Trial by Jury
I agree with this piece by Dan Hodges in the Telegraph - that Drummer Lee Rigby's two killers have escaped justice by being acquitted of the secondary charge of attempting to murder a police officer.
Now this makes little, if any difference, to the sentence the two men face which will be handed down in the New Year - they will be go to prison for life and all that remains to be seen id whether this will result in a whole life term - where life really does mean life.
But their acquittal in relation to the police is odd nonetheless and strengthens the case that trial juries should give reasons for their decisions - which is a requirement of just about every other tribunal I can think of.
So why should juries be exempt from explaining themselves in the interests of justice?
I said myself in a post on this blog site that the killers were out to achieve 'death by cop' having carried out their cowardly attack on Lee Rigby.
Yet the only way to provoke the police into shooting them was by attacking and attempting to injure or even kill - the first car load of police officers who showed up at the scene of their brutal crime.
In which case surely the jury should be required to explain the reasoning behind its decisions, if justice is to be seen to be done.
Lee Rigby's killers have been brought to justice – but not all the way
By Dan Hodges
The jury has delivered its verdict, and the two men who murdered Lee Rigby in cold blood in a London street have been delivered to justice. We don’t need to trouble ourselves with their names. It was clearly the right decision, and one can only hope it will provide a small degree of comfort to Drummer Rigby’s family, friends and colleagues.
But there’s one aspect of the verdict that’s both surprising and troubling. Both men were acquitted of the charge of attempting to murder a police officer.
That may seem incidental. Lee Rigby was the victim of this brutal crime, and it’s right that he remains the focus of our thoughts and attention. And, although they are still awaiting sentencing, it’s hard to see how his murderers will ever be free to kill again.
But if I were one if three police officers who confronted the animals – I don’t use the term lightly – who hacked Drummer Rigby to death, I’d be feeling the justice system had just kicked me in the teeth. Anyone who has seen the complete footage of the moment the armed response unit arrives in Artillery Placewill have watched three amazing scenes. The first is the manner in which Lee Rigby’s assailants split up, and charge directly at the officers. The second is the way both men are cut down by a rapid succession of shots, the one wielding a machete only moments before he reaches the vehicle. And the third is how as soon as the men have been disabled the police immediately rush to administer first aid.
I’ve been critical of the police over a number of issues over the past year. But they deserve every one of the usually hackneyed plaudits they have received for the courage and professionalism they showed that day in Woolwich.
Yet here we have the decision of the jury to acquit both men for what, in the officer’s minds, and the minds of prosecutors, was an attempt on their lives. It’s always dangerous to second-guess those who have spent day after day listening to and watching all aspects of the evidence, especially when they evidence has been as harrowing as in this trial. And it’s true that the gun carried by one of the attackers wasn’t loaded. But the blood-soaked machete his friend was carrying didn't need to be.
The defence’s claim was the men wanted to be martyred by the police, before they did them harm. And the jury accepted that. Which presumably also requires us to accept that had the gun of the officer sitting in the back seat jammed, or the police collectively not been able to react in time, their attackers would have lowered their weapons and walked calmly away while waiting for the police to rearm.
I don’t believe that. What’s more, it matters. Because I know if I’d been the WPC sat in the front seat of that police car, struggling to get my gun out of its holster, or her colleague who had to take the split-second decision to discharge his weapon to defend her, or the third officer who rushed to save the life of men he thought had just been trying to end his, then I’d want justice for myself as well as Lee Rigby.
But that justice has been denied. Lee Rigby’s killers have been convicted. But the attackers of three London police officers have escaped.
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.
But there’s one aspect of the verdict that’s both surprising and troubling. Both men were acquitted of the charge of attempting to murder a police officer.
That may seem incidental. Lee Rigby was the victim of this brutal crime, and it’s right that he remains the focus of our thoughts and attention. And, although they are still awaiting sentencing, it’s hard to see how his murderers will ever be free to kill again.
But if I were one if three police officers who confronted the animals – I don’t use the term lightly – who hacked Drummer Rigby to death, I’d be feeling the justice system had just kicked me in the teeth. Anyone who has seen the complete footage of the moment the armed response unit arrives in Artillery Placewill have watched three amazing scenes. The first is the manner in which Lee Rigby’s assailants split up, and charge directly at the officers. The second is the way both men are cut down by a rapid succession of shots, the one wielding a machete only moments before he reaches the vehicle. And the third is how as soon as the men have been disabled the police immediately rush to administer first aid.
I’ve been critical of the police over a number of issues over the past year. But they deserve every one of the usually hackneyed plaudits they have received for the courage and professionalism they showed that day in Woolwich.
Yet here we have the decision of the jury to acquit both men for what, in the officer’s minds, and the minds of prosecutors, was an attempt on their lives. It’s always dangerous to second-guess those who have spent day after day listening to and watching all aspects of the evidence, especially when they evidence has been as harrowing as in this trial. And it’s true that the gun carried by one of the attackers wasn’t loaded. But the blood-soaked machete his friend was carrying didn't need to be.
The defence’s claim was the men wanted to be martyred by the police, before they did them harm. And the jury accepted that. Which presumably also requires us to accept that had the gun of the officer sitting in the back seat jammed, or the police collectively not been able to react in time, their attackers would have lowered their weapons and walked calmly away while waiting for the police to rearm.
I don’t believe that. What’s more, it matters. Because I know if I’d been the WPC sat in the front seat of that police car, struggling to get my gun out of its holster, or her colleague who had to take the split-second decision to discharge his weapon to defend her, or the third officer who rushed to save the life of men he thought had just been trying to end his, then I’d want justice for myself as well as Lee Rigby.
But that justice has been denied. Lee Rigby’s killers have been convicted. But the attackers of three London police officers have escaped.
Thick As Mince (21 February 2013)
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.
