Lords Hand New Rights to Jury WhistleblowersThe first specific charter of rights for jurors concerned about miscarriages of justice was handed down by the law lords yesterday. (1) … Until now jurors have been told they can raise concerns with the judge before the verdict is passed, but they received no clear direction about what to do after the trial. Yesterday’s ruling lists a variety of actions a juror can take without being prosecuted for contempt of court. It says that while jury-room issues can still be raised with the trial judge or with the appeal court, jurors can also safely alert the judicial authorities by contacting the clerk of the court or the jury bailiff. (2) …. They dismissed an appeal by a juror, Keith Scotcher, who wrote an anonymous letter to the mother of a convicted defendant alerting her to alleged improprieties within the jury room. Mr Scotcher, a Ford assembly worker, was charged with contempt of court and obstruction of justice. Although the jurors believed such minor offences did not belong in a courtroom, (3) …. The law lords yesterday refused to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that by directing his letter to the defendant’s mother, he disclosed the information which was supposed to be secret and risked compromising the confidentiality of the jury. Marcia Willis Stewart, his solicitor, said: “For the first time the rights of a juror have been clarified. (4) ….” She also said the court was trying to intimidate the person with an independent mind and condemned the ruling as ‘dangerous’ because it threatened every juror with criminal prosecution. She outlined how Mr Scotcher wrote his letter, one passage of which said: “Many changed their vote simply because they wanted to get out of the courtroom and go home. They just decided on prejudice and hearsay.” Mr Scotcher told ‘The Guardian’ he would take his case to the European court on the basis that his human rights have been abused. “I had been reluctant to sit on the jury in the first place because I am not the kind of person who wants to sit in judgment of other people,” he said. “Jurors must vote according to their conscience. They have a right to acquit. ” (5) …. In Britain juries are sworn “to give a true verdict according to the evidence”, but jurors in several high-profile cases have brought in “perverse” verdicts against the weight of the evidence to reflect their disapproval of the prosecution and thus exercised their right to veto the law. A similar debate is going on in the USA, where courts use “voir dire”[4] process, in which jurors are asked their opinions, often on personal matters, to exclude anyone with forceful opinions or extra knowledge of the case and its political or social content. A powerful campaign exists in America to limit jury powers and end the present system by exchanging ordinary citizens by retired lawyers and judges. There have been instances when a juror in a criminal case has been tried and convicted for telling fellow jurors that they have a right to acquit even if they believe the accused broke the law. (6) …. “An adequate instruction could be conveyed in a single sentence,” it says, “explaining that the jury should (not must) convict anyone proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the jurors have a firm belief that a conviction would be fundamentally unjust.” (On the basis of ‘The Guardian’)
Vocabulary. Read the article again, find the following words and word combinations in the text and learn their meaning. Make it a particular point to use these words in the further discussion of the problem. To pass (bring in) a verdict, to be prosecuted for smth, to raise an issue with smb, a defendant, to charge smb with smth, contempt of court, obstruction of justice, a minor offence, to belong somewhere, to be sentenced to …, to be suspended, to dismiss a charge, to disclose smth, to clarify smth, to intimidate smb, criminal prosecution, hearsay, to vote according to one’s conscience, to acquit smb, the judiciary, a high-profile (low-profile) case, the prosecution, the defence, to exercise one’s right, to veto smth, to convict smb
Suppose you must make a report on jury court procedure and the only material you have is the article you’ve just read. What information on the following points can you derive from it? 1) What kind of person can be a juror? 2) How informed must the jurors be in legal matters? 3) What is the function of a jury? 4) What rights and duties do the jurors have? 5) What procedure do the jurors follow in producing a verdict?
|
