Jury service

Ripley · January 9, 2014

Prompted by the Duggan verdict obviously with its strange threshold of, "it's lawful if you believe the officer felt there was an immediate threat to his life even if the evidence demonstrates that there could not have been".

Discussing jury service last night with two others who, like me, had recent experience of Twelve Angry Men (and women).

Between us we had dealt with 8 cases and, almost without exception, dubious police evidence was (at least initially) treated with undue reverence by jurors.

In my first case, a young man was charged with (I suppressed a snigger) "Going equipped for theft: that is, he was away from his normal place of residence and in possession of a red-handled screwdriver". The first police witness was comprehensively dismantled by the defence, in effect shown to be untruthful, after which we were sent out by the judge while legal arguments were heard with a stern warning not to discuss the evidence to date. As soon as the door of the jury room closed, a woman juror piped up, "Did you hear that barrister. He as good as accused that policeman of lying." The lad got the best possible result in that the trial was stopped through a juror asking a question of the judge that shouldn't have been asked.

From those with experience, what is feeling regarding the weight given to police evidence?

StevieC · January 10, 2014

This post is not viewable to guests.

You can sign in to your account at the login page here