported by the evidence - while another query asked about Ms Pryce's religious convictions, even though this was not an issue in the trial.

So the jury was eventually dismissed, not surprisingly, and a retrial will take place next week - at huge public expense.

I think juries should be required to give reasons for their decisions - or not as the case may be - because just about every tribunal or court in the land has to explain, in writing, the reasons for reaching its conclusions - and that seems fair.   

For what it's worth, I can't see how Vicky Pryce can be anything other than guilty - because while I accept she was put under great pressure to do her husband's  bidding - she went along with it at the end of the day and did so as an intelligent, educated and independent person.

So while there's a great deal to be said in mitigation which suggest Vicky Pryce deserves a very lenient sentence - because she was never the instigator - on the evidence I've read, she must be bang to rights.